While I don't accept Schlesinger's Cyclical theory entirely, I do think he was at least partly correct.
His theory basically goes that a "self-generating and autonomous" cycle occurs from the people themselves rather than from leaders and that cycles of political action occur because the population becomes disenfranchised with the current system. This disenfranchisement brings in a new political mentality and explains political shifts.
If this is true, and I think it is in the broadest strokes, than it would make a great deal of sense to be nice to the political opposition to avoid extremes in cycles, or a pendulum effect.
Just days ago, a bomb was exploded in the general area of Ramkhamhaeng university. From what I hear, it was likely a "red shirt" versus "yellow shirt" issue. Whether or not that is true, I think it proves the point. Extreme partisanship only increases tension, polarizes groups thus preventing them from reaching consensus, and causes instability.
If we want a peaceful society, and this goes for all societies than we need to recognize that there is no group of people who are inherently more irrational than "us", whatever your "us" may be. Taking strong lines against those with different political and social views and life-styles may help your side to eventually win, but it is also going to create a strong group of people who are going to fight just as hard to replace your ideology with theirs.
This can be the relatively mild political instability in the United States or Canada, or the much more vicious instability in Syria or Nigeria. A hard line against groups you don't support may work in the short term, but in the long term it is much better to try to reach some sort of consensus and to negotiate with the understanding that you, and your views are not infallible. But, if you can't accept that you could possibly be wrong, than at least accept that you are going to win more friends and converts by being a bit more diplomatic.
For those of us living in relatively stable political situations, we need to realize how rare those periods have been in human history. We also have to understand that what seems normal debate now can easily become something that can rip people apart and result in violence.
I'm not saying that vigorous debate is not a good thing, but I am saying that whatever the debate is, you should still be able to get along with the opposing side. The highest degree might be a true ability to see past differences, but even a respect for the other probably suffices. At the very least, let others live their lives and don't assume that you are completely right and "the other" completely wrong.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Crazy? Of course we are: On why we need economic democracy
So, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has just been updated to include even more mental illnesses which we will all probably suffer at some point in our lives. Sure, even the BBC and other mainstream media seem to think that this is just a really convenient way to sell more medications and to justify the existence of the huge psychiatric industry. It also has spill over affects for therapists, psychologists, non-psychiatric health providers and the self-help industry. But, what if they are right? What if 25% of Americans are suffering from mental health problems at the moment and the majority will face mental health issues at some point in their lives?
Think this is all made up out of nothing? Think again. Let's look at some numbers before I tell you why I think this is happening. You might be shocked to learn that between 1999 and 2007 the U.S suicide rate quadrupled to over 17 in 100,000 people. This in a country that is not materially poor, where just about everyone can get a job, where social organizations exist to help people through hard times and where everyone can get at least something to eat.
17 in 100,000...think about that number for a moment. That's four in 25,000. That's two suicides in about 12,500. That's every single year. Do you know 12,500 people? Do you know someone who has committed suicide? Would you think that number is under or over reported? According to a recent report in the Lancet, U.S suicides are massively unreported. That's probably party because of investigators, family and coroners not wanting the victim to be recorded as a suicide. Much nicer to say that he died cleaning his gun than he died with the gun in his mouth. Three people who were very close to me committed suicide, and I know of many more. I also know plenty of people who've attempted suicide. Some of them more than once. Believe me, I'm not making light of this in any way. I'm not suggesting reasons or motivations for any one person or groups of people, but perhaps there is something seriously wrong with our society.
Let's look at some more numbers. In 2010 there were nearly 34,000 deaths by motor vehicle accident and nearly 38,000 suicides. You are more likely to die by your own hand than you are by a car.
Still think there isn't a mental health crisis? How about the Boston bombing, the school shootings, the high murder rates and the violence? How about the bar fights? Is that really just a normal part of human existence? Did we evolve from lone cats or from monkey's? Are we social or territorial? I argue that we are behaving in a way that is not natural for our species. We are supposed to live most of our lives in peaceful coexistence for we are a social species.
But, look at how we are actually living. Just about everyone of us spends the majority of our time trying to get enough of the proverbial pie to stay alive, keep our families alive, and to avoid social stigma. Ever tried walking into a half decent restaurant in cheap clothes? Ever felt like your car didn't totally project the image of yourself that you'd like to show the world? Ever felt that you needed to upgrade your computer or camera because yours wasn't as nice as your peers?
I think the term "wage slave" might be overplaying it a bit, but how much of your life is spent in the pursuit of earning more money, spending money or thinking about money? How many hours of sleep do you loose worrying about paying a bill, worrying about getting to work on time or worrying that your kids need a new pair of shoes and they won't wear the cheap ones?
Yes, we've always had to work hard. But perhaps these days we are working hard and stressing even harder because we don't want to feel that sense of shame when we know we aren't keeping up; when we aren't giving our families what others are giving their families.
Why do we feel this way? Well, it would be hard not to with so much of our culture being given to us by an elite. Think you are just watching television or visiting a website for entertainment? You, even you visitors to my site are being marketed to. Advertisements, since the earliest days have worked hard to convince us that we need something. You need to spray Febreze in your house because it stinks. You need to buy coke because that is what people drink and you do want to be a person, don't you? You need those new shoes because they are shiny and you must have shiny feet, mustn't you? You need a new car that reflects your status, that separates you from those beneath you. Go ahead, spend. It's good for the economy. You'll feel better. You'll be anuyoo! You'll get that date; that promotion and you're cat will stop vomiting on the floor. Drink Coke! Drink it now! Rot your teeth and buy these new porcelain veneers.
And in charge of all this are the elite untouchables. Massive corporations who pay less tax than you enjoy trademark protection. Try to criticize them and they might take you down. Question what it is that they are feeding you and they might legislate away your right to bring them to court.
There is no easy solution, but any solution has to recognize that democratic values have to be part of it. Why do we have democracy over one type of social structure (our governments) but not over another structure (the economy) which has just as much, if not more direct impact on our lives? Why do we settle for so much liberty granted to those at the top end, but none for ourselves in the work place?
How's your pension doing? How's your vacation? Are you getting paid for maternity leave? Do you get holidays off? For too many people, those programs are just a dream. But, they tell you that it's not affordable that we need to stay competitive while massive profits fill their bank accounts and they don't even pay their taxes.
They go after the labour movement saying that it is closed to outside scrutiny. They claim that "big labour" is secretly controlling left-wing parties like the NDP, while their corporate decisions are not open for public debate, are closed to outside scrutiny, are able to avoid paying taxes, avoid benefits for their workers and muscle governments into doing what's in their own interests. But, they go after the labour union which anyone can join and are made up of people who work and pay taxes.
Of course, there are lots of other things that might be driving us crazy. The banality of so much of our popular culture, our crowded city streets, our frantic daily schedule, but so much of it comes down to the way our lives are dominated and determined by the biggest cult, the biggest lie and the biggest, most sinister instrument of control, the economy.
The economy is the word that cannot be questioned. It is ultimate truth and ultimate fact. If it hurts you, that's your fault. If it helps you, that's the government's credit.
Remember this: people built the economic system. It is not a law from God. The instructions were never found on the face of the mountain. GDP targets are not written on a strand of DNA. These are social constructions which affect material reality, and as social constructions they can be changed by people. The economy can be democratized. I believe it is going to happen.
I will leave you with this image I saw on upworthy.com earlier.
Think this is all made up out of nothing? Think again. Let's look at some numbers before I tell you why I think this is happening. You might be shocked to learn that between 1999 and 2007 the U.S suicide rate quadrupled to over 17 in 100,000 people. This in a country that is not materially poor, where just about everyone can get a job, where social organizations exist to help people through hard times and where everyone can get at least something to eat.
17 in 100,000...think about that number for a moment. That's four in 25,000. That's two suicides in about 12,500. That's every single year. Do you know 12,500 people? Do you know someone who has committed suicide? Would you think that number is under or over reported? According to a recent report in the Lancet, U.S suicides are massively unreported. That's probably party because of investigators, family and coroners not wanting the victim to be recorded as a suicide. Much nicer to say that he died cleaning his gun than he died with the gun in his mouth. Three people who were very close to me committed suicide, and I know of many more. I also know plenty of people who've attempted suicide. Some of them more than once. Believe me, I'm not making light of this in any way. I'm not suggesting reasons or motivations for any one person or groups of people, but perhaps there is something seriously wrong with our society.
Let's look at some more numbers. In 2010 there were nearly 34,000 deaths by motor vehicle accident and nearly 38,000 suicides. You are more likely to die by your own hand than you are by a car.
Still think there isn't a mental health crisis? How about the Boston bombing, the school shootings, the high murder rates and the violence? How about the bar fights? Is that really just a normal part of human existence? Did we evolve from lone cats or from monkey's? Are we social or territorial? I argue that we are behaving in a way that is not natural for our species. We are supposed to live most of our lives in peaceful coexistence for we are a social species.
But, look at how we are actually living. Just about everyone of us spends the majority of our time trying to get enough of the proverbial pie to stay alive, keep our families alive, and to avoid social stigma. Ever tried walking into a half decent restaurant in cheap clothes? Ever felt like your car didn't totally project the image of yourself that you'd like to show the world? Ever felt that you needed to upgrade your computer or camera because yours wasn't as nice as your peers?
I think the term "wage slave" might be overplaying it a bit, but how much of your life is spent in the pursuit of earning more money, spending money or thinking about money? How many hours of sleep do you loose worrying about paying a bill, worrying about getting to work on time or worrying that your kids need a new pair of shoes and they won't wear the cheap ones?
Yes, we've always had to work hard. But perhaps these days we are working hard and stressing even harder because we don't want to feel that sense of shame when we know we aren't keeping up; when we aren't giving our families what others are giving their families.
Why do we feel this way? Well, it would be hard not to with so much of our culture being given to us by an elite. Think you are just watching television or visiting a website for entertainment? You, even you visitors to my site are being marketed to. Advertisements, since the earliest days have worked hard to convince us that we need something. You need to spray Febreze in your house because it stinks. You need to buy coke because that is what people drink and you do want to be a person, don't you? You need those new shoes because they are shiny and you must have shiny feet, mustn't you? You need a new car that reflects your status, that separates you from those beneath you. Go ahead, spend. It's good for the economy. You'll feel better. You'll be anuyoo! You'll get that date; that promotion and you're cat will stop vomiting on the floor. Drink Coke! Drink it now! Rot your teeth and buy these new porcelain veneers.
And in charge of all this are the elite untouchables. Massive corporations who pay less tax than you enjoy trademark protection. Try to criticize them and they might take you down. Question what it is that they are feeding you and they might legislate away your right to bring them to court.
There is no easy solution, but any solution has to recognize that democratic values have to be part of it. Why do we have democracy over one type of social structure (our governments) but not over another structure (the economy) which has just as much, if not more direct impact on our lives? Why do we settle for so much liberty granted to those at the top end, but none for ourselves in the work place?
How's your pension doing? How's your vacation? Are you getting paid for maternity leave? Do you get holidays off? For too many people, those programs are just a dream. But, they tell you that it's not affordable that we need to stay competitive while massive profits fill their bank accounts and they don't even pay their taxes.
They go after the labour movement saying that it is closed to outside scrutiny. They claim that "big labour" is secretly controlling left-wing parties like the NDP, while their corporate decisions are not open for public debate, are closed to outside scrutiny, are able to avoid paying taxes, avoid benefits for their workers and muscle governments into doing what's in their own interests. But, they go after the labour union which anyone can join and are made up of people who work and pay taxes.
Of course, there are lots of other things that might be driving us crazy. The banality of so much of our popular culture, our crowded city streets, our frantic daily schedule, but so much of it comes down to the way our lives are dominated and determined by the biggest cult, the biggest lie and the biggest, most sinister instrument of control, the economy.
The economy is the word that cannot be questioned. It is ultimate truth and ultimate fact. If it hurts you, that's your fault. If it helps you, that's the government's credit.
Remember this: people built the economic system. It is not a law from God. The instructions were never found on the face of the mountain. GDP targets are not written on a strand of DNA. These are social constructions which affect material reality, and as social constructions they can be changed by people. The economy can be democratized. I believe it is going to happen.
I will leave you with this image I saw on upworthy.com earlier.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Hunting Rob Ford
So, it's not only the Canadian media who can't get enough of the allegations that a video exists showing Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine. Yes, the story is funny and it would also explain why he hardly schedules any public events, and yes this is the guy who has lost control over his council over pie-eyed plans to build more subway lines Toronto clearly can't afford...and yes, this is the guy lampooned internationally for walking into a camera last month, and yes this is the guy who flips out at the media, launched a highly public weight loss effort only to be seen sneaking KFC.
I'm also well aware that this is the mayor who has been caught barreling down the highway reading a newspaper (to the point where his people no longer allow him to drive), and yes he hasn't done a very good job in all the other issues that people seem to expect a mayor to take the lead in (getting federal dollars from a sympathetic Prime Minister is just one of the more recent examples).
Okay, he makes the antics of former mayor Mel Lastman look like statespersonship, but, and this is a big but...almost as big as Ford's butt...but... I do feel awfully badly for him.
Look at it this way: Either he is innocent of this charge and is simply being hunted down by a bunch of drug dealers trying to make some money off him, or he has a problem. Either way, does that not warrant some degree of compassion?
He may very well have a drug problem, or he might simply use drugs (minus the problem) or, the video could be a fake, or even not exist...until we know, should we not reserve judgement? If we really want to have a just society, should we not try to internalize the value of innocent until proven guilty?
And, another issue I have with this is that it seems that so many of the people who are coming down so hard on him also tend to believe that drug usage is a private matter or even should be entirely legal. If people believe that drug use is a private or a health issue, rather than a legal issue, than what business do we have to hold this against him?
Perhaps cocaine usage has negatively impacted his performance as mayor, or perhaps it's the only thing that causes him to get anything done at all. We just don't know. And until we know, should we not call off the attack?
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
GMO fear mongering
I'm not a scientist, but from the summations that I have heard scientists make, genetically modified foods are safe as long as the manipulations are safe. GMO food is not necessarily any safer or less safe than a natural food, but the implications of the modification must be fully understood. The modified organism should behave exactly as predicted each and every time it reproduces. Of course, if the modification itself is dangerous, than the product will also be dangerous. But, these modifications are not done by lay-people. They are done by people who know what they are doing. Or at least that's what we would all hope to be true.
But, is food ever totally safe? One argument I hear is that people want to be in control of what they eat. That argument is rather ridiculous. Do you know every single compound or molecule that naturally exists in your food? Do you control every single atom which enters your body? Do you even understand what is your body and what isn't your body? Consider for a moment that the vast bulk of DNA found in your organism is not human DNA, and consider that the percentage of the DNA in your body that is human is almost identical with that of the chimpanzee or the carrot. Why be worried about the genetically modified components of food when we don't even know the non modified components of food. To me, this seems like a generalized fear of the unknown.
Another argument I hear is "the right to know". The problem with this, in my eyes is related to the previous argument. Most of us, myself certainly included, do not know the chemical names of naturally occurring compounds anyway. Does a GMO contain a different molecule than that which already enters our body through one mechanism or another? Would we be able to understand whether or not that molecule is useful, harmful or simply not absorbed?
Would we be able to understand if the change is dangerous to the naturally bred plants? Should it not be enough to have a trustworthy regulatory agency certify that the food is safe for consumption? There are lots of naturally occurring compounds which are also dangerous. GMO does not equate with toxic. And, GMO's often require fewer pesticides and other chemical additives which are known to be hazardous in high enough doses.
I also, frequently here the argument that what is natural must be better. Again, there are lots of naturally occurring toxins which are far more dangerous than an insect resistant soybean...snake venom comes to mind. In fact, some of the most dangerous chemicals known to science are readily available in forests all over the world...completely GMO free!
Does this mean there are no risks? Of course not. But, it does mean that GMOs are not necessarily any more or less dangerous. It's like saying that computers are useful, or shoes are stylish. Some shoes are hideous, and some computers are absolutely useless. But, we don't outlaw all computers because Dell makes a few doozies...nor do we protest against shoes because some are ugly. Genetically modified organisms can be safe, or dangerous depending on what the modification is. Shoes with nails in the sole are probably not a good idea...of course if the shoe company was in league with the sinister doctor, this might make some business sense, but I digress.
A lot of the arguments are based on fear, misunderstandings, conspiracy theories with little factual basis and argument by analogy. Okay, yes...I just argued by analogy...but I'll ignore that convenient fact.
Time for the climbdown: GMO's need to be very carefully researched and studied by experts. Any potential interaction has to be known, and a good regulatory framework is needed. Also, food producers, like Monsanto should not be protected from judicial inquiry. Though I doubt the funny talk that Monsanto hates you and wants to poison your family for profits has any truth, they should not be exempt from normal, legal exposure. If they were to screw up, than they should be made to pay. That in itself would very much help to keep them honest.
And why do we need these GMOs? Food costs are rising. Millions of people can't afford to eat properly as it is, and as the climate is warming and the population is increasing, this problem is not going to just disappear. Should we just shrug our shoulders and say that we should freeze farming in the 1950's even if it means that some people can't afford to eat well, or even eat at all? Should we just say that we've learned enough and we are happy with our pesticides, failed crops, subsidies of products no one wants and just leave it at that?
Where do we draw the line? At what point do we say that the technology is okay and that anything after that is dangerous?
People are always afraid of new things. There is always a fear of new, and poorly understood sciences. I remember as a kid hearing that invitro fertilization was going to lead to franken babies. Still haven't seen any of them running around.
We need to progress, and we need to do more. Science can dig us out of many of our current problems and perhaps even save our species from extinction. Curtailing it based on scary pictures and faulty arguments is very, very scary indeed.
Ignore all those pictures of fetuses growing in tomatoes, silly pictures of strawberries with kiwi inside, slug-strawberry hybrids, zombie Obama Monsanto clips and colourful syringes sticking out of fruits and vegetables. That stuff is all a bunch of silly fiction. The actual science focuses on small, genetic changes to improve the quality of food. Food is good.
Oh, and if you really want to help your body, make sure you are eating enough fruits and vegetables, cut down on red meats and sodium, avoid soft drinks and get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day. Also, cut down on naturally occurring snake venom...that stuff will really kill you, natural or not.
But, is food ever totally safe? One argument I hear is that people want to be in control of what they eat. That argument is rather ridiculous. Do you know every single compound or molecule that naturally exists in your food? Do you control every single atom which enters your body? Do you even understand what is your body and what isn't your body? Consider for a moment that the vast bulk of DNA found in your organism is not human DNA, and consider that the percentage of the DNA in your body that is human is almost identical with that of the chimpanzee or the carrot. Why be worried about the genetically modified components of food when we don't even know the non modified components of food. To me, this seems like a generalized fear of the unknown.
Another argument I hear is "the right to know". The problem with this, in my eyes is related to the previous argument. Most of us, myself certainly included, do not know the chemical names of naturally occurring compounds anyway. Does a GMO contain a different molecule than that which already enters our body through one mechanism or another? Would we be able to understand whether or not that molecule is useful, harmful or simply not absorbed?
Would we be able to understand if the change is dangerous to the naturally bred plants? Should it not be enough to have a trustworthy regulatory agency certify that the food is safe for consumption? There are lots of naturally occurring compounds which are also dangerous. GMO does not equate with toxic. And, GMO's often require fewer pesticides and other chemical additives which are known to be hazardous in high enough doses.
I also, frequently here the argument that what is natural must be better. Again, there are lots of naturally occurring toxins which are far more dangerous than an insect resistant soybean...snake venom comes to mind. In fact, some of the most dangerous chemicals known to science are readily available in forests all over the world...completely GMO free!
Does this mean there are no risks? Of course not. But, it does mean that GMOs are not necessarily any more or less dangerous. It's like saying that computers are useful, or shoes are stylish. Some shoes are hideous, and some computers are absolutely useless. But, we don't outlaw all computers because Dell makes a few doozies...nor do we protest against shoes because some are ugly. Genetically modified organisms can be safe, or dangerous depending on what the modification is. Shoes with nails in the sole are probably not a good idea...of course if the shoe company was in league with the sinister doctor, this might make some business sense, but I digress.
A lot of the arguments are based on fear, misunderstandings, conspiracy theories with little factual basis and argument by analogy. Okay, yes...I just argued by analogy...but I'll ignore that convenient fact.
Time for the climbdown: GMO's need to be very carefully researched and studied by experts. Any potential interaction has to be known, and a good regulatory framework is needed. Also, food producers, like Monsanto should not be protected from judicial inquiry. Though I doubt the funny talk that Monsanto hates you and wants to poison your family for profits has any truth, they should not be exempt from normal, legal exposure. If they were to screw up, than they should be made to pay. That in itself would very much help to keep them honest.
And why do we need these GMOs? Food costs are rising. Millions of people can't afford to eat properly as it is, and as the climate is warming and the population is increasing, this problem is not going to just disappear. Should we just shrug our shoulders and say that we should freeze farming in the 1950's even if it means that some people can't afford to eat well, or even eat at all? Should we just say that we've learned enough and we are happy with our pesticides, failed crops, subsidies of products no one wants and just leave it at that?
Where do we draw the line? At what point do we say that the technology is okay and that anything after that is dangerous?
People are always afraid of new things. There is always a fear of new, and poorly understood sciences. I remember as a kid hearing that invitro fertilization was going to lead to franken babies. Still haven't seen any of them running around.
We need to progress, and we need to do more. Science can dig us out of many of our current problems and perhaps even save our species from extinction. Curtailing it based on scary pictures and faulty arguments is very, very scary indeed.
Ignore all those pictures of fetuses growing in tomatoes, silly pictures of strawberries with kiwi inside, slug-strawberry hybrids, zombie Obama Monsanto clips and colourful syringes sticking out of fruits and vegetables. That stuff is all a bunch of silly fiction. The actual science focuses on small, genetic changes to improve the quality of food. Food is good.
Oh, and if you really want to help your body, make sure you are eating enough fruits and vegetables, cut down on red meats and sodium, avoid soft drinks and get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day. Also, cut down on naturally occurring snake venom...that stuff will really kill you, natural or not.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Senate should attempt to fire corrupt Senators
With three Senators, one appointed a Liberal and two appointed as Conservatives, under investigation, the issue of Senate reform is certainly upon the minds of many Canadians. This debate has been going on for almost as long as the country has been going on for and with no real prospect for any real solution.
To my mind, it is simply not acceptable that Mac Harb, Pamela Wallen, and the worst of the lot, Mike Duffy just leave their respective caucuses. Rather, they should leave public life completely. Well, or at least get a job on a local radio station and leave the Senate without pay. While there is no clear method of doing this, as this article discusses, there is at least one possibility.
As Political Scientist, Ned Franks told the CBC, the issue of whether or not the Senate can remove a sitting Senator from the red chamber is still an unresolved question unless the Senator has been found to have committed a criminal act.
If the Senate wants to have any legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians, they should immediately present a motion to test the waters on this. It might have to go all the way up to the supreme court, and that could take several years, but as the Senate is unlikely to be abolished any time soon, we might as well do what we can now.
Even if a ruling were to bar the Senate from removing sitting Senators, the Senate can at least remove the Senator's pay, pension and expenses. That would be a start.
To my mind, it is simply not acceptable that Mac Harb, Pamela Wallen, and the worst of the lot, Mike Duffy just leave their respective caucuses. Rather, they should leave public life completely. Well, or at least get a job on a local radio station and leave the Senate without pay. While there is no clear method of doing this, as this article discusses, there is at least one possibility.
As Political Scientist, Ned Franks told the CBC, the issue of whether or not the Senate can remove a sitting Senator from the red chamber is still an unresolved question unless the Senator has been found to have committed a criminal act.
If the Senate wants to have any legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians, they should immediately present a motion to test the waters on this. It might have to go all the way up to the supreme court, and that could take several years, but as the Senate is unlikely to be abolished any time soon, we might as well do what we can now.
Even if a ruling were to bar the Senate from removing sitting Senators, the Senate can at least remove the Senator's pay, pension and expenses. That would be a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
