Earth, Wind and Fire –

What the G-20 must consider …

By Jim Palombo
Politics Editor

Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 
from “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

 * * *

In September of 2009, as a journalist, I was involved with the G-20 Summit in Pittsburg, PA – the last time the Summit was held in the U.S. In relationship to this, I wrote an article for Ragazine (see Ragazine archives) which was later translated and published in the Italian political journal, Acque & Terre.  The purpose of noting both my G-20 attendance and the translation of the article is of particular importance to this piece. In terms of the former, I am currently in Mexico City and it is in Los Cabos, Mexico, where the next G-20 Summit will take place. I may or may not attend the meetings in June, but as it is so close at hand, one can imagine that this proximity along with what is occurring in terms of press coverage, etc. conjures up images for me of my previous G-20 participation. In terms of the latter, as I was reviewing my article in Acque & Terre I once again noticed that it appeared in the mix with several other interesting pieces which were on the very important topics of food and water shortages and the growing problems tied to “war economies.”

With these points in mind, I decided to offer an article that referenced those pieces, including one more “outside reference” (outside of the Acque & Terre journal), generally reviewing them in the context of earth (food and water), wind (air) and fire (war economies.)  In this sense,  I themed the article in the imagery of those three, age-old elements as it not only seemed a clever fit, but also spoke to the notion that the concerns highlighted, as age-tested as any,  should still hold priority at the upcoming G-20 summit. Said another way, although the issues related to the financial crisis gripping a significant portion of the world will dominate the G-20 concerns, the problems related to food, water, air and war should be, for both developing and developed nations, a top priority as well in the gathering of global players.

In terms of my bringing certain considerations from these other articles to your attention, that is, as the mere organizer of information, I certainly must give credit to the words/thoughts of the individuals who put them forth: Evgeny Gokhberg,  Giorio Brandolini, David Suzuki and Howar Talabany. I offer a tip of the hat to each of them, and I hope that I effectively capture their perspectives in my general review. Of course, the hope is that you will find the review/organization of the considerations worthwhile and provocative. And as always, you are invited to offer comment accordingly. This is especially so in that the matters at issue are relative to our planet – which unfortunately is at risk at the hand of our own doing.

***************************

EARTH

In his article printed in Acque & Terre, “Fresh water markets: global challenges versus national practices – searching for efficient solutions,” Evgeny Gokhberg presents data on the ever increasing demand of fresh water, a resource that while being one where shortages, scarcities and stresses  continue to increase, one we nonetheless utterly depend on.  Citing concerns related to management challenges he raises considerations like: Given the scarcity of the resource, how should it be allocated and can that allocation be best managed by the public or private sector?  Given that most of the water is used in agricultural endeavors, what are the most efficient irrigation and portable-water processes? How can we best insure that the available water source is pollution free, especially as its viability for commercial use also continues to develop?  In this light, and mentioning the politically exploitative possibilities attached to water and water rights, he also offers information on the most effective water management practices in place in the world, referencing Australia as one of the top countries in that context.  Of course, this brings into play a number of political and economic (ideological) concerns, which in a sense set the frame for public policy possibilities. In short, his article points to the many diverse considerations that must be entertained in order to get better policies in place that will affect water conservation and availability across the globe.

In a similar vein, and certainly correlated to the concerns tied to fresh water, George Brandolini, presented his Acque & Terre piece on “World food security.” Brandolini discusses the growing problems related to food, particularly as population growth continues and as food availability becomes an important bartering chip in the context of geopolitical struggles. His reference to the over one billion people living in the developing world as being “food insecure” is of staggering imagery. And the fact that  child malnutrition and the physical and mental ailments that ensue are approaching catastrophic proportion only add to the dire picture.

Brandolini notes that while market conditions can shape food availability for people/countries with money to spend (although even with capital, this is not as fluid as the “supply and demand” axiom might represent) there are critical areas for meeting the needs of the poor. This demands attention to developing countries, especially in the context of: protecting the natural resources (like water) on which agriculture depends; understanding the value of agricultural research, including the pros and cons of biotechnology and the use of better agronomic policy; and ensuring that distribution of resources and income are both equitable and secure.  On this point, Brandolini makes it clear that the armed conflicts experienced in many of the poorer countries diminish the possibilities of security, disrupting farming networks and food distribution while also dislocating populations. Acknowledging the difficulties, Brandolini nonetheless encourages that the policy exchanges between developing and developed countries (i.e., an important consideration for G-20 members) can help in attaining a food-secure as well as environmentally sustainable world.

WIND

Although not included in the Acque & Terre publication, the “wind” reference provided the opportunity to at least mention one of the most accomplished, air-environmental advocates, David Suzuki, in this discussion. In his compelling lectures across the globe, Suzuki implores us all to recognize that “we are air – and air is us” and that “whatever we do to air we do to ourselves.” In addressing the 11^th Annual Commonwealth gathering in Canada in March 2008, he presented the notion that we have been essentially using the air as a “garbage can”, polluting it in a seemingly mindless end of ways. His imagery of the baby in a stroller, breathing in the air at the same level as the exhaust fumes from our vehicles, amid the claim of our being intelligent creatures, sharply drove this point home.

In casting air in the realm of a sacred element, Suzuki reminds us that to protect soil, water, food supplies, as well as the millions of breaths we all need, we must protect the air. There is simply no way around this fact. In this context, it is not difficult to realize that he makes his case for all of the countries, developed and otherwise, to put into place the policies by which to make this concern the top priority. For him then, the G-20 in Los Cabos represents the opportunity to focus on developing and implementing related policies accordingly, especially as he puts it, “if not the air – then what?”

FIRE

Turning back to the articles in Acque & Terre, the piece by Howar Talabany, “Globalization, war economy and economic development in the Kurdistan region of Iraq” provides the most important elements in terms of considering the troubling growth of “war economies.”  Although admitting that the complete definition of this type system has yet to be captured, Talabany offers that they generally develop from what could be considered less developed, state-run, command economies, that due to both internal and external conflict, find themselves immersed in conditions of war. (It is hard to escape the thought that at least to some extent, the U.S., perhaps at the command of its own state mandates of capitalism, might be caught in the definitional light as well.)

In the context of these war conditions, Talabany points out that the economies in this situation find it more difficult to provide the day-to-day necessities to people, that illicit or informal economies then tend to flourish, which in fact then take on a corrupt life of their own, restricting the flow of both national and international products, while creating chaos in both the political and social sectors. Talabany offers these considerations in the midst of what had happened in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, although the parallel of the circumstance is as clear in other countries as well.

For Talabany, the solutions to this perilous situation lie in both preventing the situations from developing, and if not possible, then in what he terms post-war reconstruction. In terms of the former, this would demand constant attention to international diplomacy pointed at peaceful negotiations. Talabany makes it clear that along with other issues, this is often difficult as the war process itself seems to legitimize key players who often emerge as the “new” leadership, whether or not it is actually a legitimate claim. In the case of the latter, the “post-war” period is often difficult to arrive at/delineate, especially given that opposing factions might find it difficult to totally agree to any peace-like decisions, particularly if they are brokered by outside (i.e., NATO or UN) forces. Said another way, no one can be sure when reconstruction can actually begin, or what will come from what is left in the post-war rubble. Nonetheless, in whatever stage, and no matter the chaos of international involvement and regulation inherent in doing so, Talabany points to the notion that globalization in and of itself should demand that international attention/assistance be garnered in sorting through the “war economies” problems at hand.  For him, there is no other way that the concerns can be better understood, and hopefully better dealt with as the future of so many people/societies lie in the balance.

************************************

It would seem clear that the concerns referenced above continue to demand very serious attention. In this light, perhaps they are of a unifying nature, bringing together the nations of the world over problems that are truly of a global nature. Yet, this “sense” is certainly not anything new – we have recognized for quite some time that what we have done/and continue to do for the sake of progress has left damaging effects in the wake. But perhaps things are getting better, perhaps as the world players become more concerned in acquiring market shares than in acquiring territory, essentially becoming less reliant on the outcomes of conventional conflicts and war, we will reach toward better policies and more effective practices, ones that can make “the market” a more clean and vibrant place.

I, along with my fellow writers, certainly hope this is the case. Yet, and perhaps as a caveat, I must call attention to my own “G-20 in retrospect” article presented in Acque & Terre in 2010. In this context, I will note now as I did then that there remains a struggle over who will have the major control of the market – an unfortunate, tension-producing ingredient in the market-share pie. In this sense, there will remain issues tied to the differing growth models put forth by predominantly the U.S. and China. Make no mistake about it, these growth models are different, each one implying a different political perspective and approach to the considerations tied to both social and economic development.  In this sense, collaboration between the two powers (as well as with the others), even on issues as pressing as food, water, air and war, may well be as hard in coming in Los Cabos as they were in Pittsburg.  Said another way, with the differing business models at the table, “business as usual” may be more the overall theme of the upcoming G-20 than most of us would hope.

Editor’s notes:

Acque & Terre as well as the articles referenced from the 2010 April/May edition are at:  www.politicainternazionale.it

For more on David Suzuki visit his website at:  www.davidsuzuki.org

Ragazine Archives:

http://ragazine.cc/archives/politics_09-10_09.htm

http://ragazine.cc/2009/10/politics-2-jim-palombo-g-20/

Primer to the Primaries –

and beyond … 

By Jim Palombo
Politics Editor 

It’s not a secret that the Republicans are struggling, and it appears Mitt Romney will not be able to bring home the bacon for the GOP. Said another way, and given the variables on the table, it seems a safe bet that Obama will continue to lead the country for another four years. But no matter the outcome, “toward what end?” and “in what context?” are obvious questions in regards to our country’s future. With that in mind, this article is meant to take a look at some political-economic-social elements (ideological principles if you will) that are pertinent to answering these questions – elements that are no doubt important, yet ones that seem clouded in the public eye. In short, and encouraged by people who have requested that I do so, what follows is a ‘primer’ as to what should be taken into consideration as the primaries heat-up, and what should also be left for thought once the dust has settled.

To obtain the best grasp of the following concerns, it is suggested that you imagine their presence amid the highly charged struggles of the civil rights movement. This was a time when the country was coming to grips with the freedom and prosperity vibrating in post-world war America and the call for equality in light of those same variables. Among other things, the movement pitted the natures of Conservative and Liberal agendas, and also opened the door for considerations that lay outside both those frames. So put the picture of those struggles in your mind as you continue to read. And in doing so, you might also notice that some of the sensations you feel are similar to what you might be feeling as you look out at the problems facing our American experiment today. With Liberals, Conservatives and their mixes all promising answers, and Occupy and Tea Party efforts in full force, the complexities of competing economic and political strategies are, as they were fifty years ago, clearly at our doorstep.

 * * *

How the Conservative and Liberal views unfold (Ideological considerations):

Democracy – A government by the people, via free elections and formal rights and privileges, with the supreme power vested in the citizens.

Capitalism – An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and developed proportionate to supply and demand and the accumulation and re-distribution of profits in a free market.

Conservatives/Republicans and Liberals/Democrats both subscribe to these definitions in the context of Consensus theory – a theory that generally implies that people have common goals, interests and beliefs and have come together accordingly. This is how, at least in theory, we, the public, generally perceive things working. However, the two parties split over their interpretation of how the political and economic frames play themselves out in society, particularly in terms of concerns related to social issues.

For Conservatives the logic goes like this. Consistent with the definitions provided above, we live in a democracy and the economic system is based on free market principles. This means that in terms of the political, democratic process, our leaders are elected by an open vote format, and they are to represent the interests of the people. Issues like equality, justice, fairness, etc. should be managed accordingly, as well as the concerns related to administering matters of state – matters concerning the military, taxes, infrastructure, etc. In terms of the economic, traditional capitalist process, this should be left to its own devices, with limited interference from government involvement, taxes and regulation. In this way, the market can be free to create more jobs, more opportunities and more prosperity for the general public. In this sense, any competition that flows from the system is healthy, enabling the society to prosper, while giving individuals the opportunity to succeed accordingly. For Conservatives, this translates into more incentives for business/job development, again with limitations on business taxation and development. And as there is little problem with the match of democracy (what a great system) and the free-market (another great system), both can be seen as complimenting each other in terms of government-economy interaction. In this sense of a “great match” social problems, which Conservatives agree do occur, are primarily due to individuals who cannot assimilate to the way things work. In other words, some individuals are simply skewed in terms of their reasoning abilities, especially in understanding that hard work in terms of employment, education, and family function are all at the heart of prosperity.

As I happen to be a criminologist, I tend to think that criminality provides a great example in reflecting on the nature of political/economic views and social concerns. For Conservatives then, criminals represent individuals who make poor choices, who do not or cannot internalize the merits of living in a free and opportunity-available society. This is due to poor judgment skills (why wouldn’t they choose to go to work for example), and/or to the need for some moral/spiritual/religious awakening (perhaps their faith needs to be strengthened), and/or to some psychological and/or biological malfunction (maybe they are just wired poorly.) In the case of the first, the behavior should be altered by requisite forms of ‘swift, certain and severe’ risk-reward punishment,  in terms of the second case, more faith-moral related counseling may be necessary, and for the third, some form of psycho-bio drug or medical procedures that may reduce anti-social behavior could be the remedy. These, with some forms of mix or match modifications, are generally the approaches to address criminality. And it should also be noted that this is also the same logic applied to those who are poor or without work or without education – they choose to put themselves in these conditions via poor judgment, etc. Therefore, overall public policy formulas in terms of addressing social concerns are generally pointed at providing self-help initiatives to motivate people toward working themselves out of their circumstance. (In the case of criminals, keep in mind that the most adequate response to criminality lies in styles of punishment that will be harsh enough to deter future criminality and encourage going to work in the alternative. This “being tough” has resulted in a strict criminal justice system, with more prisons and more prisoners being held for longer periods of time. An important aside to this point, is that as more criminals are deemed to have individual problems, more emphasis – and funding – will be placed on psychological and biological influences, versus sociological/environmental ones. This of course will have an impact on the education and research efforts of those who participate/work in the criminal justice arena – which has a corresponding relationship to what happens with the focus of various disciplines at the post-secondary level of study. And remember that these academic ‘connections’ hold consistent with other social concerns tied to unemployment, under-education, etc.)

Liberals on the other hand, while working under the same umbrella of consensus theory as well as the essences of democracy and capitalist/free enterprise frames, present a different logic.  For them, the economic system and the nature of competition can create some disparities, especially as access to opportunities in the system can sometimes be unequal. In short, the match of democracy and the economic system is not as perfect as Conservatives might suggest. Therefore, social problems like poverty, unemployment, under-education and crime should be viewed to a large extent as systematic rather than simply a manifestation of individual irresponsibility. Social problems therefore become a societal concern, which in turn means that the government, particularly one operating under democratic principles, should help in reconciling these type ‘systematic’ problems – creating programs/projects to help those left in less fortunate social circumstances. In essence, this would provide disadvantaged individuals with better opportunities in terms of housing, education, employment, etc. so they can better compete. This approach, again deemed appropriate in a fortunate and democratic society like the U.S., generally translates into more government sponsored programs, bigger government and the higher taxes that support both. (And as the liberal logic does not speak to committing totally to market answers in terms of work and opportunity – some regulation and even taxes may be in order – this too may reflect on the size/responsibility of the government.)

Here again, criminality provides a great example. Liberals were the proponents of rehabilitation, with the idea that those who commit crimes do so more out of their disadvantaged social situation than any individual shortcoming. This led to a totally different approach in terms of the philosophy of the criminal justice system and the players involved; essentially trying to ‘help’ criminals with more use of community corrections (versus prison), probation, vocational programs, counseling, etc. As with Conservative logic, this approach also had a corresponding effect on the education and research efforts – think again of what this means in terms of the academic, discipline focus within the post-secondary arena, especially as juxtaposed to the Conservative agenda. In short form, consider the differences between sociological/environmental/urban references and biological, bio-psychological considerations in terms of motivations for criminal behavior.)

So, with these differences in mind, and trying to set aside the personal racist sentiments that were occurring, lets again imagine these views unfolding within the context of the Civil Rights Movement. Conservatives would be seeing those in the minority and poor class as a group of people who simply could not assimilate to the essence of the free-market, democratic system. Providing them with rights and opportunities beyond those of the rest of society, especially via taxes and/or government involvement was simply off the mark of getting the people to understand the discipline, morality and hard work connected to being a responsible citizen. There was no need to move beyond what existed, this would create a system of dependency and in doing so speak to a society that was addressing equality in the wrong fashion. The fact was that people in the U.S. had the freedom to be equal – they just had to work for it.

Liberals, in support of the arguments inherent in the Civil Rights Movement that discrimination on both institutional and individual levels could no longer be tolerated, saw the provision of rights and opportunities as necessary in addressing the social concerns at hand. In addition to this, liberals argued that the free-market, as it had proven, could not on its own address the growing inequality in terms of employment/work/jobs. This meant that legislative strategies like affirmative action and quota systems had to be put into place to ensure legitimate responses to the unequal conditions, that program policies like the War on Poverty had to be implemented to lift people out of the poor social conditions that existed, and that legal considerations, particularly those at the Supreme Court level, would have to reflect the overall intent of civil rights accordingly. (Don’t forget about the significance of Supreme Court rulings and the endorsement of political views. There is no more clear an example than what happened in the context of the Civil Rights Movement and what might be considered the ‘liberal interpretation’ of Constitutional mandates related to “search and seizure” concerns as well the rights extended to those who were incarcerated. )

So the battle between these opposing parties was joined. Keep in mind that the battle also encompassed the sentiments of racism that had grown in the country, sentiments that, perhaps unfairly, connected mostly to the Conservative view. This extended from the fact that their logic implied/supported not only individual shortcomings in terms of success/achievement, but also the notion that keeping things as they were rather than altering the nature of opportunity was the way to continue. This was as compared to the Liberal view whose logic implied/supported the integration of opportunity in terms of the movement that would affect both the circumstance and station of minorities. (Coincidentally, the Liberal view also drew in those Conservatives who felt a connection to the collective crisis of the depression – and the resulting New Deal, as well as a connection to the collective ‘patriotism’ fueled by the WWII effort – a “we are all in this together” type sentiment.)

As noted at the outset, as the Conservative “right” and Liberal “left” battle ensued, there was another view/paradigm on the table amid the Civil Rights struggle – one that suggested that both Conservative and Liberals were not getting to the root of the problems facing the country. This was known as the ‘radical approach’ which involved elements that were, despite having legitimate reference in terms of past political, economic and social concerns (think of the union movement amid early 20^th century industrialization), rather foreign to American ideological understanding. Primarily developed by Karl Marx as the Industrial Revolution unfolded and adopted in countries across the world the analysis still appeared shrouded in an enemy’s cloak.  So let’s turn to that approach, keeping in mind its analytic import in both Civil Right and contemporary movement times.

How the “alternative view” unfolds:

A critical analysis of capitalism – As alluded to this approach finds its significance primarily from what is seen as a major flaw in both Conservative and Liberal analyses –  not referencing the difficulties/problems inherent in the nature of capitalism. In other words, it is proposed that neither Conservative nor Liberals adequately address social problems because they don’t/won’t address the true nature of capitalism – which can only happen by applying this critique. This “oversight” becomes more significant as the problems, on both national and international levels, are more intricately tied to our capitalist identity than to democracy.  With this in mind, the critical analysis develops along these general lines.

Contrary to Consensus Theory generally supported by Conservatives and Liberals (society sharing mutual beliefs and interests), there is Conflict Theory. This basically states that society is an arena in which struggles over scarce commodities take place. These commodities include natural resources as well as material and human goods, and power and influence will dictate control over those resources. In this light, every society is made up of different classes and interest groups and the most powerful, the “haves” will be represented in government and positions of authority. These powerful people will act in their own self interest, trying at all times to improve or at least preserve their positions.

The ‘have-nots’, those primarily without power, will end up trying to defend themselves against this power. This is in face of the fact that the economics and wealth of the system are controlled by the “haves” while the political arena/government promotes and protects the interests of the “haves.” Given these unbalanced circumstances, social problems will always exist, and the “haves” will only deal with them out of necessity – to placate or keep docile the “have-nots” who may be essential in maintaining the order within the existing system.

The Radical View: Growing out of this logic, radicals state that the U.S. represents a conflict-oriented capitalist system, not a democracy. It is an economic system that survives off the proliferation of profit, and profit development is primary to all else, including human development. In short, it is a system that will eventually consume the sum of its parts. Those with the most profit/capital (the ‘haves”) control and influence the government and use it to protect and increase their interests. Social problems are inherent in a capitalist system and won’t/can’t be resolved, simply by the nature of this profit motive, as well as the system’s competitive essence.  In other words, avenues to success will be limited and/or restricted, leaving significant numbers of the population out of the ‘means to success’ equation. Moreover, as success goals themselves are highly extolled, there will result a certain stress put on different members of society, a stress which in itself can be socially problematic and result in, as an example, a high incidence of deviant behavior. Radicals also argue that capitalists can come to actually capitalize on social problems – for example using people in socially problematic areas as surplus labor, a marginal work force that can be used to keep other workers in place and profits up. This may even translate into exporting jobs to foreign markets, especially if this “move” reflects on profit margin. In terms of the U.S., radicals argue that all this takes place while using the guise of democracy to misdirect public concern and/or to keep the general population in order. Among other things, this results in confusion, contradiction and a state of ‘normlessness’ as people try to explain and work at social problems referencing democratic ideals, when in reality capitalism is the practice that helps fuel many of the problems in the first place.

There are a variety of other considerations that radical raise within this critique of capitalism. There are concerns that reference the development of a dual labor force, one for the more advantaged, another for the less advantaged. Following this logic, radicals also point to the dual educational tracks, the private and more sophisticated public post-secondary universities to service the “mores”, the lesser public ones and community colleges to service the others. Additionally, they posit that there are dual forms of justice, one for the rich (which often eliminates involvement in the criminal justice system and also creates advantages in civil proceedings) and the other for the not-so-rich. It is also argued that the existence of this ‘justice duality’ helps fuel a criminal justice system that does not have justice at its core (some argue it is more aptly named the criminal “response” system) but more the management of a poor, marginally employed/educated class. Moreover, this happens while creating a criminal justice industrial complex that promotes jobs and profit in light (or shadow) of crime related problems. (Although Marx himself spent little time talking about crime, criminality, especially in the context of limited avenues of success and the illegitimate opportunity structures that develop accordingly, has become a significant part of this analysis.)

For Radicals then, in order to deal with the concerns of any society that has capitalism at its core the conflict producing system of capitalism has to be addressed. In the traditional Marxist view this means that the destruction of capitalism via revolution must happen. For others, change can occur via the evolution/education that flows from alterations within the mix of new, social-oriented socio-political-economic frames. What should then replace the capitalist system will be systems that promote human development/welfare as the primary focus of society over any profit motive – a change that would evidence a corresponding effect on the cultural instincts and motivations of both institutions and individuals in the society. The basic ideological frames proposed as alternatives to capitalism are:

Socialism – an ideological reference to the political, economic and social organization that advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of resources/wealth/profit by and for the public. In this sense, the government acts with these interests in mind.

Communism – this should follow socialism, and generally means the development of a classless, stateless system with common ownership and administration of the means of production for the benefit of the entire community/population.

It is not hard to see that within these frames, social variables, like education, health, work, housing, etc. would become a focus in order to make sure that the welfare of the people and the notion of equality are at the center of any economic engine. (For a rather paradoxical parallel, think of our military and the social fabric evident on any military base that speaks to “collective welfare.”) This of course means that the re-distribution of wealth, based on the strength of the economy, would be of primary concern. In this way, social problems would be minimized and the energy for collective approaches to the problems would be the rule. (In terms of criminality, it would be expected that in this type society one would see lower rates of crime, particularly with general property offenses, and a corresponding lower level of incarceration. On that note, the overall criminal justice measures would be directed at education and health, with more diversion and/or community oriented programs in place to lessen the use of imprisonment.)

 * * *

Like with the Conservative and Liberal logics, more can be said about the ‘radical’ approach. In general contrast, Conservatives seem at times to be implying that the nature of capitalism fuels the “survival of the fittest.” Yet they continually relate to the essence of democracy which tends to refute/deflect this nature. (Radicals could argue, “Just tell the people clearly how things are!”) Liberals at times are pointing to the inequalities apparent in the system, but don’t seem to want to clearly express those inequalities in terms of the nature of capitalism. (Again, radicals could argue “Just let people know how things work!”)

As noted, these “radical points”, particularly when tucked into the overall analysis, seem to have relativity to what transpires in the U.S., especially as one considers the issues tied to the Civil Rights Movement as well as those connected to our current state of affairs. However, in this context, there are also pertinent concerns regarding the possible shortcomings of the approach. These include it appearing at times overly utopian, the potential for lack of creativity within a system that seems more pointed at conformity than individuality, the stagnating and bureaucratic and even dictatorial results that can flow from the radical approach and the apparent failure, particularly in Russia, of the ideology. These concerns, like the other aspects, certainly demand attention. And the power that now extends especially from China, as well as the other “Americas” and yes, even Europe, suggests that the attention on all fronts is most assuredly warranted. (In this light, it is fair to inquire which parts of which views might provide the best national and international approach to the issues and concerns facing the U.S. and the world today.)

In any case, it is hard to imagine that, as with the Conservative and Liberal logics, we would not be willing to pull in for closer examination what has been offered in the Radical context, especially if we are interested in giving ourselves the best chances of becoming a better and more understanding society. In this sense, it should become clear to us what all views represent, how they differ from one another and what each brings (or doesn’t bring) to analyses that can help us consider what has and will happen with our country.

And there is one last point that appears important to note. All of what is said about ideologies, and political and economic frames should be considered in light of what human beings bring to the table. In other words, it would seem necessary in any discussion of this type to consider what human nature (including its spiritual aspect – perhaps a topic for another piece) can/will contribute to any society’s balance of the interests and struggles that exist between ‘economic and social man.’ In short, human nature, particularly as we look throughout history, may only be capable of so much. Therefore to expect perfection in any system may simply be moving beyond the bounds of human capacity.

In closing, let’s re-consider the point that in order to best think about, understand, and talk about all the issues facing the U.S. , as well as the entire globe (remember, it is “globalization” time), one cannot escape the fact that we must be willing to entertain all the variables that are  available to us.  And this “primer” was presented as a step in that direction. Said another way,  it was presented to help in navigating the often unclear and choppy waters of the political exchanges of the day, hopefully providing some logic/insight to better measure what is and is not being said.  As always, your comments, thoughts and suggestions will be welcomed on any one of the considerations raised, and please don’t hesitate to ask your leaders, and those who aspire to be, questions accordingly. Certainly nothing bad can come from open and honest dialogue – particularly at this point in time, we owe ourselves at least that.

 * * *

Editor’s note:

The article above was shared at a discussion held February 16, at the Biblioteca’s Sala Quetzal in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. The discussion,  “Considerations for better understanding our American Experiment”, was presented in relationship to the Occupy movement. For more on this material visit the Campaign for an Informed Citizenry website, www.cicorg.com and also my previous Ragazine articles.

— Jim Palombo

“Actionable Intelligence” 

Part II

Occupy Wall Street & The Rhodes Forum Redux

By Jim Palombo

Politics Editor 

Continued… (From Nov-Dec issue)

In last edition’s piece the notion of “actionable intelligence” – gathering and then putting into action knowledge/information – was referenced, as was my upcoming participation in the Rhodes Forum. This article is a follow-up to both of these. The first part, Occupy Wall Street, presents thoughts extended from my visit to Zuccotti Park in New York City just prior to my trip to Greece.  The thoughts reflect what should be considered an action plan that might develop from the frustrated yet powerful spirit evidenced amid the Wall Street demonstrations.

The second part, The Rhodes Forum, relays another action plan that follows from my participation in the Forum. The participation itself, among the many individuals from across the continents, was a most noteworthy venture. The issues, from political, economic and religious détente, to the environment, to technological modernization and global networking, to the roles of the media, education and the youth filled the conference discussions, as well as the intimate meetings that occurred at breakfast, lunch, dinner and after hours. And, while taking some time to see a bit of Rhodes, talking with the locals amid their economic crisis, I was provided with some sobering yet provocative thought, especially in terms of what I had just witnessed in New York City and was now discussing at the Forum.

That being said, the hope is that you find the parts, particularly in the context of action plans and the theme of education, significant in terms of concerns that relate to us all. And as always, please feel free to let me know what you think.

OCCUPY WALL STREET    

A criticism levied against the on-going demonstrations in the U.S. is that they appear disjointed and/or aimless in terms of any detailed plan to address the myriad of problems on the table. In other words,  and particularly given the variety of people and interests involved, what is the formula by which meaningful, long-term, political and economic changes can be made? In that context, consider this. The fact that the demonstrations could appear “aimless” points to the very essence of a major problem we face in the country today. In short, without the adequate ideological analyses of the political and economic concerns at hand, how can it be expected that a purposeful plan to address and/or alter the course of global events be even understood, let alone developed? Furthermore, and as adjunct to the problem, even if an aim could be formed, given the fact that there is little trust that extends to the government, leadership, business, the media, etc. it appears that a receptive target is difficult to locate.

With this in mind, it is being suggested here that one of the primary aims of the demonstrations be turned toward the concerns raised via the Campaign for an Informed Citizenry (www.cicorg.com) In other words, as a demonstration’s “call to action,” it should be stressed that we need to develop better educational efforts from which to assist us and, very importantly, future generations in making more clear, consistent and informed decisions. And, as implied at the site, the target should be education, particularly the post-secondary arena, which has as its primary mandate better educating our citizenry. All said another way, it would serve the interests of the demonstrations and the global concerns they are tied to, to shift much of the focus toward that area best equipped to help us sort through the difficult problems we face. This may in fact, be the most effective strategy for improving our future possibilities. (The idea of improving civic education in the post-secondary arena could be actualized without much strain – by designing a series of one credit, interdisciplinary courses, administered at every year of the academic experience. The courses would integrate those experiences into ideological understanding, helping individuals on a consistent basis to better attach to both national and international concerns. It may also be that this move in the post-secondary arena would fuel similar attention – perhaps with the assistance of post-secondary players – at both the secondary and adult education levels.)

What is being proposed is certainly not a panacea, and the most effective results may not be as immediate as we would like. Yet, although work needs to be done to detail the process, the initiation of this type effort will provide the necessary focus, energy and spirit from which a better civically-equipped public will evolve, with solutions in the offing that may at this moment seem out of reach. We have done this with science and technology – it is no doubt time to do it with civic matters. All we have to do is look out our own doors to recognize the need.  The demonstrations certainly have provided the impetus. And it’s time for those in post-secondary education to make their move accordingly. (It may be time to lobby education, and those lobbyists who lobby for it as well!)

 The Rhodes Forum

As noted in the introduction, the Forum presented a grand opportunity to share thoughts and ideas with people from around the world. My particular role at the Forum was with the media panel, as a presenter of issues connected to my work as a public policy advocate and writer/journalist. In that context, I offered a review of the difficulties that exist in trying to discuss political, economic and social problems and strategies in a country that struggles with ideological understanding and dialogue. (See the May-June 2011 article in Ragazine, “When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss.”) And in addition to attending a variety of interesting and thought provoking sessions over the four days, I also addressed both the education and youth panels in terms of the model reviewed below. Again, this represents the action plan provided to the Forum in light of my participation. (For more on the Forum, please see www.wpfdc.org)

The Social Research Group Model

Consistent with the mission of the World Public Forum this model recognizes the growing need to develop better international dialogue concerning social problems, as well as the need to integrate the youth/student population in current and future policy planning.  And although it has been the tradition of the Forum to not extend itself beyond the discussion-dialogue agenda, this grass-roots, cost effective, non-partisan, integrative project speaks to the notion of “actionable intelligence” (knowledge, information and wisdom that can be acted upon), something that given its upcoming ten year anniversary, may well be of interest in terms of increasing the range of Forum objectives.

In its non-complex form, the model is presented in terms of small centers that would be part of/ annex university systems across the globe. Staffed by undergraduate and graduate students from any number of disciplines, and with faculty assistance, each center would be responsible for first articulating the ideological context (political and economic frame, with reference to any religious impact) under which the people of the country live. From this level, any number of social concerns (like crime, poverty, education, jobs, health, etc.) can be examined to ascertain the extent of the problems, as well what has been offered to address the problems. This information can then be measured against the ideological frames to better analyze the form, function and success of the policies in place. This analysis would also point to potential ways/designs for possible future strategies.

As the centers will be located in different countries across the globe, it will be expected that the information gathered, while valuable on its own, could then be cross-referenced with other centers studying the same social concerns at the same time under their respective ideologies.  This will provide the students with a grand communication tool, giving them the intellectual and practical power to think about important global issues, and to share their information accordingly. In the end, this should greatly improve understanding and dialogue from both ideological and social problem standpoints.

Several points should also be noted. The first is that the use of the internet, particularly the information provided by web strategists at the Forum, strongly supports the implementation of this international format. In other words, it is clear that there is significant opportunity to integrate the SRG model into an effective communications, website network. The second is that the organization of international centers can be initiated by universities whose countries were represented at the Forum. (Perhaps at the outset, a university in Russia, Austria and the U.S. would suffice, with more to be added as the format develops.) And, given that much of the resources are already in place within the university settings (particularly the student power/energy as well as interested faculty members) the cost of the program should not be restrictive. One can anticipate that with several universities and overall project development, particularly with the “grass-roots’ effort in mind, the initial year’s costs/budget would be minimal, especially as compared to the potential outcomes. (It could be that limited stipends will be provided to participating universities.) Finally, and related to both cost and awareness points, it should be expected that this format, once in place, would be attractive to any number of people and/or professional groups. This would mean that funding for center projects may well be available should this become of interest.

In short, this SRG model seems an ideal fit for the World Public Forum’s current and future plans. This is further evidenced by the acknowledgement given by those who participated in the Dialogue of Civilizations this past month, including those in both the Education and Youth Panel discussions. With this in mind, it is hoped that you will consider the support and development of the model in the context of a “World Public Forum project.” Again, it would represent a most fitting endeavor for the upcoming year, one that matches with the integrity and impressive agenda of what has already been brought to the Forum table in the past.

**It is no doubt that we have a lot of work to do, now and in the future. What is suggested in both the Occupy and Forum pieces is that education, with its mandate of making the world better understood, has its role in what we do and how we proceed. It may in fact, be the most significance arena we can turn to develop the long-term strategies and solutions we all hope will come. I will certainly keep you posted as to what develops with these possibilities.

General Research Concept Review

At each center, three levels of interest for creating a design from which problems can be analyzed and forecast. This would then allow for public policy input in terms of developing strategies and direct service practices.

Level 1) – detailing the economic and political ideological frame (including any religious references) – for example whether operating under corporate capitalism and democracy or state capitalism and socialism or communism, or under a certain function of church and state.

Level 2) – detailing social concerns – what are the social concerns and how are they integrated with the dynamics at Level 1? (What is implied at Level 1 as to what can occur at Level 2, and vice versa?)

Level 3) – detailing what social policy and practice exists – given output at Level 2, what should be recommended to address concerns in terms of both policy and practice?

**This process can be but into motion via the consideration of one social concern at the centers (crime for example) which can be plugged into the ideological frame and then examined as suggested.

About the author:

Jim Palombo is politics editor of Ragazine.CC. His bio appears on the “About Us” page.

In considering “actionable intelligence”

By Jim Palombo

At first glance, I think you have to admit that this (actionable intelligence) is an intriguing term. After all, actionable – making something happen, and intelligence – having a substantial knowledge base, are words that aren’t commonly linked. However, when put together, there is a sense of obviousness – that they can complement one another in a way that translates into making something practical happen with knowledge.

I first heard this term when I was working in Mons, Belgium. It was some fifteen years ago, and I was a faculty member in the criminal justice and sociology disciplines with the University Maryland’s European Division, a program closely tied to our military and state department overseas processes. As was my custom, and because my teaching and traveling presented some rather unique opportunities, I found myself involved in a variety of projects and discussions.  At that time, and because I was headquartered at a very important international military base (SHAPE), I became interested with how the U.S had transitioned from a U.N. focus to that of NATO. (This is indeed an interesting transition, involving a variety of political and military considerations, that some argue happened to better reinforce U.S. control over decisions affecting our military presence in the world.)  In this context, I was able to consider ideas more closely tied to the military goings-on, one of which was the notion of “actionable intelligence.”

In brief, the term was applied to that amount of intelligence gathered that should be acted upon. This was compared to intelligence that might not be considered useful, or useful only in a future sense, but not actionable at the moment. Of course, as might be expected, some intelligence bordered somewhere in between, so the measurement was not an exact science. Nonetheless, qualifying “actionable intelligence” spoke to a most interesting decision making process, so the term itself stayed with me.

Although I liked what the term embodied, I really didn’t consider it much more until recently. I heard it mentioned in a spy-thriller movie, and as I was smiling at recognizing its use, I couldn’t help but think how it might apply to some of my current work/concerns. And as is evidenced by this piece, it seems it does.

Let me explain. I will shortly be traveling to Rhodes, Greece for the Rhodes Forum (www.RhodesForum.com). This is a gathering of political, economic and social thinkers who are concerned about global issues, and I was invited to participate through my association withRagazine. In considering what I was going to discuss, which includes issues tied to some of my previous articles here in Ragazine as well as concerns raised at the Campaign for an Informed Citizenry (CIC) website, www.cicorg.com, it occurred to me that what we are all after these days is intelligence (or knowledge) that can be acted upon. And although the scope of the Forum gathering will be different, it has become an unfortunate trait with many conferences for this not to be produced. In other words, I wanted to make sure that I underscored the “knowledge into action” point as a major part of my contribution to the Forum discussions.

In this sense, here is how this term-integration plays out. As clarified at the CIC website, it is evident that most of the U.S. public is not well versed in understanding ideology – the political and economic frames that related to how societies like ours and those throughout the world actually function. This means that our public is somewhat in the dark when it comes to understanding, among other things, the important relationship of democracy to capitalism.  And this speaks to a number of inquiries: Isn’t America at least as much capitalist as it is democratic? In fact, aren’t the problems facing the U.S. more tied to our economic structure than anything else?  And if so, what exactly is capitalism? And how do liberal and conservative views relate to that structure, as well as the notion of democracy? And equally as important, how might socialism and communism, frames that a majority of the world attach to, be compared?

Of course, this lack of understanding makes it difficult for us to sort through the national and international concerns of the day. And this lack almost certainly has to have an impact on our ability to gather and/or develop adequate intelligence that can then be responsibly acted upon. (This is especially so if the information/data/research out there is not predicated on the full nature of our ideological elements to begin with.) Now it is not the purpose here to push upon the reader some form of academic article, a piece that would stray from our more reader-friendly approach here at Ragazine. But for the sake of what has already been noted, let me present a brief review of how this lack of knowledge may actually be harmful.

For me, as a criminologist, there is no better way than in referencing crime, as it remains one of the social problems that seems always most troublesome. In studying crime it is fair to approach the concerns from micro, mid and macro levels. (This can be the case with other social problems as well.) In other words, we can look at the incidence of crime from: micro, individual, biological and psychological considerations (what motivated the behavior at that level); to mid, sociological considerations (what might be happening on structural-environmental levels with families, communities, social agencies, etc. that might relate to motivation); to macro- the political and economic frames under which societies live and labor (what variables at this level fuel behaviors at both individual and structural levels.) Of course, in the context of identifying these motivations, responses to the behavior will follow in conjunction with what is supported at the various levels. (This ‘motivation to response’ equation is evidenced in terms of the major objectives related to the development of any criminal justice system.)

Of course, at every level of analysis (and there are certainly some crossovers among the levels), it would seem very worrisome to leave out the essence of our economic motivations, which are linked closely to capitalism, in trying to understand and then respond to concerns like crime.  Among other things, the cultural instincts prevalent in the United States (behavior, given particular cultural emphases, that becomes over time almost innate) should have a correlation to the pushes and pulls of the economic system. And in the U.S. is there a greater ‘”push or pull” than that embodied within our capitalist system? This is nothing more than simple logic, is it not? (I caution the reader that this is not to say that capitalism is “bad.” It is to say that its nature needs to be better understood.)

So, it is with this reasoning that “actionable intelligence” will be brought to the table. In doing so, guidelines referencing its application need to be considered, including:  1.Is the knowledge, both already gathered and about to be gathered, verifiable in both scientific/theoretical and practical ways? 2. Is this knowledge clearly transferable/relatable to people and the organizations they are part of? 3. Is it understandable in political, economic and social policy terms; in essence, does the scope of the knowledge allow for designing legitimate action plans and problem solving?

All said another way, if we are going to create reliable intelligence-gathering efforts and research projects, ones that can lead to legitimate policy initiatives that will in turn have a legitimate impact on the problems we face, then we have to include/reference all the variables at hand. And this would have to include the nature of capitalism, especially within the most advanced capitalist system in the world. Importantly, this approach is not party to any political, or any favor for that matter – again, it is just common sense. (There is a baseball analogy that fits very well here. If one is interested in understanding the game, could this happen by referencing all the aspects of the game except for the pitcher and catcher? As this is the primary mechanism by which the game is played, the answer has to be “of course not.” The same should be said in terms of examining what goes on in the United States and our reference or lack thereof to capitalism. In other words, to leave either essential mechanism inadequately noted/defined/explained will simply not lead to any legitimate understanding of what is happening on the field.)

So this will be my focus as I enter the discussions in Rhodes – to talk about the need, particularly in the U.S., to better understand ideological/civic considerations. (And hopefully to exchange ideas on an action plan that might assist us accordingly.)….  I expect the discussions there will be informative and provocative, so I hope my contribution is seen in this light. Stay tuned for the outcome upon my return – it will be contained in the next edition of Ragazine. For the moment though, we certainly welcome your input on the ideas already presented. As always, your thoughts on our thoughts are what make for a dialogue essential in addressing our vexing state of affairs.

Addendum:

During the presidential debates, we will continue to hear thoughts/ideas/sentiments relative to what is and what should be happening in our country. Keep in mind that for the most part whatever is being said is being said within the context of the limited analyses noted above. This means that in the freest, most powerful country in the world, people will be voting on their leader based on something other than clear, actionable knowledge. Among other things, this means that the relationship of faith, emotion and reasoning will be on less than stable ground, which certainly presents a troublesome portent of things to come.

About Rhodes Forum:

Every autumn since 2003 the ancient Greek island of Rhodes hosts a session of the World Public Forum, Dialogue of Civilizations, called the Rhodes Forum that brings together public figures and statesmen, academics, religious figures and representatives of the arts, mass media and business spheres from all over the world. The sessions of the WPF Dialogue of Civilizations proved the urgency and efficacy of the Forum by bringing the focus of world public opinion to the problems of intercultural dialogue and the need to work out instruments to make interaction among cultures and civilizations possible. The results achieved by the Forum give a hope for further harmonization of international relations and strengthening of stability in the world.

About the author:

Jim Palombo is a public policy advocate, social worker, and retired professor of criminology and sociology. He travels and writes primarily on social issues, and has authored two books, “From Heroin to Heresy” (Wm Neil Publishing) and “Criminal to Critic-Reflections Amid The American Experiment” (Rowman and Littlefield.) He is co-founder of the Campaign for an Informed Citizenry and serves as Ragazine’s Politics editor.

 Eleanor Goldfield

“A Spark to Do Something …”

An Interview with Eleanor Goldfield:

Singer, Songwriter, Urbane Guerrilla

By Jim Palombo, Politics Editor

As various articles in the past editions of Ragazine have demonstrated, we receive a number of emails, both positive and negative, from those interested in what we are saying in our Politics section.  It was in this context that this month’s piece unfolded.

I received a note from Eleanor Goldfield indicating that, via her band, the Rooftop Revolutionaries, she was involved with music and politics in a way that seemed consistent with what we put out at Ragazine. As she was interested in integrating her musical efforts with other forms of art, she was making contact with Ragazine accordingly. In following up on her suggestion that we talk more, we did just that via e-mail, and eventually we met in New York City to chat face to face. The interview that follows is a result of that meeting.

But before you read on, there are a few things I would like to say. We are in dire need in the U.S. of energy and commitment pointed at sorting through the difficult problems that confront us all. In that context, I trust that you, like me, will find the young woman you are about to meet most impressive – in design, in creativity and in her concern about the political, economic and social future of our country. The fact that she has integrated all this into the musical group, Rooftop Revolutionaries, accompanied by their theme to “Do Something” under the banner of “Art Killing Apathy”, with a business model (and portfolio) that states that this is “a way to combine the culture of hard rock and the culture of political and social activism into a revolutionary business” speaks volumes to the socially motivated character and initiative that are much needed in today’s world.  These traits are difficult to locate in Ms. Goldfield’s generation, and unfortunately the same holds true for mine.

As one who shares similar concerns about the future of our country (among others, see the previous Ragazine article “Where Ignorance is Not Bliss” and our Campaign for an Informed Citizenry website noted within:  www.cicorg.com) I am extremely happy to have met-up with Ms. Goldfield – she is indeed someone who is actively and with great intensity “doing something.”  And on this point, I sincerely hope that we will be working together with projects in the future, projects that will have the future of America clearly in mind.

With all this being said, I believe you will find the interview more than of passing interest. I also anticipate that you will come away with a sense of having met a person who you will be hearing more about. And as we always encourage here at Ragazine, please feel free to respond with whatever thoughts your feelings may prompt – certainly what Ms. Goldfield offers will prompt some. Hopefully, and consistent with the Rooftop Revolutionary message, they will be ones that suggest you “doing something” as well.  (I would encourage you to visit the band’s website – rooftoprevolutionaries.com, and also Eleanor Goldfield’s blog – rooftoprevolutionaries.blogspot.com – especially her 4^th of July piece.)

– Jim Palombo, Politics Editor

 * * * * * 

Jim Palombo: How do you respond to the notion that you might be trying to ‘capitalize’ on the apathy that is present — turning it into a marketable product(s) that really will be no different than any other commodity out there, with no appreciable results in terms of “making a difference” but making you famous with some money in your pocket along the way?

Eleanor Goldfield: I have nothing against making money — hell I have to make money and enjoy spending it on things I love. I’ve been homeless, don’t like it. I’m still poor, don’t like that either. Money is not the root of all evil. Plastic packaging is.

Looking at my music, many think I hate corporations. That’s true and false. I don’t have a problem with corporations as an entity. Way back when, corporations were only allowed to exist on a charter — and that charter had to provide some kind of public service. Once that had been completed, they were for the most part, dissolved. The growth into the ‘corpotacracy’ we experience today has been a long road of failed legislation and un-informed voter decisions. And that’s what I have a problem with: corporations being the template for our government. A government should not exist to make money, plain and simple. Bottom line is that bottom lines should not be the focal point of a government. When corporations are in charge of governing a nation, the thought and care of the people becomes far secondary to the amount of money available through various business ventures — namely war, conquest, privatization and free markets. We can see the effect of this today, a home-based lab we tested extensively in South America, Asia, and recently the Middle East. But I digress…

Back to me — I would like to make money. I would like to not have to fiscally debate the cup of coffee I get on my way to the bus. But it is not my primary concern. I am not entirely philanthropic — I believe in helping people to a point, but that the only way to truly help someone is to allow them to learn and find their own strength — else you will have a country of sheep, just an ideological flop from what we have now. I think I can already say that I am not like any other commodity, having mixed the business of music with the business of political activism into, not just a band, but a movement. And, in reality, the only real way to make a difference is to get out there and become known — not necessarily “famous,” but known. Just as people in the music industry tell the kids coming up, if you’re doing this for money, there’s the door — you’re in the wrong business. Revolutionary thinking and acting is not known for its glamorous lifestyle. You don’t fall into it, you blaze into it, knowing you want to do it. I am not driven by greed, just the will to change things, and to allow people the ability to again, Think. React. Do Something.

Q: Describe yourself and the music — are you a ‘rebel?’

A: Think I need more space for this one It’s hard to describe myself, I must say. Without inching too far into the abstract, I am a culmination of all that has happened to me, that which I consciously recall and unconsciously, perhaps more the latter. I am a product of the space and time in which I find myself. The music is the same idea. Although couched under the umbrella of hard rock or alt. metal, the band is a culmination of our history, our thoughts, our experiences, the music we listened to, the art we grasped, and how all this has allowed us to see the world, the wrongs, the ills, the thrills and joys. How being a musician and writing about sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll in today’s world is a disservice to the art form (as in, you are not creating new art, just regurgitating old themes in mostly a cookie cutter, uninteresting, formulated medium) and to the people who consume it. Something Brian (my business partner) and I consciously decided at the beginning was that we did not want to fit into the confines of any one genre. We both had songs and melodies, lyrics and ideas that had previously “not fit” other bands. Well fuck that! That’s us — that’s our creative being — the idea of just chucking it aside because it’s not this or that became ludicrous. And we stand by that today. If it sounds good, it is good, as Duke Ellington once said.

Like the band, I do not rebel to rebel. I probably did when I was younger, but doesn’t every teenager? Now, there is so much thought behind each word, each action. And that is how it must be. I used to preach, now I teach. I used to fight everyone who disagreed. Now I discuss, I learn, I grow, I continue, forwards. Progress comes as much from realizing your own strength as accepting humility and owning your falls, and wrongdoings. The two play off each other and bolster the other. In that same breath, I have always made it a point to rebel when necessary. I got into fights, standing up for bullied kids. I stood up on a soap box even when there wasn’t one to stand on. The art of picking fights is something I have learned over the years — living in North Carolina, I picked too many for my own good, at times. But there is too much going on to be complacent, there is too much wrong to sit idly by and not rebel against. Now, not all people have the personality to stand up or pick fights. That’s OK. But we all have the ability to add our energy, add our thoughts, our names to a movement. Not all black people went out into the streets. Maybe they put on events at local churches, offered food or moral support. A movement, much like a band, is not just what you see. The people behind the scenes have just as much to do with the outcome as those in the spotlight. Regardless of where you want to be, everyone can rebel without being loud and ready to fight. Rebellion against dwindling rights, falling economies, sagging infrastructures, and blood soaked soil begins with a thought — an idea, which will lead to more. Without that, you can be as loud as you want without actually saying anything.

Q: What is it that makes you who you are/your motivation?

A: Ah, deep questions… I’m not even sure what makes me who I am. I feel that life is a constant journey to understand oneself, not to mention the world and others around you. There are caverns of my mind and soul that I know I will never uncover. And progressively, I am becoming OK with that. What I find exciting is the quest for knowledge and knowing that no matter how much you know, there is always so much that you don’t, and will never know, before you die. It’s intriguing with a subtle spice of solemnity. Momento Mori as the slave would tell the Caesar. Beyond those philosophical musings, what makes me who I am is where I’ve been, where I am, the people around me — past and present, my mom’s egg and my dad’s sperm

As far as motivation, that is the one part where I don’t have to work. Motivation comes to me every time I read the news and well, exist. Every morning I wake up and have about 10 news sources and outlets that I scan for news, including foreign publications. The information I find there is enough to push me forward — to keep fighting, to keep writing, thinking, acting and creating. It is where I hope others will find motivation — in knowledge. Nothing makes you hunger for knowledge like knowledge — nothing makes you want to create, to change, to do, like thinking — fueled by even a subtle fact, a random tid bit in the newspaper — you never know. Motivation can be found in so many places — you don’t even necessarily have to look for it, you just have to allow yourself to see it when it passes by.

Q: Given this, what are some of the difficulties you face — personally as well as in the music business?

A: The difficulty usually comes when this type of information becomes overwhelming. There is so much wrong in the world and obviously news outlets capitalize on this information, that it is often times quite difficult for me to continuously seek and fill my mind and soul with it. The music part is never perceived to me as difficult. I love it. Singing is without a doubt an outlet, as is writing. The one flows seamlessly into the other. If it weren’t for my ability to write and to sing, to find a medium for this information and the associated frustration, I would probably already be in a padded room.

In terms of the music industry, it is a very interesting and unique time. Never before has the music industry been in such a flux. It refused to hop on the internet train and is now desperately trying to stay afloat, clinging to cookie cutter bands and popular music with atrocious deals and contracts — hence why our group and movement seeks investors, not record labels. I want my band and I to be in the sole position of deciding a creative direction, particularly since we have such a specific, creative message. Furthermore, I don’t want to be indebted to ‘the bigs’ for the rest of my days, shelving projects that I worked my ass off on simply because they don’t think they’re marketable in today’s industry. I pride myself on not being marketable by industry standards. I don’t wear fishnets on stage, I don’t wear makeup, I don’t sing about kissing boys, girls, sunny days and noodle salad. I feel there are more important things to discuss and I will no doubt make many more enemies than friends with that viewpoint, but so be it.

In that mayhem, there is also excitement. Bands don’t have a blueprint — it’s not as it was: get good, get signed, get famous, die. Today, bands are forced to be creative business minded entities. From marketing to merchandising, tour dates and locations, niches, all these things are vital aspects that end up being a full time job. I don’t tell people I have a band. I have a start up business.

In terms of other frustrations, though you didn’t ask about the political frustration, I will impart my opinion anyway Being an artist and political automatically plants the assumption that you’re a liberal. I’m not. I’m not on either side. I’m a centrist. I think both parties are equally full of shit and up to their necks in corporate blood money. Frustration comes when people so indoctrinated in the two-party system feel that in order for change to be realized, you must hop on the left or the right. No. Come back to no-man’s land and make a stand. All the most significant legislation in this country’s history has been made from the center. If we are ever to move forward, we have to stop pushing left and right and find our center.

Q: Is there some type of movement afoot? Are there others that you feel some type of connection to? What about the older guard — say Bono, Springsteen, (and newer ‘older’ like Rage Against the Machine)?

A: The movement is more of a stagger at the moment. Again, as I said above, people and organizations feel like they have to latch on to one side of the political foray to get anywhere, The Tea Party, for example. The original idea of not wanting to bail out banks was fine. The execution — what the fuck? That’s the problem here. People are not teaching or being taught, they are preaching or being preached at. A country of left and right sheep doesn’t make a movement. An educated, informed, engaged public does. That’s what I’m after.

In terms of connection, I look to Rage, System of a Down, Springsteen, Bono — I admire what they’ve done and appreciate their efforts. As much as I admire them, they all miss a key ingredient in their message: action. Today, it is not enough to showcase the issues, as we did in Vietnam. Today, we have to call people to act, we have to call people to educate themselves. The closest I can think of would be Serj Tankian and Tom Morello. They are two people who have really worked hard on the political stage as well as musical. But again, there isn’t enough — there isn’t enough movement or suggestion. My goal is not just to give people information, but to give people a spark for that information — a spark to Do Something.

Q: Where do you see yourself in ten years?

A: I see myself touring, not just the U.S., but the world. I recently met a man from Jordan who said it would be interesting to arrange a few shows over there. Their view of Americans contrasted with the band and the message would be a happy contradiction — one I hope to see more of. This country gives itself a bad name by allowing the stupid and the blood thirsty to be the loudest. Raise your voice and you will hear the world respond in kind.

And to elaborate on what I mean by touring, I don’t just mean, play a show, get in the bus and fuck off to the next city. I’d like to organize protests, marches, rallies — I’d like to organize meet-ups where professors and intellectuals get a share of the mic before we play — where people feel the rush of the music as well as the rush of pride, dignity and duty for being American.

Q: How about our country? Are you two connected?

A: As a citizen, I can’t NOT be connected. The fate of this country is my fate too. I don’t mean to sound dramatic, but it is true. The choices made (or at this point, not made) every day by our “representatives” and the powers-that-be affect us beyond that day, that week, that month. This country is nearing, if not already standing at, a precipice. We like to hearken back to the good old days, but we can’t really go back there. We fear the future — the rising power of foreign nations. We tend not to live in the present — we push away vital decisions and shun problems. But they will be dealt with — either after the fact or preferably before. As I write this, we are less than a month away from defaulting on our debts. What happens if we do? Who cares? Around the world, this year has seen significant uprisings from people in situations not so different than our own: young unemployed masses aggravated at lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, lowered standards of living and higher price tags. What spurred them? What will spur us? At what point do you take the bitching at the bar over a beer to the streets? It will be interesting to see, and I intend to remain highly connected and engaged throughout this nutty experiment.

Q: You being one of only a few women doing what you are doing — what does this fact make you think/feel? Who are your role models? And somewhat related, what do you suppose the public perception of you might be?

A: I think it’s a factor of our surroundings, our cushy, or at least perceived to be cushy, environment. I’d like to point out that there are many women, braver than me, fighting for freedom and rights in places like the Middle East where education is not an option, not even a bad one, where faces are heretical and simple acts such as driving are considered revolutionary. I consider them my role model but I’d also like to add the disclaimer that having a vagina has very little to do with my activism. I’m not a feminist, at least not in the present paradigm. I don’t think that women should be above men, I don’t think men should suffer for trespasses done towards women in the past. Equal rights are based upon equality… shocking thought, I know. There’s no such thing as reverse sexism — it’s just sexism, any way you slice it. I think women are too quick to fall back on the fact that they are women, when in fact sometimes they just aren’t up to the task. If the best person for the job is an Aryan man, so be it. If it’s a black female, that’s great too. Dropping our prejudices does not mean reversing them. We can only move forward successfully if we allow all questions of race and gender fall to the inner workings of mind and soul.

As far as other role models, anyone who thinks freely and acts upon those thoughts — the ones who appreciate their strength, not their god given strength either. Believe what you will but do not hand over your failures and triumphs to God(s) — they are what make you strong, unique and irreplaceable. People far overestimate the power of false deities and hugely underestimate their own strengths. We the people can, as my slogan likes to suggest, Think. React. Do Something.

The question of public perception is tricky. Even in my 24 years, I have experienced a wide range of reactions to my reactionary nature. I’ve been threatened, hit on, hit, harassed, cheered, booed, congratulated and much more. Public perception mirrors the current zeitgeist of this country: many extreme views pushing away from the center and few moving forward in the center. I have far right bigots and chauvinists sending highly sexualized, inappropriate threats and propositions, I have far right house wives saying I’m a disgrace to the American woman. I have far left women saying I’m a disgrace to the forward thinking woman, old environmentalist friends chastising me for not focusing solely on the plight of mother earth, and then the rare few who push away the cobwebbed fray and support and inspire me to continue moving forward, not left and right. I’m sure as my journey continues, these experiences will be ever magnetized — it’s a good thing I have a drummer the size of a barn door and a dear friend who works as a bodyguard.

Now, and I hope in the future, I will have the ability to see past the mindless criticism to the source of these harsh words — much of it, is ignorance and arrogance, an extremist platform incapable of allowing outside thought. It is important that while we learn, while we move forward, we remember to stay humble, to constantly question our own stance and opinions against new facts. That is the only way that we can grow.

 – 30 –

The Rooftop Revolutionaries: Eleanor Goldfield/vocals; Brian Marshak/lead guitar; Karim Elghobasi/bass; Lamar Little/drums. See/hear more at:

www.rooftoprevolutionaries.com, and http://rooftoprevolutionaries.blogspot.com/ .

___________________

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Ms. Goldfield’s words, like her music, speak for themselves – powerful and provocative stuff that very well supports her call to action. I want to add only that they also evidence something that should present a sincere worry to the older generations. In short, it could be easily argued that we have left Eleanor and her contemporaries in a very precarious situation – one that provides myriad complex problems with limited avenues from which to legitimately address them. It is only natural, then, that an atmosphere of resentment, confusion, untrustworthiness and uncertainty has resulted.  And among other things, this has pushed the anger, disenchantment and cynicism that become evident when talking with young people these days. Said another way, and if for no other reasons than our integrity and responsibility, we should not be willing to let this be our legacy,  especially in light of what many of us have been afforded. Our mandate, our own call to action, so to speak, should be clear: to get involved with the matters at hand in ways that matter − to delve into what we don’t know as much as what we claim to know – to be willing to go beyond thinking and doing what is best for just our individual selves and not for all of us. This is a tall order, in very difficult times. Yet to do anything less would be, well, it would simply be less. 

Palombo’s interview with Eleanor Goldfield was conducted via an e-mail exchange after a meeting in New York City in July 2011.

Darfurnica, Nadia Plesner, 2010

Darfurnica: Casualties

in the Intellectual Property Wars

Editor’s note:

Presented in the this month’s edition is a piece sent in by Leon Tan. It’s a twist on the integration of  art, power and politics – a relationship not always complementary, and one with us as long as we humans have been entertaining any notions of society. The details and nuances of the relationship tend to tell us a significant amount about what is and isn’t happening in our times, and Tan’s submission is no exception. So take a read and let us know in your low or high brow opinion the thoughts that his piece evokes. And keep an eye toward the September/October edition, as we will be featuring another ‘art to politics’ article with a focus on the musical group, The Rooftop Revolutionaries.

— Jim Palombo, politics editor

by Leon Tan, Ph. D.

The painting, Darfunica, by Danish artist Nadia Plesner (based in the Netherlands) is conceived in homage to Picasso’s 1937 painting Guernica. It is also an expression of political claims by the artist, who makes the point that the obsession with Hollywood celebrities in popular news media means that genocide in Darfur (or any number of places) could take place without even making the headlines. Plesner finds this situation unacceptable, explaining her painting as follows: “In Darfurnica I have mixed some of the horrible stories I have learned about Darfur over the past years with some of the Hollywood gossip stories which made headlines during the same time period.” The idea, it seems, is to juxtapose the luxury world of Hollywood celebrity with the horrors of Darfur’s ongoing civil war.

Darfurnica came to my attention only because of my interest in issues of copyright. As it happens, the artist and work are at the centre of a legal battle initiated by LouisVuitton, who objects to the bag being carried by the boy in the middle of the painting. Louis Vuitton alleges that the use of the LV pattern on the bag constitutes infringement of its intellectual property rights. On 27 January 2011, Louis Vuitton obtained an ex parte court order against Nadia Plesner from the Court of The Hague.

On her website (http://www.nadiaplesner.com/), Plesner counters Louis Vuitton’sclaim by asserting that the court order violates her rights to free speech and artistic freedom under Section 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In this case, Plesner is correct, as Section 10 does in fact guarantee freedom of expression, which specifically includes non-interference by public authorities. In fact, the court order also violates Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not to mention the right to participation in cultural life specified in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Conveniently ignored until very recently in the contentious politics of intellectual property, the conflict between intellectual property legislation on one hand, and human and cultural rights legislation on the other, deserves greater scrutiny. For legal institutions have in the main apparently forgotten the existence of such rights and frameworks under continuous lobbying pressure from ruthless corporate oligopolies. A related case in Sweden involves the Swedish government prosecuting organizers behind The Pirate Bay, under direct pressure from the U.S. government and a predominantly American media oligopoly (Tan, 2010). At no time did the Swedish court pause to reflect on its own violations of international frameworks such as the UDHR and ICESCR, not to mention the ECHR.

As a matter of fact, ‘The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has previously recommended that every state conduct a general human rights impact assessment of their IP regimes.’ (Shaver and Sganga, 2009) No mention has yet been made by the courts in either the Netherlands or Sweden of any such assessment. It is timely therefore, for legal institutions to educate themselves concerning their own obligations under the aforementioned frameworks for human and cultural rights, and to cease delaying rigorous human rights impact assessments on national, regional and international intellectual property frameworks. In the meantime, it is encouraging to see that Plesner filed her own lawsuit against Louis Vuitton to have the order lifted.

References:

Leon Tan, ‘The Pirate Bay: Countervailing power and the problem of state organized crime,” CTheory: Theory, Technology and Culture, 2010, 33(3).

Lea Shaver and Caterina Sganga, ‘The right to take part in cultural life: On copyrightand human rights,’ Wisconsin International Law Journal, 2009, 27.

About the author:

Leon Tan (PhD) is an Art Historian specializing in aesthetics, social theory, contemporary art, and the history of networked art and media. He previously lectured in Art History and Psychotherapy in New Zealand, before relocating for part of the year to Sweden in 2009.

When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss

… you can always try education

By James Palombo

This edition has to do with a project I’ve found myself involved with here in Mexico. Interestingly however, the project is not really about Mexico. In fact it is about our country and what can be perceived as our ‘civic depression.’ In order to clarify what has transpired in a  simple way, I offer the following article that will appear in the April 8 print of San Miguel de Allende’s Atencion newspaper. It explains to some extent the how and why of what’s happening. I should also add that San Miguel has a relatively large ex-pat community which helps explain the implied interest. After reading the article, I trust you will then proceed to our new website — www.cicorg.com — which, as indicated in the article, references more of the substance of what is actually at point.

As always, the hope is that you will read through what is presented, think on it a bit, and then offer some thoughts/observations of your own. And certainly, should you wish to be more involved in what we perceive as a significant (albeit small and grass-roots) effort, then by all means let us know. After all, we cannot escape the fact that despite our differences regarding the American experiment, we are all in this together.

* * *

CIC Launches in San Miguel

By Frank J. Gaydos

In November of 2010, James Palombo presented a discussion at the Literary Sala based on his last book, “Criminal to Critic: Reflections Amid the American Experiment” (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). The book relates his experiences as he transitions from criminal and convict to social worker, professor, world traveler and writer. In the context of his story, significant concerns related to political, economic and social America are raised.

Palombo’s story itself is certainly most interesting.  But what caught the attention of several people at the Sala discussion was his point that the American public seems to be in a ‘civic depression’ – a state of affairs caused primarily by a lack of understanding of the ideological principles that frame the nature of the U.S. political system  and those of major countries throughout the world.

When it comes to understanding the tenets of liberal and conservative logics and how they relate to the concepts of capitalism and democracy, and competing concepts such as socialism and communism, “we are generally in the dark” says Mr. Palombo.  The end result is that without open discussion and dialogue in our educational institutions, it’s extremely difficult to find solutions to our current national and international concerns as well as determine future options.

It was from this “civic depression” notion that the Campaign for an Informed Citizenry was developed. In essence, it occurred to individuals at the Sala that Mr. Palombo’s thoughts should be extended to a broader audience.  As a result, an Advisory Committee of concerned U.S. citizens living in San Miguel was formed and the website (www.cicorg.com) was developed.

The CIC is in the process of creating a U.S. university tour, to begin in the Fall of 2011, based on the synergy of the book and the ideas/people attached to the Campaign.  Our hope is to achieve a more open, clear and non-partisan dialogue regarding the ideological concerns and differences that are of major importance in today’s rapidly changing world.

Please join us on April 12, at 5 to 7 PM at the Biblioteca Teatro Santa Ana for a presentation/discussion regarding Mr. Palombo’s book and the new CIC organization.  Many of us are ex-pats, but we still have family, social and economic ties to the United States and it’s important for all of us to participate in efforts directed at helping our young country in these most difficult and trying times.

The “American experiment” must continue to grow and evolve and the direction depends on “an informed citizenry.”

About Frank Gaydos:
Frank Gaydos is a retired organization/management development consultant to energy industries and the Department of Energy (DOE). He is on the advisory board of CIC.

* * *

The following thoughts appear to be related to any discussion developing from the issues at hand, so please include them in terms of your overall analysis of the material presented.

Particularly in terms of the Campaign for an Informed Citizenry website, there is an implication of the lack of public participation in terms of ideological dialogue.  As indicated this may be due to any one of the following or a combination of all:  public apathy; a sense of powerlessness; some form of “always being number one” delusion; the elements of human nature. The CIC suggestion is that education may be our only way out. If nothing else, it will help us in sorting through our assumptions about what may be at the center of our public concerns.

That being said, let me add a few other considerations. Given my experiences at micro, mid and macro level social issues, it has become apparent that when someone comes along who seeks to investigate and explain what lies hidden or under-realized in any traditional way of thinking/doing, the disturbing and uncomfortable picture painted often makes the people who are included in that same picture, almost in a defensive posture, point an accusing finger at the painter himself. I would suggest that if you feel you might be behaving in this way, consider that one should take heed of any genuine experience, especially in that we can no longer afford not to listen, even if it means having to think and feel in ways that are unfamiliar.

A second consideration has to do with ideologies themselves. For a good number of years, and certainly over the course of my lifetime, our country has led the way over the mastery of ‘things.’ This certainly doesn’t make us any better or worse than any other society, and has in fact fed us quite nicely on a variety of levels. But it doesn’t take much to realize that there is a new ‘will to power’ appearing in the world, spearheaded by China and existing throughout a great portion of the world. (Think of Cuba, the Americas other than the U.S., Africa and the Middle East.) In essence, this is a challenge to U.S. processes and particularly to our ‘business of politics.’ (Given the developments in China alone, particularly with its most intriguing mix of communism and capitalism, and considering the dynamic of dialects, one can legitimately ask:  “Is communism really dead?” An answer may be: “No more than democracy!”)

Now this consideration is noted not to offer any value as to which ideological frame may be better or worse. Instead, what is suggested is what is on point with the CIC – that ideological education is a must in order to grasp what is going on in and around our world. In short, power and politics do not stand still, and it should be our mandate to understand the varying pieces that continue to feed the motion.

– JP

…………………………………………………………..

thePHOTOGRAPHYspot

©Chuck Haupt

Something has to be said for those stately steel gray skies. Amazing how you can capture the layers in the sky being reflected on the surface of the water. This one is on the coast of Maine.

Chuck Haupt is photo editor of Ragazine. You can visit his blog at www.chuckhaupt.com/blog.

For thePHOTOGRAPHYspot submissions, please see guidelines at ragazine.cc/submissions/

“We are all Khaled Said.”

Think graffiti under fire!

By Hala Salah Eldin Hussein

Albawtaka Review editor

(This article appeared in somewhat different form in Alahram weekly newspaper.)

You don’t come across such eloquent voices of objection every day, not in Egypt anyway. It was the celebration day: February 11, 2011, former vice president Omar Suleiman announced that Hosni Mubarak was to step down from office. Crowds had flocked to Tahrir square, already crammed full of people, to rejoice in their victory.

Egypt, you are my special mother.

“Egypt, you are my splendid mother.”

Trying to push my way through throngs of people in jubilant mood in the Square, or rather, swept along with the crowds till I reached the nearest exit on Sheik Rehan St. – you don’t choose where you are heading with a multitude of one million souls in one place – I was struck by these brilliant graffiti, probably woven within earshot of bullets or among tear gas, by unknown citizens.

In random blurry lines, or in brightly professional ones, these artists – probably talented young people who never scribbled graffiti before – have woven paintings that they must have known municipality workers will probably paint away. In fact, they could not even have known for sure whether their demands — now glaring with articulated statements on the wall, screaming to topple the corrupt regime and introduce political liberties and social justice — would be met.

No doubt some of these young artists have been met with beating, massive arrests, and killings. Yet they continued to paint within a short distance of the Ministry of the Interior building. Future retribution was possible, which might explain lack of signatures, whereas several names accompanied those on a wall in Mohamed Mahmoud St. bringing out Egyptians’ joy of freedom in all its splendor.

This is what happened on 25.

One graffito remembered Khaled Said, a young man killed by brutal policemen in June 2010, in Alexandria. You could tell that graffitists are internet users, engrossed in the Facebook revolution and social-networking sites since the words “We are all Khaled Said” written in one part of the wall is actually a Facebook group demanding legal action against those guilty of killing the young man. However rural backgrounds can be detected. Rudimentary scenes from the Egyptian country are lucid, too, pigeons, verdancy, country walls, footprints, in all colors, illuminating part of the wall. It’s uncertain when these drawings took place. They must have been drawn in stages, from the first sparkle of protests till the triumph, “He is down,” says one graffito. Another graffito would mark a new post-revolutionary change in Egyptian behavior, “From now on this is YOUR country,” it said. “Don’t throw garbage in the street. Don’t give bribes. Don’t forge documents. Don’t submit to injustice or tyranny. Make a complaint against any service that fails to fulfill its duties.”

One can only imagine how difficult it must have been to smuggle paints and brushes into this turmoil of unprecedented demonstrations. These markings — initials, slogans, and drawings, written, spray-painted, or sketched — are evidence of the artistic spirit of the revolution. Somehow amidst all the clamor and bloodshed, young artists came armed with their brushes and paints, pallid colors and shiny ones, to light up the wall with pride and determination, “Revolution till victory,” one design read, and another, “Hold your head high, you are an Egyptian.” Some designs glorified a particular day, “This is what happened on 25″ while others portrayed scenes reminiscent of rural origins. They have expressed gratitude, “Glory to martyrs”; rage, “Leave, NOW” and its future outgrowth, “Seeking revenge for martyrs”; joy, and the longing of joy.

Your love is freedom.

These graffiti, in political perception, were much like statements proclaimed by the leaders of non-violent protest movements. They were mature, vigilant, and passionate, street art forever shedding light upon political spontaneity and patriotism, as in the words, “25 January, oh, how sweet is my country.” They represent the true beat of the streets, all over, free as air, sending a message to all.

About the author:

Hala Salah Eldin Hussein is the editor of Albawtaka Review, an Arabic independent (non-governmental) non-profit online quarterly concerned with translating English short fiction. In January 25, 2011, the Egyptian people went into the streets to topple the regime, and in 18 days, after 30 years, they did it. Says Hussein, “I used to wake up every morning telling myself, ‘This day I’m going to do it. I will topple the regime.’ Now we are free. We are planning to re-build the nation from scratch, and the sky is the limit.”  Alahram weekly is only distributed in Egypt.

More photos at: http://albawtaka.com

Leaf of a Cannabis plant

Collateral Damage

This edition is a follow-up to the last one which pertained to the illicit drug trade. What is presented is an article done by Professor Randall Shelden, “After all, it is a war.” As with his writing in general, I am confident that you’ll find his presentation informational and thought provoking. I say this in part because it’s a true statement, particularly in relationship to the volume of work he has produced over the years on a variety of criminal justice related concerns. I also say this because Randy is an old friend and colleague, as well as someone who, over the course of his long teaching career, has maintained a particular integrity with his classroom efforts — something not so easily found in academia, especially given the continuing corporatizing of our post-secondary processes. (This is another issue that may well be addressed in future articles.)

I would like to also mention a few other points concerning Professor Shelden. It was with his help some thirty five years ago that I was able to pull together an education program, while incarcerated in the Nevada State Prison system, from which I could develop a legitimate and worthwhile career.  Coincidentally, he also contributed to my last book, which basically tells the story of this journey. So in some ways, the presentation of his article allows me to pay a small tribute to a great guy, someone who truly extended a hand when a hand was needed. At the same time of course, the article allows our readers the chance to consider significant pieces that relate to our American puzzle. So thanks on both counts, Randy.

Again, I trust you will enjoy the read. And, as always, please feel free to offer your own comments and thoughts accordingly. (By the way, you can read more of Randall Shelden at www.sheldensays.com).

— Jim Palombo, Politics Editor

After All, it is a War, isn’t it?

By Randall Shelden

In 2006, a report was published by the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank that has been unrelenting in its criticism of the drug war, largely because it represents one of the ultimate examples of the overreach of the government into the lives of citizens.  The report is called Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America by policy analyst Radley Balko.

San Bernardino police SWAT team

I came across this study as I was reading yet another exposè of the racist nature of the criminal justice system in general and the drug war in particular.  This one is called The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, by Michelle Alexander.  In a chapter called “The Lockdown,” Alexander, citing Balko’s study among others, discusses the militarization of the police, a term that criminologist Peter Kraska has frequently used. In many ways crime control has taken on many of the characteristics of the military, or what Kraska has called the “militarization of criminal justice.” Writing in the Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Kraska makes the point that there is an underlying ideology of militarism that clearly has been borrowed in the “war on drugs”, which he defines as “a set of beliefs and values that stress the use of force and domination as appropriate means to solve problems and gain political power, while glorifying the means to accomplish this – military power, hardware, and technology.”

This also involves a “blurring of external and internal security functions leading to a more subtle targeting of civilian populations,” plus an ideology that places emphasis on the efficient solving of problems that require the use of state force, the latest and most sophisticated technology, various forms of intelligence gathering, the use of “special operations” (e.g., SWAT) in both the police and within the prison system, the use of military discourse and metaphors (e.g., “collateral damage,” “under siege”) and last, but not least, collaboration with “ the highest level of the governmental and corporate worlds, between the defense industry and the crime control industry.”

This process can be traced to the early years of the Reagan administration when they were trying to get the law enforcement establishment to go along with their desire to crack down on drug offenders.  Law enforcement was at first reluctant, since it would take time and resources away from their pursuit of more serious violent and property offenses.

What the Reagan administration did was to, in effect, bribe law enforcement with money via large grants.  In 1981, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, which began to funnel military equipment to police departments.  Congress passed a series of laws that provided exceptions to the famous “Posse Comitatus Act,” passed in 1879, that prohibited using the military for civilian policing. Balko writes that these “exceptions allowed nearly unlimited sharing of drug interdiction intelligence, training, tactics, technology, and weaponry between the Pentagon and federal, state, and local police departments.”

Police Armored Rescue Vehicle.

As a result between 1995 and 1997 alone, the Pentagon gave to law enforcement agencies all over the country the following: 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers!  If that was not enough, Balko reports that “between January 1997 and October 1999, the agency handled 3.4 million orders of Pentagon equipment from over 11,000 domestic police agencies in all 50 states. By December 2005, the number was up to 17,000. The purchase value of the equipment comes to more than $727 million.”  Among the items included were “253 aircraft (including six- and seven passenger airplanes, and UH-60 Blackhawk and UH-1 Huey helicopters), 7,856 M-16 rifles, 181 grenade launchers, 8,131 bulletproof helmets, and 1,161 pairs of night-vision goggles.”  After all, a “war” had been declared.

The rest is, as they say, history, and that history included the arrests of millions on drug charges, plus the deaths and injuries of hundreds of innocent civilians.  Not surprisingly the bulk of this “war” has been waged on poor communities of color.

Balko testified before a House Subcommittee on Crime in July 2007, and during that testimony he related several instance of police drug raids that resulted in the death of innocent people.  Most such raids are based upon tips from informants and quite often the information provided turned out to be false.  On many occasions the police went to the wrong house.  One example, among many provided by Balko, was a drug raid in Atlanta “that killed 92-year old Kathryn Johnston. Ms. Johnston mistook the raiding police officers for criminal intruders. When she met them with a gun, they opened fire and killed her. The police were acting on an uncorroborated tip from a convicted felon.”  He also cited a case in Durango, Colorado, where the police “raided the home of 77-year-old Virginia Herrick. Ms. Herrick, who takes oxygen, was forced to the ground and handcuffed at gunpoint while officers ravaged through her home.”  It was the wrong address.  He cited similar raids in cities and towns all over the country.  He testified that “800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.”

Quoting Kraska, Balko notes that “the total number of SWAT deployments across the country increased from a few hundred per year in the 1970s to a few thousand per year by the early 1980s to around 50,000 per year by the mid-2000s.” Today, virtually every city has a SWAT team, and most have more than one.  Many small towns  have SWAT teams, such as Eufaula, Alabama (population 13,463). SWAT teams were set up primarily to defuse an already violent situation, such as hostage taking.  Today they are mostly used to “break into homes to look for illicit drugs, creating violence and confrontation where there was none before.”

A SWAT team in action.

As already noted, among other issues include the fact that literally hundreds of innocent people have been killed during SWAT drug raids. One case, reported by Balko on Reason.com concerns the death of a 7-year-old black girl named Aiyana Stanley-Jones this past May in Detroit. The police were looking for a murder suspect who was in the apartment above where the little girl lived.  He surrendered without a fight.  The police had an opportunity to arrest the suspect earlier in the day but instead waited until the middle of the night.  Despite the existence of various children’s toys around the outside of the house and being told by a neighbor that there were children living there, they raided the downstairs apartment first in order to secure it.  Apparently the girl’s grandmother, when confronted by the police, tried to defend herself and the little girl.  One police officer accidentally fired his weapon (whether this is true is subject to debate) and a bullet struck the little girl, killing her instantly.

In Overkill Balko goes into great detail about the abuse of citizens with this military-style repression.  He mentions the city of Fresno, California, where for many years the SWAT team was used for routine, full-time patrolling in high crime areas. The Violent Crime Suppression Unit, as it was called, was given carte blanche to enter residences and apprehend and search occupants in high-crime, mostly minority neighborhoods. The unit routinely stopped pedestrians without probable cause, searched them, interrogated them, and entered their personal information into a computer. “It’s a war,” one SWAT officer told a reporter from the Nation. Said another, “If you’re 21, male, living in one of these neighborhoods, and you’re not in our computer, then there’s something definitely wrong.” The VCSU was disbanded in 2001 after a series of lawsuits alleging police brutality and wrongful shootings, though officials claim the unit was dissolved because it had “fulfilled its goals” (p. 11).

The Fresno SWAT officer quoted here could have easily added that he was talking about a black male over 21 and that “these neighborhoods” were mostly segregated black communities.  After all, the statistics about race and drug arrests make clear that the rate for black males has consistently been far greater than for white males, as documented by Human Rights Watch, among so many other studies.  Balko quotes a judge in Boston who stated that the drug war in his city was “a proclamation of martial law . . . for a narrow class of people — young blacks” (p. 17).  Peter Kraska was told by a SWAT commander “When the soldiers ride in, you should see those blacks scatter” (Balko, p. 18).

One of the most recent stories of botched drug raids (one of the latest among thousands over the years) is described by WSB News in  Atlanta as follows: An elderly Polk County woman is hospitalized in critical condition after suffering a heart attack when drug agents swarm the wrong house.  Machelle Holl tells WSB her 76-year-old mother, Helen Pruett, who lives alone, was at home when nearly a dozen local and federal agents swarmed her house, thinking they were about to arrest suspected drug dealers.

Another story in Atlanta involves the killing of a 92-year-old black woman who was the victim of a police raid at the wrong address. “When it was clear that the officers had the wrong house because no drugs were found, though, police still decided to plant marijuana on the 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, who was shot to death in the raid.”  A wrongful death suit resulted in a settlement for $4.9 million to her family.

The web site stopthedrugwar.org has a long list of similar botched SWAT raids around the country in recent years.  One case is typical: In Buffalo, New York, September 2008, “Terrell Pennyamon, who suffers from epilepsy, was struck in the head by the end of a shotgun when police broke down the door to his family’s residence. Looking for heroin, the cops raided the Pennyamon’s apartment by mistake, terrifying their six young children and his wife. When police later raided the ‘correct’ house, no drugs were found.”

And so it goes in our unrelenting “war” on drugs.  When there is a war, there is “collateral damage.”  Meanwhile, millions of dollars worth of illegal drugs continue to be smuggled into the country every year and millions of citizens continue to use these drugs, while hundreds die needlessly and thousands are sentenced to prison every year.  Since blacks are arrested in numbers far greater than their percentage in the general population (despite the fact that they are about as likely to use drugs as whites) and since a person’s civil rights are taken away from them after an arrest for drugs and they cannot live in public housing, nor vote, among other things, is it any wonder that Michelle Alexander calls her book “The New Jim Crow”?

………………………………………

All photos in the public domain from Wikimedia Commons

James Palombo Photo

As our readership is continuing to develop, here is a piece from San Miguel Allende, Mexico, that was forwarded in the context of my last article on Cuba. It’s not exactly a politically based article, but it does represent some of the substance of the Cuban culture, and I trust you’ll find it interesting, as did I. The piece is followed by a bit of prose-poetry that I did, which seemed to capture a bit of the varying social and political landscape of the country. The article originally appeared in the newspaper Atencion San Miguel.

— Jim Palombo, Politics Editor

Out of Cuba, 2007

By Lou Christine

The consensus is that the one-time architectural marvel called Havana is a decaying city coming apart at the seams. Havana is hot and humid. The place is a bit pricey and there’s hardly anything to buy. The food’s insipid but the music’s spicy. And the women do live up to their erotic reputation! From my perspective, after spending five days in Havana, all the above rings true. Yet my slant here is strictly a thumbnail sketch of Havana, and can’t be compared to the whole of the nation and its people.

The economic effects from the 40-some-year, U.S. embargo and Soviet pull out have both isolated and reduced Cuba into an impoverished existence. Havana’s past splendor is apparent, as is its present anemic condition. One could bray, “What the hell happened here? Who’s in charge?” Putting those negative aspects aside it’s the Cuban people and their unique spirit that makes the place fascinating.

I skipped the government provided tourist hotels deciding to rent a second-floor apartment (casa particular) in a run-down barrio of old Havana. The neighborhood could be compared to tenement sections of the South Bronx. Despite the rough surroundings I found Cubans friendly, accommodating and hospitable. Hardly anyone seemed serious, if anything most acted sophomoric other than the downtrodden that have been crushed by the system or bad fortune.

My landlords were Jesus and his wife Dora. The apartment wasn’t spiffy yet clean with essentials. The affable couple had me feeling welcome and comfortable as I began to experience a slice of life in old Havana. For some reason they both called me Louie.

“Louie! Louie!” was shouted by a voice in my direction as I bopped down the block the following day. It was Jesus. In Latino fashion he hand signaled me to hold up. Catching up he latched onto my elbow only saying another Louie while leading me into the back patio of a dingy bar. The TV blared. Some Cuban pretty boy was up on the screen singing his heart out. Jesus ordered two cold cans of Crystal and got down to business.

Jesus said, “Louie,” two more times. We were up to five Louies and I still didn’t know what was on his mind. Evidently, the night before, I mentioned an affinity for baseball when Jesus clicked on the apartment’s TV with a game in progress. Sipping his beer and moving his hands in a certain way, Jesus began to paint a vivid picture. It was in 1951, Yankee Stadium, the top of the ninth and the great, Boston Red Sock, Ted Williams, was at bat. The Yanks were ahead by a run, with one out, and a runner on third. Jesus’ uncle had promised the then nine-year-old a trip NYC. to see a big-league game and his favorite player, Yankee, Joe DiMaggio.

Jesus paused his story to elaborate how he revered DiMaggio and how jolting Joe was “El Mejor!” After the brief DiMaggio eulogy Jesus continued telling me how he was seated in the left-center-field bleachers. Williams launched a screaming line drive seemingly out of centerfielder DiMaggio’s reach, yet the Yankee Clipper got a good jump on the ball and made a spectacular run-saving catch. Jesus became more animated describing how the Red Sox runner on third tagged up and began to race home to tie the game. Gracefully, according to Jesus, DiMaggio maintained his wherewithal, retrieved the ball from his mitt, and rifled a bullet toward Yogi Berra, the Yankee catcher, to make the tag out and to win the game! Jesus then just slowly nodded his head and looked away for the moment as he savored the past.

Those are the indelible, first-hand memories the Cuban has of his hero, Yankee Stadium and his beloved baseball. Then Jesus extended his chest somewhat telling me how he went on to become a hard throwing pitcher and a pro prospect, saying he threw a number of no hitters. In 1958 he signed a $5,000 minor league contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers but all changed with the revolution and his dream to become a big leaguer died.

From the looks of things, in present day Havana, many dreams died back in 1959. I am not qualified to judge if Uncle Fidel’s system is a travesty of justice, or a continuous-and-challenging socialist experiment with a severe case of spinning wheels disease. On the surface things don’t look all that prosperous. Yet discounting the obvious pitfalls, when ferreting a bit deeper, there’s something striking about the place.

Up to the point with Jesus I was having a love-hate relationship with the city. I almost wanted to leave after fifteen minutes. There were waiting lines at immigration and customs and longer lines for everything else. But regardless I could also sense there’s a special feeling, being in the mix with the multi-racial Cuban people that had me feeling so alive!

In Jesus’ case, most of our conversations covered the golden age of baseball. He doesn’t think much of today’s big leaguers. We searched our brains making a list Major-League 500 home-run hitters, those with 3000-hits and 300-game winners over their careers. Once back home I checked. Jesus and I nailed about 90% of the 60-some baseball playing icons. I seemed to be the called-for soundboard to talk the about the sport we both love.

I was living mostly a one-block existence. Fellow sanmiguelense, Jeffery Brown, was my neighbor. We shared shots of Vodka with some men, out of the trunk of a ‘54 Plymouth resting on its axles. There was Yasser, mid-twenties, strong and handsome. He inquired about gyms and weight-lifting equipment in the States. He hates his name. Seems he was born on the day Yasser Arafat visited Cuba and therefore stuck with the moniker. One of the men, Manuel, Jesus’ brother-in-law wanted to know about present day cars. He frowned some when I told him today’s autos are all about computers and that back yard tune-ups are out of the question. He and his cronies were then installing a clutch into a ‘49 Hudson. The men had us feeling at ease and the Vodka helped. We took more swigs and posed for buddy-buddy photos. I asked about the Soviet influence. Were they still around? Manuel said the Russians never really fit in, that they built decent roads but ugly buildings, along with bad running cars, motorcycles and tractors, then the Ruskies left them in a lurch. All and all the men agreed that the Russians presence meant little one way or another, other than the introduction of Vodka.

After a day and a half  “Louie! Louie!” peppered my ears from various directions each time I took to the street. I smiled. They smiled back. Take in part, it’s their block, and residents on such close-quartered blocks don’t miss a blink. Ironically I was residing on Calle San Miguel, the length of your average street here in San Miguel. The row homes were three-storied, with six-to-eight apartments in each. Most were occupied with Havanans, yet I observed tourists with luggage exiting taxis then disappearing behind doors.

To appreciate Cuba one has to seek out the silver linings from what seems like a hopeless situation. The system offers Cubans little incentive, so goes a desire to upkeep buildings and infrastructure. The streets are teeming with life 24/7. That memorable, far-out alien bar depicted in the film Star Wars seems pale compared to the outlandish street scenes in Havana. There’s big-time stoop life primarily because of the stifling heat and humidity; kids play baseball and grab ass using home-made baseballs fashioned from rolled up white tape and broom sticks and sticks of all kinds are swung bats. A parked, banged up ‘55 Chevy might be first base, and broken manhole cover second, a curbside third, while home plate might be a cutout portion of a cardboard box. Some kids just play catch or handball. With the ’50ish cars and street baseball alike, boyhood memories flashed in my mind’s eye. I could have been any one of those kids. I saw some sun-baked basketball courts, mostly deserted, marred with potholes and lopsided backboards, minus baskets. Kids played soccer with makeshift balls and even tin cans.

The plethora of street scenes are both poignant and heart breaking; men get haircuts in the street, transmissions from vintage American cars, now jalopies, are yanked out with brute strength and then jury-rigged as to get them back on the road. The shelves of the few available tiendas are bare, except for nine or ten items; people look disheveled and beat, except for the exquisite smiles they dole out toward neighbor and stranger alike; the pulsating beat of Latin music pours out of barred windows and open doorways. One day I went out to the avenue and bought eight pork sandwiches. Problem number one: The sandwich maker didn’t have a bag. I think I’m resourceful and tried to buy a bag but didn’t possess the right currency, but a kind lady gave me one. Then I was in search for mayonnaise or mustard. I would have been better off seeking out the Holy Grail. None was to be found, but low and behold in the basement of a foreign investment market I found mayonnaise. Voila! But didn’t you know the computerized cash register system crashed and there would be no more sales that day, mmmmm, dried pork sandwiches.

Tourists are forced to buy a currency called CUC. It’s a government sponsored rip off regardless if cashing dollars, Mexican pesos or Euros. Ten to fifteen percent comes off the posted exchange. You’re getting a Cuban CUC for about a dollar-thirty. Prices in tourist joints are more expensive than here and food wise it’s mostly lousy, ill prepared with inferior ingredients. I ordered Chow Mein in a Chinese restaurant, only thing there were no noodles.

As earlier noted, countless old Fords, Chevy’s, Hudson’s and Studebakers rumble along Cuban boulevards as rusted hulks held together by who knows what? The state of public transportation is atrocious. People are crammed tight into deteriorating buses with no room for their guardian angel. With the heat, sweat and mass of humanity one can only gasp and say, “but for the grace of God.” Taxis are too expensive for most except for community cabs that are packed to full capacity, dropping some off and taking on others. Many hitch hike, standing in droves, off sidewalks, waving down anyone who might pick them up. As the pecking order goes the young and better looking chance to hitch a ride rather than the elderly or decrepit.

The men are forward and the women receptive. I eyeballed mostly women whose dress is alluring and enticing, dolled up in some tawdry chic that beckons with the hotties featuring enticing curves and plunging necklines, primarily, because in reality, that is all they have to show for themselves. In most other places chicks wiggling their behinds in such a way while planted in exaggerated high-heels and wearing short-shorts would be perceived more like cheap strumpets. Inside Havana that look is hardly out of the ordinary. The men’s dress on the most part was shabby and wrinkled. I suppose in the men’s case their well-defined bodies do the talking.

Love or lust is constantly in the air. Even the most unsightly tourist, fat, bald or snaggle-toothed can be seen as a desirable Romeo, that’s of course if he has fresh money in his pocket. That easy availability of women mostly arises out of hunger and need. Cuban women do show case a certain one-of-a-kind sensuality that seems inbred. Such overt actions later on might place a few extra staples on the family table. Horny men attracted to such vivacious women might just shrug their shoulders and sum, “When in Rome…” or those with conscious may ask themselves if they are taking advantage of an undeniable female commodity or participating in some sort of lurid exploitation? I don’t have the answers.

Under the surface breathes an oppressive state. Jesus warned me there are street-corner snitches and police everywhere. A woman just sharing a taxi or walking down the street with a foreigner can be whisked away by the police for doing either. Often consequences have females spending a couple of months in the slammer and a mark on her record to boot. Girls constantly talk and worry about the police.

The government is well aware of the prostitution yet for the hooker in Havana it’s a Catch-22 situation. They have to be tricky to procure tricks. Cuban women of any profession are discouraged from frequenting with tourists other than in the daytime in public places. Only female employees are allowed in hotels. Yet just outside on sidewalks of some tourist, oriented, boom-boom establishments, sanctioned by the government, the girls gather in bouquets and are permitted to enter if accompanied by a tourist. Then it seems the government turns a blind eye that makes the whole man-woman thing seem ambiguous at most. Many, in actuality, are not professional streetwalkers but country girls merely in search of a meal, some drinks, a nice time and pocket money. Yet the pocket money they receive for their charms often equals a month’s pay. For men, reciprocated affection offered by women is almost automatic; “You were nice to me so now I’ll be nice to you.”

Cuba does hold claim to the world’s lowest AIDS rate. Reason being: Random HIV tests. At first people infected with HIV were whisked off to a sanitarium, for life. In 1998, the government permitted patients who have been properly indoctrinated and treated to return home but under a state of house arrest.

Many young gals from the countryside apply and anxiously wait for coveted visas permitting them to stay in Havana up to two or three months. They apply for the get-away visas under the guise of schooling or to visit relatives. Yet on the most part, probably because of the wireless coconut, they know Havana has brighter lights and a slew of generous men from around the world who seek female company — their possible escape. Cubans do not have access to the Internet’s super highway. They can e-mail and telephone but are kept much in the dark about what is taking place in the outside world. They see only what the regime wants them to see, period!

I queried some about their impression of foreign men and men in general. My sampling had some of the gals telling me they don’t like Italian men, especially those from the south. Women, even streetwalkers, have their dignity and the girls said Italian tourists were rude and presumptuous in a place where being presumptuous is a gimme. The French, Greeks and Spanish, in their view, act stodgy and above them. German and Scandinavian are said to be polite yet distant. When I asked about Mexicans or other Latinos the girls pointed to their elbows and patted them with their other hand, a sign that indicates cheapskates. “And they lie,” said Magalia, saying how they promise marriage faster than the rest. She likes American men, primarily because they are generous but they are loud and brag too much. As for Cuban men, Magalia made a face and extended her open hand and counted off her fingers one by one emphatically, “Uno, dos, tres, quatro novias, siempre… ellos el pejor!”

During multiple conversations with Havanans the men were more restrained about Cuba’s situation and I refrained from pushing the subject. Men of age wanted to speak about glory of the past. Taxi drivers openly spoke about long hours but the money was great. Only one cabbie tried to sell me that Cuba is a wonderful place where everybody is equal and it’s only getting better. There are devilish billboards showing Bush and Hitler as equals. Posted images of Che are everywhere yet there aren’t many images of Castro. Women looked to the future and were more expressive about the state of things. “Get me out of here!” shouted out from within them.

“Everybody’s afraid of the police,” one women told me in a low voice inside a tourist restaurant as two cruised outside. “They make us go to rallies.”  For bigger rallies thousands are bussed in from the countryside with a 48-hour pass to stay and party in the capital city but only after attending a mandatory rally. “We cheer real loud, because if we make the government happy maybe they will cut short the rally and we can go party.”

I find it ironic that the Marx’s and Engle’s utopia of socialism has failed worldwide and today that sort of none functioning lifestyle hardly survives other than in a few bastions of repression like Cuba. I find it just as amazing that a taxi driver or tour guide can make ten times the money compared to the government stipend trickled down to a trained doctor, engineer or scientist. The general population is rationed some rice, beans and few other staples on a monthly basis that lasts no longer than a week. That’s the reality of life in today’s Cuba.

Then, in spite of the failed dream, there is the elite who enjoy the status of privilege due to government appointed professions and housing. Cuba claims to have a 100% literacy rate and free medical for all. Cubans expressed to me that the bureaucratic hoops they have to jump through for health care isn’t worth the hassle unless there is an absolute emergency.     Havana’s embassy row is as stately as it gets, where upscale embassies bask along side botanical finery while facing a wide, sparkling thoroughfare.

Hotel Nacional is a first class hotel. Its staff is bilingual and sharp. Black, sleek, Mercedes’ taxis wait outside for tourists or big wigs in the government. Yet the gal tending the bar yakked on the phone and finished her smoke before waiting on us. There are a few square blocks, surrounding the capitol, impressively restored and pristine. Hotel Raquel glistens with marble floors and columns’ indicating a regentrification is in vogue yet out of the reach for the average Cuban. The Museum of the Revolution and Art Museum are well cared for as are a few other buildings and cathedrals in the vicinity. That’s about it.

Maybe I should have done more clubbing or drank where Hemingway once did, or maybe I should have delved more into the artsy social scene and ate at trendy tourist traps or rode around in a horse drawn carriage. Maybe next time. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the music. One has to be dead to not appreciate the hot Latin tunes along with the enticing lyrics and tight rumba rhythms. That part of Cuba’s soul can never be replaced or squashed by a warped system. It’s their national treasure. When Cubans play or sing music they appear as free as birds. But when I peer into the tired and worn down faces of Jesus, Dora and the all the others who have been denied the advancements of modern society, regardless of Capitalism’s own pitfalls, I can’t help but think about Cuba’s once glorious past, minus Batista, and what would have occurred if Cuba wasn’t so abused and neglected.

Perhaps my mind-set parallel’s Jesus’ the same way he pooh-poohed today’s spoiled and pampered Major League baseball players who he doesn’t think that much of. Just as Jesus wonders about what happened to his beloved baseball, I wonder about what happened to the first city of the new world which might have us both asking, “Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?”

* * *

Cubaism

Flat, spread into being
Two dimensional, cut-up, cut across
Located, dislocated
Ordered disorder
Contrasting, contradictory
Turning inward, turning away
Existential, god
Poorness without poverty’s soul
Hopeful despair
Tearing a smile
Redemption, dereliction
Ridiculous, sublime
Darkly lit canvas
Art-life, life-art
Still life
For all to see

Quizas

(Perhaps)

By James Palombo, Politics Editor

It was less than a two-week visit. One could argue that this was hardly enough time. And I was mainly in one city, more to argue in that there was so much more to see. Yet, I’ve been around the world, Europe, the Middle and Far East, Central and South America, but nothing has affected me quite like this. A truly profound experience you might say.

Photos by Jim Palombo

It’s not a large island, but it’s a country with a storied past. Its beauty and riches are well documented by explorers and visitors throughout its captivating history. Its dangers have been equally chronicled via the days of pirates, mobsters and revolutionaries. It’s a place of contrasts and contradictions, with its people having all of this compressed into their souls.

I was awed by the mysterious influences of time and place on the people. I noticed this almost as soon as I arrived, especially with simultaneous and contradictory feelings being elicited; inspiration-deflation, caring-non-caring, right-wrong, beauty-beast, ahead-behind, all of these overwhelming my senses. It was like being in the space between the right thing to do and the right thing to think, between preach and practice, or social man and economic man – a gap where a God and even sin might find value. Again, it was a quick yet powerful sensation. In fact, I notice the feelings again in recall, with the notion of “tearing a smile” coming to mind. Perhaps in some unexpected, existential way, I stumbled upon a piece of myself or mankind in coming to this place.

But I couldn’t get lost in all of this, not on this particular visit.  I had my sights set on a particular purpose. I was hoping to find out if what I thought about the place in terms of its ideological underpinnings would lend itself to further exploration. In other words, I knew of the politically difficult situation there, and I also heard of the socially romantic character. I was hoping to find that perhaps the twain might meet.

And it did; there was a convergence of what I hoped to see and feel with what actually transpired. I quickly felt that my purpose had some real ground, it was not just fanciful thinking. In fact, I was reminded to some extent of my own country, one also filled with contrasts and contradictions, buoyed by revolutionary spirit, a place where the entirety of its experiment seems to have somehow been lost in translation.  My purpose involved wanting to know more about the similarities of our countries, and if the similarities could overcome our differences, could in fact be fuel for a better understanding. I am more certain now that perhaps they can.

Let me say more about this, about the elements surrounding my purpose. On initial examination, it was fair to reason that we were two countries laboring in the midst of our revolutionary beginnings, especially in the context of the post WWII world. In terms of the spirits of those revolutions, one has been couched within the frame of democracy, the other in communism. And by principle, neither of these frames ever seemed so at odds with the other. Both revolutions have also been enormously affected by the nature of capitalism, almost in the sense of being two sides to the capitalist coin. With one revolution, historical variables seem to have been on its side – there has been substantial political, economic and military growth, progress. This is while the other has struggled to maintain its identity, some argue as an effect of the other revolution’s success. In any event, as we speak, both sets of revolutionary principles seem distorted by the nature of market influences — it’s now hard to recognize the true intent of either revolutionary experiment.  So we actually appear to share a great deal. My purpose was to sense the actuality of this, and again, I’m hopeful that this “similarity” can actually bring us together, each of us learning from the other relative to what has transpired in the modern world. Perhaps it’s finally the time when this can happen.

With this in mind, I would like to present a review of “the model” that I was considering prior to my trip. I actually took the idea around to community related agencies in the city I was visiting to ascertain what interest might be generated.  Despite the often offered caveat about discussing politically focused endeavors in the country, I met with success. The “initial project” idea developed as discussions unfolded and it seems a perfect fit in terms of developing future projects.

In the reading of both, I expect you’ll get a better sense of what is being considered, and what I’m hoping to develop as I now speak with those in our own country. It could be – perhaps – that something of value may be in the offing.

The Model

During my initial trip, I intend to build on contacts in the academic/art/civic/governmental communities, garnering an interest in the idea of developing a dialogue, and then returning in the near future, hopefully with a project in hand. In this context, I would like to develop an interest in what can be termed an ideological-educational model from which any number of projects can grow. In short, my professional and personal experiences (documented in my last book, “Criminal to Critic-Reflections Amid The American Experiment,” Rowman and Littlefield Publishers) tell me that we share some mutually important concerns pointed at our political, economic and social structures. This “mutuality” can be framed in the imagery of a large circular intersection, with a center from which several directions can be taken. In this center lay, among others things, the concerns of capitalism, socialism, communism, and democracy. No doubt, these concerns – and all their implications — have prompted a great deal of separation/conflict between the two countries over the past half century. Yet both countries must now legitimately and openly address these concerns in terms of proceeding in directions that can speak to better futures. Therefore, it is at this “crossroads” where projects might be best developed. This is underscored by the belief that in sharing information while we are both there, we will not only help address and repair our separation/differences, but, in taking the best informed directions, we can also move toward bettering our respective countries.

With these ideas at the model’s center, what is developed via dialogue and the sharing of literature, or art, or research, etc., can be expressive of/serve these educational ends. Although small in nature this type model, in the course of its development, will legitimately and clearly speak to the long-term interests of both our countries.

An Initial Project

I have completed my stay, and in terms of discussing the above “model”, it was clear that the ideas represent ones of interest. In this sense the following is proposed relative to actually initiating a “grass-roots” oriented bridge between our countries.

Bike race in Havana

Forming a “work group” developed from the organizations I have contacted (importantly, organizations which have a link to both the government and the University) and from similar organizations that can be involved from my country, we can together develop a “symposium on dialogue.” At this juncture, here is a general idea on what this would be. With students from both countries involved from the beginning/developmental stages, we could bring together individuals from academia, politics, community work, arts, media, entertainment, etc. to discuss the ideological issues that have been at the forefront of our mutual concerns. From this, attention can be garnered on the issues and the intent of continuing corresponding dialogue, perhaps a documentary or music developed, and certainly some shared research projects between students/universities could begin. This should not be seen in the context of necessarily resolving all our differences, but more as an open dialogue to facilitate better future relationships. In short, and as those I talked with seem to agree, it’s about time this happens.

There are certainly both procedural and substantive issues that will need to be tended to, and funding will be an issue as well. But given the issues (and their immediacy), and that we have universities and organizations poised to help, and that this will not require a burdensome sum of money to organize (especially given the potential rewards), I would strongly urge that the discussions and contacts already initiated be utilized to their fullest extent. In this sense, I am hoping to further integrate those who can help move the ideas/interest/energy forward. Again, what is being proposed is based on the value of education — the sharing of ideas and thoughts with the next generations in mind. As both an educator and a participant with issues that relate to bettering international understanding, I’m confident that this is a viable and timely way to proceed.

___________________________

So I imagine you have the picture. One might scratch his head thinking that this seems so obvious a course of action, that this type bridge must already have been built. But this is not the case. And you can well imagine the worn-out, archaic reasons for this may be the same ones used to deflate the spirit from this initiative – the same spirit interestingly tied to both our country’s beginnings. Of course, we shall see.

There is certainly more I could say about my visit – especially about the people, their problems, the daily goings on and the country itself. Perhaps I can get to all of this another time, perhaps after my next visit.  For now, I will only add this last piece of information. On my return flight, I was seated next to a woman from South Korea. She was fluent in English which allowed us the opportunity to chat about our experiences on the island. (This “spread” of our language certainly speaks to our post WWII expansion. It also speaks a bit to both our luck and our arrogance in terms of having other people speak in our native tongue.) She was a school teacher and she along with husband and two children (seated across from us) had been on holiday discovering and photographing the island. When it was my turn to explain my visit, I did so in the context of what you’ve read above. She seemed to take in the ideas I was expressing with a great deal of interest, and complimented me on what she perceived as some form of bravery. Shortly thereafter, and much to my surprise, she asked if she could have the piece of paper I was jotting some notes on. I gave it to her and she returned it with a sentence written on it. I found her consideration in wanting to write something surprising, and I remain inspired by the words she wrote. In closing, I thought I would pass them along to you.

“I hope you are healthy and happy and that you and your friends help light the world’s darkness.”

A rather profound way to end a profound trip – it seems the ideas must continue to be discussed. And perhaps some light will indeed follow … quizas.

_____________________________________

A Life in Cuba

As with circumstances in the U.S., there are many legal and extra-legal claims referencing injustices in Cuba. At the same time, and again similar to the U.S.’s revolutionary history, the Cuban experiment represents a great struggle to achieve objectives truly believed in and admired by many in the world. Herbert Zulu’s ink-penned poetry and design seem swirled somewhere in the mix of these conditions, perhaps making the black and white of his work appropriate. Zulu continues his life in Havana, struggling to make something out of his art and life. He wrote the following poems in English.

The Voyeur

The voyeur cracking his teeth

and all that you know what I mean

I am about to swear

he thinks of a frying pan the light is

to toast the woman’s titts for dinner

and that’s not neither fair nor right.

The Drummer

First one step, then another, then

the drummer runs away from the picture

of himself in the middle of a destructive night.

catching this image as it came from my memory,

Now, an image of downton in an old city?

The drummer is unreal and so the place where my imagination sees

these things. Ink and words even at midnight

make a seeming of a man, the imbecile, composing

a Southern breeze when rhythm cannot free it from desires.

First one step, then another , then

I reduce the player to my self, slow and naked,

and, acquiring each other’s thought, we are one.

My Niece Jennifer

Little by little my niece Jennifer hugs herself.

She does it hard and closes any entrance when being mad

at the shod feet passing by her side with its deafness

and too many words utters on behalf of silence.

Then she plays anger and she plays an ancient blues

that once we sang it never let us live.

All I need to do to feed her with a taseful ripe fruit pie or

can we talk it through right now or can I

help you hug yourself as a consolation?

She then tells me she gets made at what she sees.

No one has leter know how much we treasure her

how lovable and huggable she is

even when she hugs herself with down-headed anger

And I just look her in her eyes

so that she sees these words on mine

visualizing them neatly way out of her uncle’s tongue.

By James Palombo

More food for thought…

In this month’s edition I want to reference several articles that appeared in the news over the past few weeks. Although each one stands on its own relative to the issues raised — some interesting things are going on these days — they are indeed interconnected, and also tied to concerns noted in my previous columns. The following piece then presents this interwoven review, hopefully demonstrating the practical significance of what was previously presented for your reading. I trust this will be of value in advancing thought on our ever changing American experiment, but as always, I’ll let you be the judge.

The first article, “The new mortgage revolution: walk away” by Alyssa Katz. (www.housingwatch.com/2010/01/25) succinctly captures the essence of the “strategic default” phenomenon. In general, this strategy suggests to those who owe more on their mortgage than their property is worth to simply pack-up and move on. As Ms. Katz points out throughout the piece, there are a variety of elements that have been offered in support of the idea:  the actions of the big real-estate developers seem to reflect it, i.e., they do it all the time; real-estate agents feel this might re-invigorate a sluggish market with “short” re-sales; a number of interest  groups  propose that large scale defaults will be a revolution of sorts, justified in addressing a system that allowed the banks to screw the lender in the first place; that default, in such hard economic times, will not really effect what  future borrowing may be like; and defaulting on the mortgage will actually free up money which can be spent on/put into the market for other items.

Ms. Katz’s also quotes Connecticut Realtor Minna Reid who said “I know many will consider strategic default wrong or immoral, but as for me, I stopped passing judgment long ago.” And this seems to mirror the sentiments of many who are involved with the process.

Being perfectly honest, I can appreciate how one could arrive at such a feeling — almost all the logic tied to it makes economic and self-interest sense. And in terms of any moral or ethical questions, or the idea that two wrongs really don’t make a right, well, in short, and especially given today’s moral climate, one could easily say, “give me a break.”

Yet, it just doesn’t seem right to leave it at that. In other words, there should be more to consider. For example, one might want to know to what extent the cynical, morally callous attitude displayed in terms of the “strategic default” strategy is reflective of the overall nature of the instincts developed in our society? And how did these “instincts” become so prevalent?  I mean have we always just been this way?  Or is this type behavior part of a larger phenomenon, one that is affecting the changing cultural instincts of our entire country? Is it in fact tied to the same instincts that fueled the financial crisis itself?

Clearly, if there is more to all of this than human nature, and there surely must be, then we must inquire as to what has been motivating such behavior — behavior that makes America appear at odds with its own democratically principled identity? I think you would agree that although the answer includes elements of our nature, it has to also include elements connected to the environment in which we live. And to this point relates one that I have stressed to some length in previous columns — that in order to understand things like “strategic default”, or the financial crisis, or all the other economic aspects that tip the scale of our perceived morality, we must consider the effects of living in our advanced system of capitalism. Without this, it is hard to understand that beyond pure human greed, there are things at work which may be pushing us to act in ways that seem inconsistent with the principles we want to lay claim to, principles that seem to be slipping away from us as we speak.

It is no secret that we’ve reached a form of economic rationalization, where it becomes more likely that when the dollar versus morality decisions come due, the scales of choice will tip more and more in favor of the dollar. How far this will go, well, who knows? As the articles previously presented imply, however, this appears to be a situation we seem to be looking away from rather than into. And certainly this doesn’t bode well for rectifying the serious problems at hand.

In speaking of the “dollar tipping the scales” theme, the next article references similar considerations relative to our “scale of justice.”  In his piece, “No-dollars-barred campaigns” the Washington Post’s David Broder highlights the Supreme Court holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In short the decision provides corporations the opportunity to spend unlimited resources on election campaigns. For the most part (legal decisions are never easy to relay to  “lay public”), Broder expressed the inherent worry related to this decision — that it could well result in an even more money/profit tilted process than we currently see in action. In this sense, he offers the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens who along with three of his colleagues objected to the decision, saying that it confronts “the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate engineering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.”

I certainly have no objection to Mr. Broder’s approach, or to the dissenting opinion offered by the Court — that unfettered capitalism does not work well at any level, particularly in relation to the political principles tied to the nature of democracy, and it does certainly seem like a “strange time” to take this course of action. (Could there ever be such a time?)

But in order to fully grasp the nature of this decision, wouldn’t it seem necessary that the reader/the public have adequate knowledge of the political and economic principles tied to this decision? In this sense, wouldn’t having information as to the Conservative/Republican nature of this decision, as well as how such a Conservative/Republican dominated court came to be, be important? And shouldn’t the public also have adequate knowledge of how things might be different in regards to a Liberal/Democrat decision, and what a “stacked” Liberal/Democrat Court might result in? Moreover, shouldn’t the public also have an adequate understanding of how both these political parties, as well as the governmental processes themselves (including the judicial, executive, and legislative branches) are affected by the nature of the capitalist/profit driven system in which we live? In other words, regardless of what political party is in power, can we ever attach to the principles related to democracy and self-government as long as the capitalist system goes on without real notice and/or understanding and/or altering?

Once again, and like with idea of “strategic default” these type questions as well as their answers would seem to be required ingredients in making any informed rationalization as to what has been happening relative to such significant considerations.  And I think that as you listen, read and watch what is going on, you would have to agree, no? (As a little side note, how would it be to see corporate logos worn by those in government? One can imagine the result, although it would seem that corporations wouldn’t really want to overtly place their tags/identity on the foolishness that would ensue — things may well be better just as they are.)

The last article of note “Google negotiating ways to keep its presence in China” was syndicated by the Associate Press. In essence, the article references the struggle involved as Google’s interest in the enormous potential of the Chinese market, i.e., profit, meets with interpretations of the Chinese government in terms of the “free-flow” of information, i.e., principle. In other words (and like with issues pertinent to human rights interpretations and profit), what should a corporation do? After all, any political censorship should not be tolerated in relationship to the principle of free-speech – isn’t that what we Americans stand for? Yet, the market is just so immense, and, well, isn’t that what we stand for?

There is no doubt that Google will reach some form of compromise, which will most likely be formed in the context of it being mutually beneficial to both countries. However, the situation itself is indicative of not only the ongoing struggle of principle versus the dollar, and the cultural instincts developed within the context of  a corporate/market milieu, but also with the issues that were raised in the November column regarding my experience at the G-20 in Pittsburgh PA, particularly the reference to what was described as the on-going struggle between western and eastern capitalism.

In other words, one can see that what is developing with the “Google and China story” speaks to this contest of western versus eastern interpretations of economic, political and social policy. Moreover, it demonstrates the power of China to strongly influence and even dictate policy in terms of its burgeoning producer and consumer market, as well as its nexus to other developing countries. This is so irrespective of technology innovations or anything else that western corporations bring to the table.

With all this being said, the fact remains that to understand today’s international strategies and policy decisions, an understanding of the process of capitalism is a must. And in recognition that the world is clearly at our doorstep, we must ask if we are doing enough to actually make this happen.

* * *

I think it’s clear that most of what is happening in and around the American experiment demands particular attention to how we manage our political, economic and social selves. And it only makes practical sense to include our ties to the nature of capitalism. To this end, I would encourage you to ask your favorite columnist about his/her thoughts on the matter.  I imagine you would like to know what they might say, and I would certainly be interested in their response as well.

Jim Palombo, Editor

Food for thought from our readers

In the previous articles I’ve written for Ragazine, I’ve focused primarily on the concept of capitalism.  Via reports on the G-20, I documented its significance in terms of understanding what is happening with the rest of the world, and in particular with China. It has become quite clear that as the rest of the world struggles with the tenets of capitalism, we should at least have a grasp of what that struggle entails.  In another article, I reviewed further why I think we should come to a better understanding of how capitalism works, in particular its effect on our own political and social processes. In this sense, a discussion was presented noting the dangers tied to our citizenry’s lack of having an “informed consent,” and a course of action that might alleviate this problematic situation.  

The approach frequently evokes negative feedback. Almost to the letter, this feedback suggests I must be some type of socialist or communist to be presenting material prompting discussion on America as a capitalist country. It seems a good number of people find this type of dialogue, which is not the more typical one attached to democracy, offensive.

Actually, I find this criticism more supportive of my “we need to better understand capitalist America” position than not. This is so in that the bulk of our public quickly admits to the economically driven elements tied to their daily lives, (consider work/jobs (or lack thereof), tv, media, family situations, politics, etc.), but find a discussion tied to analyzing this fact alien. In other words, they feel/sense/see what is going on, but they not been encouraged to discuss why it’s so – a curious and dangerous situation, indeed. Moreover, asking that we come to understand the nature of capitalism – again a major piece of our own complex puzzle – really has nothing to do with being a communist or socialist. It references nothing more than a person interested in having a better educated and more informed America society.

This being said, what follows are two pieces I received in support of what I’ve been writing. The first is from a gentleman named Peter Wilcox, whose current home is in Scottsdale, Arizona. He is a world-traveled businessman who has come to feel that America may be losing its soul. The second is from a retired engineer, Fredric Fitzgerald, who maintains the hope that through well designed and serious dialogue, we can revitalize our American experiment.

I trust you will find both pieces of interest. In addition, I hope their reading will encourage you to submit your own thoughts that speak to a better understanding of the serious problems we face.

Re-Visiting the “Gilded Age” –  Peter Wilcox

Having traveled the world extensively, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss our country’s rising inequality and distribution of income with many foreigners. And they often express dismay over how apathetic Americans are toward this obvious growth in disparity regarding the incomes and lifestyles of the rich and poor.

Over the past fifty years, there have been a variety of statistical analyses that point to the very small percentage of people who control the overall wealth of our nation. This is not just relative to income, but to the total assets accrued year in and year out. This of course does not bode well for a society’s welfare, especially when that society purports to be one focused on equality.

Foreigners see this and respond that surely a country with such a skewed income distribution cannot be better than a country where there is more parity. So why don’t Americans feel more alarm?

A big part of the reason is that Americans don’t know what is going on. They are misinformed, rely more on opinion, are too self absorbed, or simply have become immune to caring about what they think they can’t control. At the same time, our culture seems to cling to core beliefs and attitudes about a future that will always be better, in spite of what we see and feel happening to the contrary.

It appears that instead of moving forward, instead of taking stock of who we are and what we do, we again seem to be in an era of robber barons and corrupt political, banking and social processes. And the inequalities we see, well, these may well have become as American as apple pie along the way. It’s a shame, no doubt. But in the end, we will really have only ourselves to blame.

Improving Our System — Fredric Fitzgerald

Our system of democracy and capitalism has allowed some problems to develop. Fortunately, it has levers for making corrections, so let’s hope they get used. Here are some considerations I’ve gathered from a variety of readings and resources. (Not necessarily in order of significance.)

1. Stop promotion of the idea that “growth is good” and adapt to climate change: Current exponential growths of human population, pollution, and the usage of natural resources are not sustainable. The earth cannot support an unlimited number of people, it has a finite capacity to absorb pollution, and its non-renewable resources will run out. We also need to recognize and work at the significance of the altering climate change in the world.
2. Concentrate on Water and Food Issues:  Allow for the increased price of fresh water only to pay for the trillions of dollars need for infrastructure and conservation purposes; establish world-wide food growing and distribution strategies. We must focus on these areas, as shortages, which already exist in some areas, cannot be allowed to continue to develop.
3. Implement policies that the poor see as just and implement universal health care: Work at the continually growing gap between the rich and the poor. Progressive taxation will provide funds to support the disadvantaged, as this is part of a fair and equal society. These funds must be limited to work/education incentives and community investments. Progressive taxing will also discourage the accumulation of huge family fortunes unearned by succeeding generations. And health care coverage must be extended to all, especially given our interests in a free, fair and equal America.
4. Require corporations to contribute 50% of their local profits to the local poor: Equal partnerships must be formed both here and abroad, and corrupt/imperialistic type bribes of leaders must stop
5. Acknowledge our addiction to oil and its impact on our relations with the Middle East: Currently, we cannot get along without oil and we need to be honest about our policies and adjust them accordingly.
6.  Drop our role as “world cop,” shrink our “military-industrial complex” and shift our emphasis away from a war on Islamic terrorism:  There are too many areas we should not/cannot be militarily involved with, so we need to better embrace our diplomacy, and not necessarily through only trade. We must not be reluctant to talk to adversaries without preconditions. We should cut back on the development and stockpiling of all weapons, which only stimulates reaction to the notion of our imperialism. And educating our people to differences and difficulties with others is the most prosperous way to avoid conflict.
7. Educate the public to understand the nature of capitalism: Capitalism has a flaw in that it promotes human greed, materialism and competitive conflict. We need to develop an educational process, perhaps a series of courses, that will fully inform us all on what a capitalistic system is, and what restraints we can apply to help it work more for our benefit.
8. Restrain the anti-democracy efforts of big business and financial organizations that benefit only the profits of the shareholders; shift our emphasis from bailing out Wall Street to providing work/jobs; limit executive salaries to a peak of 25 times the average worker: We cannot tolerate the expanse of business at the expense of our public welfare. In this sense we must seriously consider all possibilities of curbing the corporate appetite while making our system more equitably balanced. One area that needs to be immediately addressed is the limitation of campaign and lobbying funds which have served to skew our pursuit of common interest government.
9. Stop the degradation of the social connections necessary for democracy to flourish: It must become a mandate to alter the course of our seemingly undereducated and complacent society, a very dangerous situation. This can be addressed by encouraging things like; a. better civic education, b. meaningful community service, c. networks that bridge racial, social, religious and geographic differences, d. integrating pedestrian friendly living and working areas, e. citizen discussions and debates, f. art and cultural activities.
10.  Challenge the reigning ideological system and, using all our technological and social abilities, seek to create constructive alternatives of thought and action with both our public and within our institutions: There are many issues confronting us which will require examining alternative methods of government as well as economic, political and social planning. We cannot eliminate consideration of these methods simply based on ideological differences, nor on profit motive, nor on merely public opinion, nor on the need to obtain a vote. This may take a “new will,” but we have demonstrated in the past that this is not something we cannot generate.   

As you have read, both articles contain some definite “food for thought.” Mr. Wilcox has captured an image that most Americans sense – we seem to be at odds with our own ideals. Mr. Fitzgerald has pointed out some specific areas of concern – there is plenty of work to do and serious times ahead.  In putting these two pieces together, it makes sense that we must be willing to make some significant changes to alter what we see happening around us. Said another way – we cannot continue to do “business as usual.” Unfortunately, even following the great hope tied to President Obama’s election, we don’t seem to be doing what we need to do. And I’ll add that harkening back to an earlier day – as his opposition often does –  in the sense that life was simple and ideals were clear and close at hand, is not the answer. Aside from the fact that these “simple and clear” days never really existed, especially for those living them, we cannot exist in the past while trying to deal with the present and the future. Although history is important, things have changed, our cultural instincts from generation to generation have changed, technology has changed, world power has changed – it’s not a world to be lost in the past.

So, the hope is that we get to consider all these things (and more) as time move on – that we continue to challenge ourselves in the way that we must. It’s a mandate we cannot ignore. In this context, I hope you won’t hesitate to send in your comments or an article for consideration – offering your own “food for thought,” if you will. In the meantime, and until next edition’s piece, be safe, keep thinking and stay involved.

On Considering Capitalism… 

In my last report “The G-20 in Retrospect,” I discussed to some degree the development of what can be considered “eastern capitalism”, with China as its champion, as compared to “western capitalism” with the United States at its helm. In ensuing discussions with people who read the article, questions surfaced as to what capitalism actually is, and how one system could be so markedly different from another. Obviously these were fair questions, and neither is easy to answer in brief discourse. As I stated to the questioners, clear and concise responses may well require, at a minimum, a semester’s worth of discussion.

In the nature of the questions however, there is contained a very significant point which does not take as long a time to relay. It is a point in fact that I’ve been referencing for most of my professional career – some thirty years – in both academic and social service work. In short, our public is woefully ill-equipped in terms of understanding the nature of capitalism.  Additionally, we are woefully ill-equipped in terms of understanding our political and economic history relative to the notion of capitalism, especially as it was commingled with the advent of democracy.  And, we are also sadly in arrears in terms of understanding the basic tenets of both liberal and conservative political platforms and their respective ties to both democracy and capitalism. (Just think of your own education in terms of garnering an understanding of political and economic America.)

In consideration of my position, I am offering two pieces. The first, “Informed Consent,” is a   commentary on the nature of the “not understanding capitalism” problem. The second, I’ve termed “In continuance…” and it references points from the conclusion of my most recent book, Criminal to Critic-Reflections Amid The American Experiment. (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers).  Together, I hope these will serve to highlight a very serious situation, as well as what might be done to address it. With this in mind, please read on, and as always feel free to offer your own thoughts accordingly.

Informed Consent                                                                                                                                                 

(This piece was written in light of the “new hope” tied to the objectives of the Obama administration, and before the current economic crisis.)                                         

In this morning’s paper I again read a piece referencing Barak Obama as a socialist. As I often do, I shook my head in dismay. This is not because I necessarily agree that he is or isn’t. Rather, it is because I know that most Americans have little understanding of what this actually means. This realization comes after  twenty plus years in the post-secondary arena, addressing countless students at both undergraduate and graduate levels, and after hundreds of discussions with both public officials and private citizens. Said another way, it has become very clear that when it comes to understanding the principles tied to the concepts of socialism, communism, democracy and especially capitalism (after all, this is our American system) we are in a civic information/education depression. In fact, amid our economic and war concerns, this depression may indeed be our most drastic problem.

If one begins to consider this “non-understanding” situation it is not hard to imagine rather disturbing results. Simply put, in confronting both our national and international concerns, we cannot have a legitimate grasp of our current concerns nor our future options – we are to a great extent “in the dark.”

In terms of our national concerns like unemployment, the housing crisis, income disparities, crime, taxation and government regulation, if our citizenry is unable to measure these problems against a legitimate frame of analysis, then little could be expected in terms of addressing them.  Relative to our international concerns, imagine trying to comprehend and/or compare what those in Europe, the Middle East or China are doing if we don’t understand the political and economic structures under which they live. And how can it be possible for us to examine and justify our foreign and military strategies without this understanding? (Consider that this gap in understanding can also lead to all types of political chicanery – where politicians simply pander to public emotions, create half-truths and lies, and do or say anything to attract a vote. Certainly, the sense of this happening would simply make trusting our political processes and our government and the import of the vote all that more difficult.)

There may be a solution, a way “into the light” if you will. Given that the educational system has most of our population captured for a good number of years, it could be in that arena where we can develop a more comprehensive framework from which people can better understand and discuss political and economic America. We’ve done this with technological skills; why not with citizenship skills?  All we need is some help to make this happen.

Thomas Jefferson, in addressing the mandates of government, once said: “… Educate and inform the whole mass of people. Enable them to see that it is in their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”  It’s a tall order indeed — asking those in government to act on behalf of the people, not for the party, nor for the profit. But given our current state of affairs, it’s something we cannot avoid undertaking.  So let’s try and hold our leadership to the possibility.

In continuance…                                                 

As an example of how this might work, consider this. In elementary schools, children could be introduced to concepts developed by educators that better equip youngsters to think about issues of freedom and equality. This would be done (and is being done in some select areas) in the context of helping young people understand who they are and how they might relate to other people. As these youngsters passed on to their higher grades, they could then be engaged in discussions related to liberal and conservative politics and the concerns of democracy and capitalism.

The idea would be that as they developed a dialogue pointed in this direction – understanding social, political and economic America – individuals completing secondary school would have a more solid sense of what we can do in the country  and who might be legitimate candidates come voting time.

We could then continue this focused dialogue as individuals proceeded on to post-secondary processes. It seems it would not be difficult to implement mandated courses, perhaps a one credit course at the beginning of every year of college, where students integrated social, political and economic issues with the idea of fueling (or re-fueling) an ongoing and continually developing dialogue related to American citizenship.

We could also develop a similar process for the general community, holding adult classes and/or seminars for the same purposes, perhaps several times in the year, allowing for paid time to be taken from work to attend. (Some corporate responsibility perhaps?)

In toto, these processes would help develop dialogue between parents and children, students and non-students, over national concerns, helping everyone to learn together.

Finally, we could draw on those in the political and economic arenas who, even with their other interests, recognize the importance of an informed public. These individuals would have little trouble acknowledging the tremendous social energy it has taken to survive this far, and they should be willing to help with the efforts needed to carry this energy into the future. And in helping to create a new dialogue, these individuals will even have the chance to demonstrate a new form of leadership, a form hard to attach to in the country today.

In closing, consider that we have sent people to the moon and beyond, something only several generations ago seemed as far from possible as reaching the stars themselves. We have seen other tremendous advancements in technology which continue to take us beyond our imaginations. In this light, its seems hard to believe that we cannot figure out ways to come to a better understanding of America, that we cannot create a dialogue about who we are and where we are going. Rather than being seen as too difficult or impossible, this should be, in the interests of our national and international selves, our most important mandate.

 **************************

Just to note – Given what is said above, and in keeping with the notion of being actively involved with ideas, I have been attempting to organize a “symposium on capitalism.” In brief, this would be a non-partisan, two or three day conference with individuals invited from academia, social service, government, business, media, entertainment and the general public. The focus would be to: call attention to the concept of capitalism; create some viable plans to better educate the public – including developing research projects across disciplines and universities to study related issues; have a few commentaries or songs written and/or perhaps a film done relative to what this all may mean. In this context, I have reached out to many famous and not-so-famous people for assistance. And although nothing as yet has materialized, the networking continues. Certainly, if you find the idea of merit, feel free to join in with the effort.

G-20 in Retrospect

 In the last edition of ragazine.cc, I provided some comment in anticipation of traveling to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the G-20 summit. Having participated in the proceedings, in both summit and demonstration venues, here’s my follow-up. As always, feel free to comment or add your insights accordingly.

 The scale of the G-20 mandate

Clearly, building a sustainable global recovery amid the financial crisis that has both stunned the world and stunted its processes, seems a daunting and enormous undertaking. In fact, whether or not this could actually happen, particularly with any sense of urgency, and especially given the historical, political, social and religious differences among the countries represented at the G-20, seems open to question. After all, given the differences, particularly as they are intricately tied to the essence of economically motivated interests, well, it’s not hard to imagine the chore at hand.

In any event, the mandate of the G-20 has been directed at precisely this effort. Importantly, the major theme that has been integrated into the process is that business can no longer continue in its current form. Said another way, “business as usual” cannot coexist with the change needed in how the economic/financial/market systems are being run. What exactly “changing the system” means, and to what extent it’s possible in terms of regulation, de-regulation, and/or system “policing,” seems to remain in the balance of the G-20 considerations.

As a follow-up to the earlier Summit in London, what happened in Pittsburgh centered primarily around these issues: restructuring global financial institutions;  preserving, restoring and protecting trade investments; securing food and agricultural growth;  protecting the climate and the environment; and reinforcing the prosperity and health of the citizens of both developed and developing countries. Of course, this meant that the details, data and designs relative to each issue were expected to be sorted through, with some consensus among the countries – again, amid all the ‘differences’ referenced above – expected. It also meant that these negotiations would be happening under the growing threat of terrorism and war, two concerns underscored by the discovery of an Iranian nuclear plant the second day of the Summit.           

Although much could be said pertinent to the vast amount of economic variables tied to the G-20 proceedings, and/or on what each country must do to bring about global financial change, and/or on the intricacies of organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, The World Trade Organization, The Financial Stability Board or the International Finance Corporation, I will leave this to others, those with perhaps more expertise. Instead, what I would like to reference is more in tune with what stood out to me as I moved about the Summit, talking with people and listening to the briefings and interviews that were happening throughout the two days of the meeting.  I would suggest that you can certainly follow-up on the wide variety of elements tied to the Summit should you so desire, particularly given the amount of material that is being produced from it.  Along these lines, the closing speech of the Summit printed ‘on-line’ is a start. It certainly provides more on the expanse of variables set upon the international community’s table.

Observations amid the G-20

I

On the logistical and organizational aspects of the Summit:  Aside from the enormity of the mandate of the G-20, these were the first things that struck me.  I’m not sure that any of it could have been done another way, but it seemed the cost and resources attached to bringing in the delegates, making the huge David Lawrence center operational for media, G-20 participants and the security personnel (there was a large number of security people inside the facility, intermingled with the 2000 media individuals and G-20 participants), and securing the city with some 4,000 police and military personnel had to be enormous. Placed up against the global financial crisis itself, it wasn’t hard to understand the criticism that the Summit seemed symbolic of how resources, certainly needed elsewhere, can be wasted. The staging of the entire event also did little to support the aforementioned theme that the G-20 would not be about “business as usual.”

II

On security:  The armed police and military personnel, both in full battle gear, stationed at various checkpoints throughout the city roads and bridges or often passing in the streets in small bands of ten or twenty, the police boats in the river waters, the barricades, the wire and fencing, and the closing down of many of the streets, made the city look like a military zone. It reminded me of a smaller version of Zagreb where I had been during the early ‘90s, amid the Bosnian conflict. Many of the residents from Pittsburgh whom I chatted with felt this whole process was too much, and it served more to close off their city to visitors than anything else –  not a good thing for Pittsburgh overall. Again, I’m not sure of the alternative, nor were those I spoke with, particularly given the potential for serious problems. Nonetheless, it was a bit eerie in the street. 

                                                                       III

On the demonstrators/protesters/opposition:  Obviously, as had been made clear at every “G” event across the world, the opposition represents an important part of the proceedings. The argument that what is raised by the opposition is as important in the G-20 proceedings as anything else certainly has some credence. In this sense, I suggested the idea that it would behoove those who organize the Summit to invite delegates from the demonstration/protest/opposition side to the proceedings. This would serve to get that side involved in a participatory process, help diffuse their sense of alienation, and allow for G-20 participants to interact with them. I’m not sure of the idea’s future, but it did draw a few encouraging nods. In any event, as someone concerned with all aspects of the G-20 (and the problems in the world), I did my best to stay informed on the agenda of the G-20 opposition.

     I attended several meetings sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center, which helped framed the objections and assisted with the organizing of the various demonstrations and the march on the most significant day of the Summit. I participated in the march, albeit only for a short part of the walk. There were not a large number of people in the march, about on scale with Pittsburgh, and it was well-organized, peaceful and meaningful. It is interesting to note that although most of the people had been at the issues for years and/or decades, they had varying views on the G-20 itself. The views seemed to hinge on interpretations of capitalism:  whether capitalism needed to be completely done away with, or altered to a form where its application would be more socially acceptable.

     For many then, their opposition was pointed at the problems they felt were part of the main G-20 players’ own doing. In other words, the problems connected to war, poverty, unemployment, poor health care, and the environment remain tied to the same capitalist processes that the G-20 players actually support. For these protesters then, the G-20 was a sham, representing nothing more than “business as usual.” It could not speak to the issues in ways that would really satisfy the problems, as the G-20 members were more a part of the problem, rather than the solution.           

     For others, however, the G-20 itself was a valuable concept. Bringing decision makers from all over the world together over the economic crisis was of significant import. However, for these protesters, the countries participating needed to focus more on the social problems existent in the world, over and above stimulating economies for economic growth. In other words, their protest seemed directed at altering the current mode of capitalism with more with more significant emphasis on social concerns than the G-20 seemed to be giving.

     For others, there was also a concern that the social problems were not be adequately prioritized, but this was tied to the fact that the G-20 was leaving out the less developed countries in their proceedings. For them, both developed and undeveloped countries needed to be involved in the proceedings, and the lack of this happening represented the lack of concern for the depth of the social problems at hand. In this sense, pushing for the inclusion of the undeveloped countries would in turn bring about more concern for the social ills plaguing many of the world’s economies. (I spoke with two of these “include more countries and more issues protestors” who were inside the G-20. They were from London and seemed to take on a more professional approach both with their attire and demeanor than the protestors in the street. One of them said that their network of protesting in Europe was more sophisticated than what had been organized in Pittsburgh, and they thought their points at this venue could be better tended to by handing out flyers within the G-20 and talking with people. I’m not sure to what extent they were effective, or whether I personally liked them, but their presence did lend support to the idea of officially including the “opposition” in the G-20 proceedings.)

      In sum, much of what I saw and heard reminded me of the issues and actions tied to the civil rights movement in the ‘60s, and the callings of people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. From the concerns of violence and non-violence, to the logistical planning, to the difficulty of getting permits to organize the demonstrations, to the energy over the issues themselves, it was  inspiring to see the tradition of protest remaining active and worthwhile. As conditions in the world demonstrate, the struggle between our economic and social mandates continues, and there is more than enough room for improvement. Clearly there needs to be as many voices heard as possible in untangling what our collective future holds.   

IV

On the content of discussion, briefings and conversations:  “Capital, capital, capital” was how one French diplomat put it as I listened to his interview with Reuters news.  And that seemed to sum up much of what the G-20 was about. Debates on whether to continue with stimulation, how much would be enough, who should control the flow, who should get what and under what conditions, and when to exit from that type strategy, dominated the discussions. Like that same Frenchman said, “the devil is in the details.” And of course, this pointed to the intricate work involved at the G-20 proceedings.

     The Frenchman’s statement was applicable to another theme I found not quite missing, but not highlighted as much as its significance would merit. In short, the devil of the proceedings existed not really, or not only, in the details, but also at a more macro level concern – the ideological struggle that seemed to hang over the entire G-20 process. It is a struggle that could be referenced as a contest between established western capitalism, a system dominated by U.S. interests, and eastern capitalism, one being developed with China at its center. Importantly, the existence of such a struggle makes compromise and/or agreement within the G-20 proceedings appear on shaky ground. (I could only surmise that this is why, at least for public consumption, so little consideration was given to this point.)

     In essence, it is fair to ask to what extent China, with the most rapidly growing power in the world, will immerse itself in the “fixing” of the western, predominantly American version of capitalism, over promoting its own model. As western capitalism is at the center of the economic problems in the world, and with the U.S., its core player, mired in Middle East conflict, it is not difficult to understand the nature of this query. Add to this that China has its eye focused on developing countries, particularly those in Africa, which represent vast numbers of producers and consumers in addition to their own Chinese population. (Consider the Russian and Indian populations in this mix as well.) Again, would they prefer to rely on a model that is in serious jeopardy or promote one consistent with their own interests? (Another intriguing question could be to which wagon, the West or East, might the European Union, which also has its agenda, ultimately tie its horses?)

     My conversations, particularly with several of the Chinese delegates, and ‘listenings,’ including the briefings of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, did little to dispel the notion that China will do whatever is best for China. Moreover, in the speech of Chinese President H.E. Hu Jintao, it was clear that this is China’s mandate. In addition, Jintao stressed that China considers itself more a developing country than a developed one, particularly since it has been only since the 1970’s that China has shaken off ties to the Russian model it adhered to for several decades.

     It is important to note that this “developing more than developed” line of reasoning opens China’s strategies to those countries generally outside of the G-20. In fact, China has lobbied the G-20 for more countries to be included in the process. In this sense, it is not hard to imagine that China will continue to make investment efforts in the west, but more as a hedge to buttress its own developments in other parts of the world.  (As an example of both their ‘hedging’, as well as their range of power, take into consideration their large investment in America’s Treasury bills.)

    In sum, it is not difficult to argue that China, along with other countries that will benefit accordingly, is tying its hopes for the prosperity of the world to a new model of capitalism, with more of a socialist/communist/populist/Confucian oriented base than has ever been seen. It is a model actually foreign to U.S. political and economic interests, and, moreover, it may be beyond our cultural abilities to understand its properties. In the end of course, this situation serves to pit one system against the other, underscoring the concern of actual long-term, G-20 accord.

     The Chinese delegates I spoke with stressed that China has no real interest in “universalizing” its model, it is more interested in taking care of the needs of China. In that light, I posed the idea that as China moves in the direction of assisting the less developed countries of the world, it will, by logic of the producers and consumers involved, spread its version of capitalism (not necessarily by force or war mind you), while at the same time taking care of itself. This was in fact similar to the course followed by post World War II America, to some degree of success.

     My Chinese discussion-mates found this proposition most interesting. They did respond that I might be applying too much western logic in my image, that it implied a capitalistic, expansionist manipulation not really consistent with Chinese character and sentiment.  As a rejoinder, I noted that current business dealings with the Chinese might indicate otherwise, many see the Chinese business person as ruthless in character. Moreover, I stressed that, given my American heritage, my notions are centered on cultural instincts developed in the most advanced capitalist system in the world, and that they should not be easily dismissed by others moving more toward capitalism. After all, Americans had the call of democracy in their hearts at the country’s inception. Yet, given the situation in today’s world, this is often hard to recall. With these points in mind, they found my ‘expansionist’ proposition more worthy of consideration.

     It was important to emphasize that none of my questioning or proposing was directed at the value of what China may do. In other words, what might be developed by China should not be considered in a negative light. The logic of their policies and their concern for developing a more socially sophisticated model than what the west has produced might be a positive – the world may be a better place for what ensues. Even in light of the human rights and environmental concerns in China this might eventually be the case. (The Chinese, particularly in the context of their being a “developing country,” like to remind Americans of their own struggle with these issues throughout the 20^th century.)  But one could imagine that for many in the U.S., this would not be the feeling. They may see any move toward another way of doing business as an assault on America’s political and economic domain, a threat to our existing power. And this again frames a major concern relative to the success of the overall G-20 proceedings. (As an addendum to this concern, consider the international currency-modification discussions engaged in by countries like China, Russia and Brazil, as well as the advance of an Islamic financial model as an alternative to what is currently in use. The context of these considerations, with the devaluing of the predominantly American dollar exchange in sight, also points to issues centered on the balance of power in the world. This too has a significant bearing on the nature of G-20 outcomes.)

* * *

AT END: For the most part, this is what I took away from the G-20. It was interesting and informative on every level, and as you can tell, the West versus East notion seemed most intriguing to me. I would offer that all of us, across all countries and populations, need to know more about each other. No one can argue that a better grasp of how the world works is essential for our collective future. Let’s hope we never lose sight of this, and that we continue to grow accordingly.

Jim Palombo can be contacted at ragazine.politics@gmail.com

Preparations for the G-20 Pittsburgh Summit began right after the London Summit ended in April. Here is the full transcript of the Leader’s Statement as it was presented September 24-25, 2009.  ragazine.cc politics editor Jim Palombo attended the summit and will be filing a report shortly. Come back to see for his impressions of what got done, what didn’t, and whether or not the delegates’ actions met expectations.