It may just be a result of the president's visit to Salt Lake, but it seems to me that anti-Bush rhetoric has been reaching a crescendo of late. News reports show Bush losing position in the polls, etc.. Iraq is routinely called a quagmire, despite the fact that they have had elections and are finalizing a Constitution that was quite clearly drafted by the Iraqis.
My personal low for Bush came with the shock and awe campaign followed the failure to defend Iraq's cultural treasures.
The fact that Americans troops are staying and slugging out the fight for a legitimate attempt at democracy makes me proud. The ongoing violence in Iraq shows a people caught in the struggle between forces wanting their leaders to rise through violence and those who want a system based on civil discourse. I was upset with the US invading Iraq, but am happy that we are standing beside Iraqis working for a civil form of government.
Progressive elements in the US are calling this current process a quagmire.
I don't see the quagmire, if any thing, it seems that the US is pushing the transitional process too quickly. The rapid pace for writing the Constitution fails to give sufficient time for public input. One of the news reports I saw mentioned that the current Iraqi Constitution is looking less like a contract between the Iraqi government and its people...and is looking more like a pact between warring factions in Iraq.
If anything, the process of writing a Constitution is going too quickly and is missing the deliberation needed to create a lasting document. The greatest fear is that the rush to get a Constitution on the table runs the risk of creating a document so geared at appeasing the conflicts between Kurds, Sunni and Sh'ites that it fails to provide adequate protection for the many minorities in Iraq.
Wars are clean and spectacular. They make great footage. The creative process of developing a deliberative democracy is painfully slow, full of rhetoric and contentious.
In the long run, I think the efforts by Progressives to paint the process of writing a Constitution as a quagmire will back fire.
Where Bush failed was not telling us that invading Afghanistan and Iraq would entail a decade long committment and creating the illusion that the fight for freedom is simply a matter of a shock and awe campaign. Such techniques work to establish a dictatorship, democracies are necessarily ugly and usually take several generations before the democratic ideals firmly take root.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Busted
I've always thought it was folly for gentiles to gather in groups of more than a dozen. Anyway, a foolish group of ravers had a party with about 1500 people in an area with restrictions to about 250. Apparently the promoter had received only half of the required permits.
Here are some web sites describing the event:
Music Versus Guns includes news reports and first hand accounts of the raid. The Salt Lake Tribune's article includes links with videos of the raid. The DJs also posted an account of the raid.
The whole rave thing appears silly to me. Provo's tendency to close venue when they become popular is also silly. I've been following the Provo Music Industry for several years. It appears that Provo does everything possible to block permits for any organization counter the the LDS dream of creating an Iran in the American desert. Provo has a horrifically convoluted system of permits. It is not surprising that a promoter ends up with the wrong permits.
Provo is a college town filled with raging hormones and entertainment starved youth. It is all but guaranteed that any venue providing music and dancing in an unrepressive atomosphere will flood over with party-goers.
The scary thing is watching the Utah swat teams in action.
The story of this raid in neocon Provo is raging throw the Internet. So I thought I would help it along with a blog post.
Here are some web sites describing the event:
Music Versus Guns includes news reports and first hand accounts of the raid. The Salt Lake Tribune's article includes links with videos of the raid. The DJs also posted an account of the raid.
The whole rave thing appears silly to me. Provo's tendency to close venue when they become popular is also silly. I've been following the Provo Music Industry for several years. It appears that Provo does everything possible to block permits for any organization counter the the LDS dream of creating an Iran in the American desert. Provo has a horrifically convoluted system of permits. It is not surprising that a promoter ends up with the wrong permits.
Provo is a college town filled with raging hormones and entertainment starved youth. It is all but guaranteed that any venue providing music and dancing in an unrepressive atomosphere will flood over with party-goers.
The scary thing is watching the Utah swat teams in action.
The story of this raid in neocon Provo is raging throw the Internet. So I thought I would help it along with a blog post.
Blog Directory
I just added this blog to Blog Directory. So I thought I would do the kind thing and add a return link.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The Codex
I just wasted half a day researching the Codex Alimentarius. The Codex was established by the WHO (World Health Organization) and the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Its charge is to set labelling and composition requirements on foods.
Without an internationally recognized codex, countries and businesses would have to depend on bilateral agreements with each trading partner to establish food labeling and safety standards. Let's say there were 200 countries and 10000 foods. A system of bilateral agreements would require 200 * 200 * 10000 different definitions. A system of separate bilateral agreements between each nation really is untenable.
Setting up an internationally recognized codex allows people to draw from an recognized set of definitions.
In bureaucratic parlance. The FDA is interested in "harmonizing" their definitions with the Codex Alimentarius.
The fear is that if the Codex becomes corrupt, then you have this big corrupt supernational organization affecting the food that we eat.
The most controversial area of the codex is with the definitions of nutritional supplements. The cut off between supplement and pharmaceutical is up for debate. A large number of prescribed drugs in the United States evolved from remedies and plants found in Central America.
The fear of the natural food and supplement industry is that the Codex is more restrictive than the FDA. Harmonizing the FDA and Codex would create new restrictions on supplements.
The issue on the Codex came to a boil during the recent vote on CAFTA which one by only one vote.
The internet debate on this is interesting. There appears to be a great deal of disinformation coming from the John Birch Society and from the natural food industry. Of course, there is also the claim that the WHO, FAO, FDA and big pharmaceuticals are generating their own disinformation.
This link contains a quick time presentation published to defeat CAFTA. A large number of anti-CAFTA and anti-Codex sites appeared on the net in the effort to beat CAFTA. The various articles and blog posts have a number of circular references. So it is difficult to determine what is real and what is the product of group imagination.
Things I find interesting. The anti-Codex groups labels anything contrary to their world view as disinformation (This is a good example of the reflexive paradox in action.) The other thing I find intestering is that the claim from the Supplement Industry is that the big pharmaceuticals is trying to use fear to suppress the use of supplements. It appears that the supplemental industry is trying to create a culture of fear to defeat the Codex.
I am supportive of the Health Food industry. I will add more links to LinksAlive.
Without an internationally recognized codex, countries and businesses would have to depend on bilateral agreements with each trading partner to establish food labeling and safety standards. Let's say there were 200 countries and 10000 foods. A system of bilateral agreements would require 200 * 200 * 10000 different definitions. A system of separate bilateral agreements between each nation really is untenable.
Setting up an internationally recognized codex allows people to draw from an recognized set of definitions.
In bureaucratic parlance. The FDA is interested in "harmonizing" their definitions with the Codex Alimentarius.
The fear is that if the Codex becomes corrupt, then you have this big corrupt supernational organization affecting the food that we eat.
The most controversial area of the codex is with the definitions of nutritional supplements. The cut off between supplement and pharmaceutical is up for debate. A large number of prescribed drugs in the United States evolved from remedies and plants found in Central America.
The fear of the natural food and supplement industry is that the Codex is more restrictive than the FDA. Harmonizing the FDA and Codex would create new restrictions on supplements.
The issue on the Codex came to a boil during the recent vote on CAFTA which one by only one vote.
The internet debate on this is interesting. There appears to be a great deal of disinformation coming from the John Birch Society and from the natural food industry. Of course, there is also the claim that the WHO, FAO, FDA and big pharmaceuticals are generating their own disinformation.
This link contains a quick time presentation published to defeat CAFTA. A large number of anti-CAFTA and anti-Codex sites appeared on the net in the effort to beat CAFTA. The various articles and blog posts have a number of circular references. So it is difficult to determine what is real and what is the product of group imagination.
Things I find interesting. The anti-Codex groups labels anything contrary to their world view as disinformation (This is a good example of the reflexive paradox in action.) The other thing I find intestering is that the claim from the Supplement Industry is that the big pharmaceuticals is trying to use fear to suppress the use of supplements. It appears that the supplemental industry is trying to create a culture of fear to defeat the Codex.
I am supportive of the Health Food industry. I will add more links to LinksAlive.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Jobs that no one wants
One common statement in the debate about immigrant labor is that immigrants do the jobs that no-one else wants. In most cases the commentators are referring to argicultural jobs.
This idea of jobs that no-one wants is really interesting. There are very few jobs in this world that people really, really want to do. For the most part, we have to do things that we don't want to do to make ends meet.
Refusal to do particular jobs generally has more to do with bad working conditions and low pay than simple pride.
I happen do believe in the free market. If there was not an available crop of immigrant labor to fill argicultural jobs, working conditions and pay would probably increase to the point where the jobs were desirable.
Anyway, the question du jour is: "What would the agricultural system in the US look like without a large pool of exploitable labor just to the south?"
My guess is that the big farms would have to start scrambling to raise wages and working conditions enough to attract Americans back to the farm.
The one really exciting thing is that as the price for farm labor increases, we might start seeing the emergence of new businesses to provide agricultural support and we might see a resurgeance of the independent small farm.
I do not hold the idea that argicultural work is repulsive to the human spirit. The human race grew up on the farm. It is only in the last century that we transformed from a primarily agicultural society to our big modern cities.
In the last century, big commercial farms were able to exploit immigrant labor to undercut prices and drive small farms out of business. It is possible that the loss of access to exploitable labor would lead in a reverse direction...back to more independently owned farms.
In a free market, there really is no such thing as a job that no-one wants. There are untenable business plans. The massive farms that depend on cheap illegal labor for survival would be untenable in a society that does not have such easily exploitable labor. The untenable big farms would likely fail. Small independent farms would resurge.
The "jobs no-one wants" is a complete hoax. The fact that we have a large exploitable class of illegal immigrants that represses wages is the real problem.
This idea of jobs that no-one wants is really interesting. There are very few jobs in this world that people really, really want to do. For the most part, we have to do things that we don't want to do to make ends meet.
Refusal to do particular jobs generally has more to do with bad working conditions and low pay than simple pride.
I happen do believe in the free market. If there was not an available crop of immigrant labor to fill argicultural jobs, working conditions and pay would probably increase to the point where the jobs were desirable.
Anyway, the question du jour is: "What would the agricultural system in the US look like without a large pool of exploitable labor just to the south?"
My guess is that the big farms would have to start scrambling to raise wages and working conditions enough to attract Americans back to the farm.
The one really exciting thing is that as the price for farm labor increases, we might start seeing the emergence of new businesses to provide agricultural support and we might see a resurgeance of the independent small farm.
I do not hold the idea that argicultural work is repulsive to the human spirit. The human race grew up on the farm. It is only in the last century that we transformed from a primarily agicultural society to our big modern cities.
In the last century, big commercial farms were able to exploit immigrant labor to undercut prices and drive small farms out of business. It is possible that the loss of access to exploitable labor would lead in a reverse direction...back to more independently owned farms.
In a free market, there really is no such thing as a job that no-one wants. There are untenable business plans. The massive farms that depend on cheap illegal labor for survival would be untenable in a society that does not have such easily exploitable labor. The untenable big farms would likely fail. Small independent farms would resurge.
The "jobs no-one wants" is a complete hoax. The fact that we have a large exploitable class of illegal immigrants that represses wages is the real problem.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
VFW
The Veterans of Foreign Wars happen to be visiting Salt Lake. The event will include a visit from President Bush.
Showing a complete lack of wisdom, the mayor of the host city (Rocky Anderson) is calling for a big antiwar protest (Salt Lake Tribune).
The VFW convention is about veterans. Yes, there should be protests by Veterans who are for peace. Yes, locals should join them. But, come on, the host mayor calling for a protest is a bit out of hand. I do agree that there's good argument that Bush II is as bad of a president at Bush 1. But I figure that the VFW meetings should be about the Americans who have put their life on the line to defend the interests and ideals of the nation.
Showing a complete lack of wisdom, the mayor of the host city (Rocky Anderson) is calling for a big antiwar protest (Salt Lake Tribune).
The VFW convention is about veterans. Yes, there should be protests by Veterans who are for peace. Yes, locals should join them. But, come on, the host mayor calling for a protest is a bit out of hand. I do agree that there's good argument that Bush II is as bad of a president at Bush 1. But I figure that the VFW meetings should be about the Americans who have put their life on the line to defend the interests and ideals of the nation.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Intelligent Design and BoM
I really can't believe the anti-Mormon rantings incited by the excommunication of Simon Southerton author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. This book supposedly refutes revelation that Native Americans are in fact a lost tribe of Isreal.
It seems clear that the Heavenly Father used Intelligent Design when he created the earth 6000 years ago. The obvious answer is to DNA evidence is that, when the Heavenly Father smited the Lamanites, he did so with intelligent design; thus changing their DNA.
Duh?
Like, the answer isn't obvious.
I am kind of good at this. If there are any other issues you want explaned away, let me know. I could start up a business. I will explain away any issue for just $9.95.
It seems clear that the Heavenly Father used Intelligent Design when he created the earth 6000 years ago. The obvious answer is to DNA evidence is that, when the Heavenly Father smited the Lamanites, he did so with intelligent design; thus changing their DNA.
Duh?
Like, the answer isn't obvious.
I am kind of good at this. If there are any other issues you want explaned away, let me know. I could start up a business. I will explain away any issue for just $9.95.
Steps towards Peace
I am happy to see Isreal taking a step toward piece with its Disengagement from settlements in the Gaza Strip.
While the act appears as a ruthless uprooting of Isreali citizens (a violation of property rights) the resettlement is about the definition of national borders. Property does not really exist until the property is defined.
The disengagement is clearly an overture for peace and not a cave in to terrorism. For that matter, this risky step toward peace is likely to result in a wave of terrorism from groups in both Isreal and Palestine wishing to block peace.
The real qeustion at the this point is the reaction of the Palestine authority. Isreal put a unilateral action on the table. Will the Palestinian authority take this overture as a step toward peace or revert to the subtle corruption of the Arafat days?
Anyway, I wanted to laud a gutsy step toward peace. Disengagement Forum is an open forum discussing the action. MFA.gov has documents related to the plan.
While the act appears as a ruthless uprooting of Isreali citizens (a violation of property rights) the resettlement is about the definition of national borders. Property does not really exist until the property is defined.
The disengagement is clearly an overture for peace and not a cave in to terrorism. For that matter, this risky step toward peace is likely to result in a wave of terrorism from groups in both Isreal and Palestine wishing to block peace.
The real qeustion at the this point is the reaction of the Palestine authority. Isreal put a unilateral action on the table. Will the Palestinian authority take this overture as a step toward peace or revert to the subtle corruption of the Arafat days?
Anyway, I wanted to laud a gutsy step toward peace. Disengagement Forum is an open forum discussing the action. MFA.gov has documents related to the plan.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Darfur Divestment
In this world where there is a growing divide on almost every issue. Both the right and the left are unified on opposing the genocide in Darfur. Many political enemies share the same podium against the genocide, slavery and systematic oppression in Darfur.
There also seems to be a recognition that the United States is one of the leading voices against the genocide. The United States has done just about everything short of unilateral action to stop the genocide.
Unfortunately, all efforts have resulted in little more than slowing the pace of the genocide.
My primary opposition to the Iraq war was that, by investing all of our effort in one international cause, we lost our ability to address other concerns such as Darfur. One could put forward an argument that by invading Iraq, we turned our backs on Darfur. The more likely complaint is that we thought we could do it all. The US cannot unilaterally engage Sudan. UN efforts were blocked by China and Syria. So the only real weapon is moral outrage.
There is currently a call to divest from Sudan. I don't like this tact because divesture tends to wipe out the middle class while strengthening the bad guys. As US pension funds divest at bottom dollars in Sudan, China is buying.
Of course, from a progressive standpoint, having American pension funds sell their investments at below market value to China is a great deal. China is, after all, the most "progressive" nation on the planet.
The history of investments and embargoes have been poor. Generally they end up consolidating power in dictatorial hands. Look at the massive wads of cash that we found in the hands of Hussein. The same is true of Castro. Embargos and divesture consolidates wealth into the hands of tyrrants. It also provides an excuse for rogues like Castro and Hussein to rob their people blind.
We should be supporting socially responsible investment in Sudan. Investment in the survivors of Darfur would help reduce the number of post genocide starvations. The real goal should be to give the people of Southern Sudan the wealth of their birthright...the oil under the land.
Rather than a total divesture from Sudan. There should be a qualifier of investments. There should be a demand that multinationals invest in socially responsible ways and should not be benefitting from the genocide. A goode example of this is European Coalition on Oil in Sudan.
The cause of this genocide is economic. Competing warlords want control over the oil to fund their meglomania. People seeking divestment are correct that the solution to the problem is economic. The solution is to structure the ownership of these oil reserves so that more people, not fewer, benefit from the extraction of oil. Divesting simply consolidates controls into the hands of the people who spurred the genocide.
In summary, I am extremely happy to see left and right consolidated on the issue of stopping the genocide in Darfur, but find it heart rending that the United State's hands are tied on this unifying cause. As with so many other issues, we are left with less than adequate means to respond to the issue like divestment. Divestment is a feel good statement, but I am not sure it is the most effective means of ending the hostilities. Divestment and embargos often make matters worse.
There is not an easy answer. People need to maintain the pressure on this issue, continue the documentation.
Church World Services has an informative page on the crisis.
There also seems to be a recognition that the United States is one of the leading voices against the genocide. The United States has done just about everything short of unilateral action to stop the genocide.
Unfortunately, all efforts have resulted in little more than slowing the pace of the genocide.
My primary opposition to the Iraq war was that, by investing all of our effort in one international cause, we lost our ability to address other concerns such as Darfur. One could put forward an argument that by invading Iraq, we turned our backs on Darfur. The more likely complaint is that we thought we could do it all. The US cannot unilaterally engage Sudan. UN efforts were blocked by China and Syria. So the only real weapon is moral outrage.
There is currently a call to divest from Sudan. I don't like this tact because divesture tends to wipe out the middle class while strengthening the bad guys. As US pension funds divest at bottom dollars in Sudan, China is buying.
Of course, from a progressive standpoint, having American pension funds sell their investments at below market value to China is a great deal. China is, after all, the most "progressive" nation on the planet.
The history of investments and embargoes have been poor. Generally they end up consolidating power in dictatorial hands. Look at the massive wads of cash that we found in the hands of Hussein. The same is true of Castro. Embargos and divesture consolidates wealth into the hands of tyrrants. It also provides an excuse for rogues like Castro and Hussein to rob their people blind.
We should be supporting socially responsible investment in Sudan. Investment in the survivors of Darfur would help reduce the number of post genocide starvations. The real goal should be to give the people of Southern Sudan the wealth of their birthright...the oil under the land.
Rather than a total divesture from Sudan. There should be a qualifier of investments. There should be a demand that multinationals invest in socially responsible ways and should not be benefitting from the genocide. A goode example of this is European Coalition on Oil in Sudan.
The cause of this genocide is economic. Competing warlords want control over the oil to fund their meglomania. People seeking divestment are correct that the solution to the problem is economic. The solution is to structure the ownership of these oil reserves so that more people, not fewer, benefit from the extraction of oil. Divesting simply consolidates controls into the hands of the people who spurred the genocide.
In summary, I am extremely happy to see left and right consolidated on the issue of stopping the genocide in Darfur, but find it heart rending that the United State's hands are tied on this unifying cause. As with so many other issues, we are left with less than adequate means to respond to the issue like divestment. Divestment is a feel good statement, but I am not sure it is the most effective means of ending the hostilities. Divestment and embargos often make matters worse.
There is not an easy answer. People need to maintain the pressure on this issue, continue the documentation.
Church World Services has an informative page on the crisis.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
This Divided State
I’ve been contemplating seeing the documentary “This Divided State” by Steven Greenstreet, a graduate in film from BYU.
The film recounts the 2004 presentation of “Fahrenheit 9/11" at UVSC.
This showing was designed as a publicity stunt just prior to the 2004 general election. Moore’s tactic was to make a big showing in the most “conservative” state he could find. Utah is a neocon state. (Utah flip flopped from being the most Democratic state in the Union to the most Republican State in the Union in the 50s).
To make the stunt controversial, the UVSC student committee spent way more than the lecture was worth. They basically spent the entire student entertainment budget on a single event. I would be upset if I were a student at UVSC. I would want my money spent on wild concerts.
Michael Moore is a skilled propagandists who holds a leftist view of life. Provo is the heart of a breed of Mormon propaganda that produces a steady stream of rewritten history to support their world view. The documentary shows the comical results that occur when different propagandists meet.
It would be a worthwhile film in that regard. We get to see the clowns on the left engaged with the jokers on the right. Christian Right and Leftist propaganda are just two sides of the same coin.
My reason for not wanting to see the movie is that I am really stuck on the issue of whether or not discourse is possible. The modern tradition pretty much dismisses the Enlightenment’s faith in reason as naive. The modern tradition holds that man is just a bundle of instincts created through an evolutionary process. Man cannot reason. Man is simply manipulated and controlled by propaganda.
I happen to be one of those naive hold outs who believe that we can reason.
The different reviews and previews I’ve seen indicate that it is a good cross section of thought in Utah. Maybe, I just want to pretend that I am living in a place other than the divisive Utah.
The film makers have a blog, and appear to be both educated at reasonable. Since I like to support artistics expressions from the local community. I will probably end up seeing it when it goes DVD.
The film recounts the 2004 presentation of “Fahrenheit 9/11" at UVSC.
This showing was designed as a publicity stunt just prior to the 2004 general election. Moore’s tactic was to make a big showing in the most “conservative” state he could find. Utah is a neocon state. (Utah flip flopped from being the most Democratic state in the Union to the most Republican State in the Union in the 50s).
To make the stunt controversial, the UVSC student committee spent way more than the lecture was worth. They basically spent the entire student entertainment budget on a single event. I would be upset if I were a student at UVSC. I would want my money spent on wild concerts.
Michael Moore is a skilled propagandists who holds a leftist view of life. Provo is the heart of a breed of Mormon propaganda that produces a steady stream of rewritten history to support their world view. The documentary shows the comical results that occur when different propagandists meet.
It would be a worthwhile film in that regard. We get to see the clowns on the left engaged with the jokers on the right. Christian Right and Leftist propaganda are just two sides of the same coin.
My reason for not wanting to see the movie is that I am really stuck on the issue of whether or not discourse is possible. The modern tradition pretty much dismisses the Enlightenment’s faith in reason as naive. The modern tradition holds that man is just a bundle of instincts created through an evolutionary process. Man cannot reason. Man is simply manipulated and controlled by propaganda.
I happen to be one of those naive hold outs who believe that we can reason.
The different reviews and previews I’ve seen indicate that it is a good cross section of thought in Utah. Maybe, I just want to pretend that I am living in a place other than the divisive Utah.
The film makers have a blog, and appear to be both educated at reasonable. Since I like to support artistics expressions from the local community. I will probably end up seeing it when it goes DVD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)