Building Apathy

‘We have spent our entire existence adapting. We’ll adapt,’ he said. ‘It’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.’” says Rex Tillerson, Chairman of the Board of Exxon Mobil.

Those who spend their lives building bank accounts and privilege have nothing but their certainties about the universe to guide them.

To call climate change an engineering problem, susceptible to an engineering solution is like an arsonist calling a gigantic forest fire a chemical reaction.  He might as well say, "dump water on it" as he races to the next forest to set a fire for which he receives lavish reward from fire fetishists everywhere.

Simply build a giant umbrella  to shield earth from the sun's heat.  

What could be more simple?!  

Problem: heat.

Solution: less heat.

We can seed the atmosphere with sulfur or shoot some mirrors into space.  These solutions are called Geo-engineering.

Now let's talk about something more complicated like tax shelters. 

So as the earth heats and the icecaps and glaciers melt, a vaunted noble who jets above the common rabble says, that people would be able to adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates that may force agricultural production to shift."[ibid]   

Those people? The ones who "will adapt" (and die by the hundreds of millions, oh by the way) come the many disasters accompanying radical climate change?  

You and me.

Well, me, anyway.   You might be one of those billionaires who thinks you have the ability to avoid the ordinary fate of commoners -- like the nobles of Europe who moved to their estates to wait out the Black Death as it ravaged through the population.  (We'll adapt ... we'll adapt ... poor things ... we'll adapt though, we always do.)

You may think you'll be saved because you're wealthy enough to move from the drought-stricken US to the relatively verdant slopes of Switzerland or the tropical paradise of Belize.  This is what Tillerson means by "able to adapt".  Adapt to new locales and new locals, new crops and new peasants, new trade routes and new foods -- in short, new areas to dominate and exploit.   You may think you won't be affected tomorrow because you're not affected today.  You may think you will be one of the lucky ones who, by cleverness or wealth or good luck, survive the worst of it.

Maybe you will survive it.  Maybe you'll grow gills like Kevin Costner in Waterworld.  Maybe aliens will land and whisk you off to safety like the aliens in Octavia Butler's series of books.  Maybe you think you can build an estate in Uruguay to escape the worst of it.  Maybe it won't happen to you but to your children or, (better still no doubt), your grandchildren.

I'd like to tell Exxon-Mobil chairman Tillerson that he won't survive it.  He won't adapt,  His children won't adapt because the problem isn't an engineering problem.  

It's nature:  like gravity or hurricanes, unmoved by the privileges of wealth, deaf to the prayers of all, especially the most devout, merciless to the arrogance of the stupid, and and indifferent to all the propaganda spewed by those who've turned  the world predatory and ruthless.  

As the earth spins through the cosmos, circling an anonymous sun, among a few planets on the fringe of the Milky Way, there is no quibbling with the universe.

Yet this liege lord among mankind, a master of society, a grandmaster moving pieces on the chessboard of Earth, casually reiterates the prevailing, defining, fatal arrogance of most of the humans species for the last ten thousands years:   

"We can fix it." 

A boast. 

An epitaph. 

Unbuilding Institution

[Note: this post originally found here.]

How in the world do you link corporate influence to murdering civilians with drones? [Jimmy response to d23 statement of corporate overlordship]

Like any grandly vague abstract political noun, the word "corporatism" includes almost a universe of meanings, nuances and embedded assumptions about right and wrong.
Some acts are inherently evil. Compare, for instance, the Holocaust with the firebombing of Tokyo with the Massacre at Wounded Knee. All involve evil actions: a vastly superior legitimate entity (government) killing helpless people. The only thing distinguishing these three events is scale: the number of people murdered.

In order to commit these atrocities, the perpetrators believed the legitimacy of their actions; their actions were sanctified by the antiseptic notion of "war".

Similarly, many evils are inflicted on the world in the name of "profit".

Many will protest that "war" and "profit" aren't the same things at all.

True.

But they do have one thing in common.

These concepts -- "war" and "profit" -- serve as justification for all sorts of evils because these concepts themselves turn the world into a dichotomy of meanings, designating all reality as either useful or as disposable.

For examples:

Whether they were bank directors or mental cases, the people who were loaded on those trains meant nothing to me.[Eichmann's summary] 

Was there a rule then to say that you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death one hundred thousand civilians in a single night?[MacNamara's reflection] 

The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries, we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies future safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past.[Local news, 1891]

These three events, (selected from among the randomness of my own cognitions), typify the mindset of corporatism: Any act that strengthens the corporation -- no matter how immoral, how illegal, how despicable -- justifies itself.

This is how I make the parallel between droning civilians, and -- say -- the random disposal of known carcinogens, denial of climate change, or the poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico.

The legitimacy of the enabling entity {the institution[in this case]) justifies all manner of crime rewarding most lavishly and praising most effusively, those most responsible for the evils committed.

Only in retrospect do we see these evils as actually evil.

Unbuilding History

[Note: this post responds to Glenn Greenwald post deploring the use of propagandist Hollywood film scheduled to open in October of 2012.]

[Backqround: OCTOBER SURPRISE: The term came into use shortly after the 1972 presidential election between Republican incumbent Richard Nixon and Democrat George McGovern, when the United States was in the fourth year of negotiations to end the very long and domestically divisive Vietnam War. Twelve days before the election day of November 7, on October 26, 1972, the United States' chief negotiator, the presidential National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, appeared at a press conference held at the White House and announced, "We believe that peace is at hand".[1] Nixon, despite having vowed to end the unpopular war during his presidential election campaign four years earlier, had failed to either cease hostilities or gradually bring about an end to the war. Nixon was nevertheless already widely considered to be assured of an easy reelection victory against McGovern, but Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration may have increased Nixon's already high standing with the electorate. In the event, Nixon outpolled McGovern in every state except Massachusetts and achieved a 20 point lead in the nationwide popular vote. The fighting ended in 1973, but soldiers remained in Vietnam until 1975.)]

that’s clearly a coincidence because Democrats, unlike those Bush/Cheney monsters, do not exploit national security for political gain ... [gg]

Way, way back when, there was a very bad president who used his public office to ensure his re-election. He used dirty tricks, he spied on his opponents, he referred to people with ethnic and sexual slurs. He used every underhanded and despicable tactic he and his advisers could imagine.
He was a very bad man. He used his public office for private gain.

When he was caught being bad, he had to resign in disgrace. He carried the sins of his party -- his patrons and his retainers, his political allies and his beneficiaries -- almost alone. He was hounded out of office by both parties. He endured the disgrace with dignity and self-pity, assuming his party's sins as his own. This allowed his own party to remain viable.

(Meanwhile, shortly after this scandal and during the national turmoil that followed in its wake, a man who would dominate American politics as vice president, as president, and as father to a president assumed leadership of the CIA.)

By the by, another president was elected who, everyone of both parties admits, was too honest and too noble for the dirty job of President of the US.

He too was forced out of office when the opposition party used the very sort of dirty tricks against 'the too honest and too noble for the job' President to worm their way back into office and into the good graces of the American people.

They had learned their lesson:

During the Iran hostage crisis, the Republican challenger Ronald Reagan feared a last-minute deal to release the hostages, which might earn incumbent Jimmy Carter enough votes to win re-election in the 1980 presidential election.[2][3] As it happened, in the days prior to the election, press coverage was consumed with the Iranian government's decision—and Carter's simultaneous announcement—that the hostages would not be released until after the election.

Ratfuck your opponent before he ratfucks you. And don't get caught.

(Oh, by the way ... if you do get caught, use the office that you have to protect yourself:

Just four days before the vote that year, Ronald Reagan's defense secretary Caspar Weinberger was implicated[specify] in the Iran–Contra affair. Though he claims to have been opposed to the sale on principle, Weinberger participated in the transfer of United States TOW missiles to Iran, and was later indicted on several felony charges of lying to the Iran-Contra independent counsel during its investigation. Republicans angrily accused Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh of timing Weinberger's indictment to hurt George H. W. Bush's re-election chances, and on Christmas Eve 1992, in the waning days of his presidency, Bush pardoned Weinberger, just days before his trial was scheduled to begin.)

You can deplore the tactics and demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Obama administration, that's fine. But if you ignore -- rewrite -- history and pretend the two parties are exactly the same, you miss the point and contribute to the ineffectiveness of government that the Republicans have so slyly created and ruthlessly exploited since 1968. (see, for instance, Bush v. Gore, 2000)

The Democrats are playing according to rules Republicans established.

Finally.

Building Numbers

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

A simple  number -- a span of time -- incomprehensible to humans as a reality, it may be conceived only as a symbol -- a wisp of human imagination. In our apprehension, this number carries the empty weight of a prefix like giga or tera, a technical meaning, of little import or meaning to everyday life.  Zeroes, meaning an impossible nothing, gather to mean an inconceivably more as they accumulate.

Forged by forces unknowable, solidified and silent for billions of years, this planet undistinguished from a billion other planets, also drifted lifelessly through an infinite lifelessness.

After a few hundred million years, prokaryotes (and others) decided to become.

Why they decided to become, I cannot say.  I think the universe demands it, but Newton -- and many others -- might scoff at such heresy.

Anyway, they became.  And became.  And became...

Here's an old riddle:

If a chessboard were to have wheat placed upon each square such that one grain were placed on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so on (doubling the number of grains on each subsequent square), how many grains of wheat would be on the chessboard at the finish?  (Ans: The total number of grains equals 18,446,744,073,709,551,615)[source]

Assume, (an extreme improbability), one single prokaryote cell in the very beginning. The next day, that single cell becomes two, the day after, four ... and so on for 64 days.  Now continue this for a year ... ten years ... a million years ... two billion years!

How many prokaryotes then?  Who knows?  Who can count that many?  And who cares about unicellular creatures anyway?

I suppose you have to subtract the dead ones.  So okay, one inconceivably big number and another inconceivably big number -- but when the second number is less than the first, that is life!

When the second number is larger than the first, that is death.

When the second number is bigger than the first for a sustained period, then extinction ensues.

Around the 2.1 billionth year (give or take), something happened.

The Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), also called the Oxygen Catastrophe or Oxygen Crisis or Great Oxidation, was the biologically induced appearance of free oxygen (O₂) in Earth's atmosphere. This major environmental change happened around 2.4 billion years ago...

First, it oxidized atmospheric methane (a strong greenhouse gas) to carbon dioxide (a weaker one) and water, triggering the Huronian glaciation. The latter may have been a full-blown, and possibly the longest ever, snowball Earth episode, lasting 300-400 million years.^[6][7] Second, the increased oxygen levels provided a new opportunity for biological diversification, as well as tremendous changes in the nature of chemical interactions between rocks, sand, clay, and other geological substrates and the Earth's air, oceans, and other surface waters. Despite natural recycling of organic matter, life had remained energetically limited until the widespread availability of oxygen. This breakthrough in metabolic evolution greatly increased the free energy supply to living organisms, having a truly global environmental impact; mitochondria evolved after the GOE. [source]

Imagine!  Lots of little critters get together, given sufficient food and sufficient time, change the chemistry of the entire planet!

Of course this sucks for those anaerobic critters who suffocated in inconceivably huge numbers.   (Good thing for them they were single-celled creatures.  They can stave off extinction because the smaller the creature, the more capably it evolves. Also they can retreat to the very fringes of a chemically diverse planet, even one becoming less diverse, inhabiting the small inhospitable spaces.) 

So what happens when the chemistry of the planet changes radically?

Mass extinction.

An extinction event (also known as: mass extinction; extinction-level event (ELE), or biotic crisis) is a sharp decrease in the diversity and abundance of macroscopic life. They occur when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the rate of speciation. Because the majority of diversity and biomass on Earth is microbial, and thus difficult to measure, recorded extinction events affect the easily observed, biologically complex component of the biosphere rather than the total diversity and abundance of life. [source]

 This is how to build death, countless species at once.

Is the biosphere today on the verge of anything like the mass extinctions of the geological past? Could some equivalent of meteorite impacts or dramatic climate change be underway, as humankind's rapid destruction of natural habitats forces animals and plants out of existence?

Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway. The evidence is pieced together from details drawn from all over the world, but it adds up to a disturbing picture. This time, unlike the past, it's not a chance asteroid collision, nor a chain of climatic circumstances alone that's at fault. Instead, it is chiefly the activities of an ever-growing human population, in concert with long-term environmental change.[source]

This is what happens when a single species succeeds so dramatically.  It builds its own death ... along with death of billions of other multicellular species that cannot adapt to such extreme environmental changes.

But who -- in reality -- counts such inconceivably large numbers of lost individuals and extinct species, especially when there are trillions upon trillions of dollars, euros, yuans, pesos, rupees, etc to be shoveled into a bank account?

Building Meaning

This bin Laden show — “Inside the Situation Room” — was hagiography in its purest, most propagandistic, and most subservient form. This is typically the role Williams plays — he cleanses and glorifies American government actions, especially military actions, with his reverent, soothing, self-important baritone — but he really outdid himself here.

From the start, Williams proudly displayed his child-like excitement over his special access: “television cameras are inside the Situation Room for the very first time,” he gushed.”[Glenn Greenwald on Brian Williams' televised tour of the WHSR]

Absolutely accurate, yet it's not so personal.

It's business.

As usual.

A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. ... The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.

The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values. Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable.[source]

Every profitable profit-driven institution is integrated; poor performance in one sector degrades the performance of the entity itself. 

People want comfortable cohesion rather than inchoate impressions and disturbing -- that is, dissonant -- imagery. (eg, repetitive images of 911 and no images of coffins from Iraq or charred bodies after drone strikes.)

As human creatures, our minds actively make sense of the world -- that is, we fill in the more nebulous details to match the gestalt presented.  Discordant details get discarded and/or changed while harmonious details gain significance because we empathize with the subjects of our perceptions.  We remember the image of the person falling/jumping from the WTC because it makes iconic the horror rather than recalling a white van somewhere off site which demands analysis rather than visceral response -- which is to say, we subvert our own conscious processes when we choose visceral concordance.

In the natural world, we're pretty accurate at drawing conclusions. In a mediated world (one seen through your television or newspaper), we're pretty bad at an accurate understanding of events because we rely upon others' presentation rather than our own impressions. We have our impressions of others' presentations rather than our own impression.  It's rather like seeing an image of food and feeling hungry yet being entirely unable to satisfy our hunger with the food presented to us (intentionally presented in the most evocative way.)

Advertisers (or, for the politically minded, "propagandists") don't put a for sale sign on a product and leave the sale to the buyers' discretion; they sell the entire experience:  This is their job and they're experts at it.

The continuous pressure is to create ads more and more in the image of audience motives and desires. The product matters less as the audience participation increases. ...  The steady trend in advertising is to manifest the product as an integral part of large social purposes and processes. [Marshall McLuhan 1962]

NBC isn't selling patriotism so much as it's selling Brian Williams -- the persona, the celebrity, the everyman who happens to be an insider.  Thus:

For his first inquiry, Williams, holding his spectacles in his hand,... [gg, above]

Human details -- idiosyncrasies like his clutched reading glasses -- are intentionally part of the scenery.   At any point, Williams could have handed them off to an assistant, but he keeps them -- consciously or unconsciously -- to establish a connection with the viewer.  WE, (not me, well-coiffed, well-attired, well-spoken, well-powdered Brian Williams but all of us, viewer and special representative and advertiser) share this adventure.  We vicariously experience this archeological excursion into the shadowy pyramid of power we call the White House Situation Room.  Here is where, when it comes, nuclear apocalypse begins and the human species ends.

Shhhh ... whisper in sacred awe, because truly, it is naked power which WE observe ... which WE dare not disturb lest it turns it gaze on us.

Brought to you by NBC(Comcast/GE) and the DNC, partners in a better world for all of US*.



*Disclaimer, if you think you're one of US, you're not. That's why we go to such expense creating these illusions.  It would be simpler just to kill the lot of you parasites and be done with it.  Every now and then you amuse us.  Plus, who would shine our shoes?

Ever wonder what kids in Siberia do for fun?   

Building Nature

 The horrors of blemish:

Mushrooms, sometimes called toadstools, are the visible reproductive (fruiting) structures of some types of fungi. Although the umbrella-shaped fruiting body is the most common and well known, mushrooms display a great variety of shapes, sizes, and colors. Some other fruiting bodies encountered in lawns include puffballs, stinkhorns, and bird’s nests, descriptive names that reveal the diversity of forms among mushrooms. But regardless of shape, the purpose of all fruiting bodies is to house and then disseminate spores, the reproductive units of fungi. ...

Because mushrooms are merely the fruiting bodies of fungi, removing them doesn’t kill the underground mycelia from which they are growing. Picking mushrooms, puffballs, stinkhorns, or other reproductive structures soon after they appear might prevent their spores from spreading to new sites. However, because most spores are windblown long distances, they can easily come into a lawn from neighboring areas. The primary reasons for removing mushrooms from lawns are to keep them away from children and pets and to improve a lawn’s appearance.

Of course there must be a fix for this.  How can anyone suffer a lawn without a consistent and vigorous green glow:  well watered, precisely mowed, weedless, dog-shitless, without anthills or gopher burrows, no grazing sheep and no loud children shouting and playing -- a barefooted joy reminding us of freedom and the fourth of july.

We will have it all no matter what gets in our way.

This is how we build our earth.

But sometimes nature ruins things for us:  inconvenient, multifarious, sloppy, ugly, fickle, dangerous, sly, uncaring, uncomfortable, filled with bugs, always sinister, who can stand it?

Worse, come creeping these malcontents:

Mushrooms

Overnight, very
Whitely, discreetly,
Very quietly

Our toes, our noses
Take hold on the loam,
Acquire the air.

Nobody sees us,
Stops us, betrays us;
The small grains make room.

Soft fists insist on
Heaving the needles,
The leafy bedding,

Even the paving.
Our hammers, our rams,
Earless and eyeless,

Perfectly voiceless,
Widen the crannies,
Shoulder through holes. We

Diet on water,
On crumbs of shadow,
Bland-mannered, asking

Little or nothing.
So many of us!
So many of us!

We are shelves, we are
Tables, we are meek,
We are edible,

Nudgers and shovers
In spite of ourselves.
Our kind multiplies:

We shall by morning
Inherit the earth.
Our foot's in the door.

Just as bad as subversive fungi, actual living insentient creatures who cannot be threatened and intimidated or driven to despair and suicide plot to destroy your healthiest aspirations.  These creatures: beetles/ants/worms/grubs/roaches/shrews/flies/bugs/snakes/newts/toads/birds/spiders/ticks/mice/chipmunks/ ...  sometimes we must wonder what that mangod was thinking to give humans dominion over all this!   Who can manage it?

But don't worry.  There's a fix in the air, (you can smell it when it has been applied) a certain chemical soup that can be applied to ensure a healthy look to your lawn.  These creatures that do not count, all but us, cannot be considered as meaningful, certainly not sentient, have no right to destroy your happiness, do they?  Mosquitoes and moths, gnats and bees, stinging flies and gluttonous caterpillars, ladybugs and aphids, wasps and snails ... how do we tolerate them?

Nowadays, fortunately, modernity brings us safety:

So the old dangerous primitive insecticides have been replaced with modern ultra-safe insecticides that are safe for you, your children and your pets. The insecticides have changed dramatically over the past 40 years - but nobody changed the law for posting signs. And that is why I post your property with a warning telling you to stay off until dry - because of an outdated law.

Those good-doers don't realize how safe our chemicals have become, (thanks to science and the virtue of commerce) -- so, besides all other living things, we must endure antiquated laws reminding us of a time when chemicals weren't so safe for us.  Annoying, neh?

This is how we build a world, one lawn at a time.

The linguist studies language as the astrologer studies stars.

As the astronomer studies stars.

Stars, unlike language, don't influence actual events; stars have no more meaning for humans than they have for clams or dragonflies.

This is to say, our specific perceptual structures -- eyes, ears, skin, brain -- have no evolutionary need for stars.

Yet stars have significance -- meaning -- to humans. From constellations that carry mythical names and religious meanings to specific stars that act as navigation aids to speculative objects of romance and culture, the patterns of stars we perceive in the night sky give us something ineffably human -- something which, lacking, feels less human. The jailed prisoner, the miner, the modern city dweller all function at night -- as living creatures -- despite a lack of stars. (For comparisons, consider a world without trees ... consider a world without water.)

The linguist treats "language", or "langue", as a phenomenon as separate from humans as the stars from the earth: something that, lacking, would feel less human but which, given, defines humans as a species. That is, language is treated as simultaneously separate and essential; both meaningless (who needs language to eat, drink, breath, shit?) and yet the very quality that sets humans apart from the birds and the bees.

Language as a communication system is thought to be fundamentally different from and of much higher complexity than those of other species as it is based on a complex system of rules relating symbols to their meanings, resulting in an indefinite number of possible innovative utterances from a finite number of elements. Language is thought to have originated when early hominids first started cooperating, adapting earlier systems of communication based on expressive signs to include a theory of other minds and shared intentionality. This development is thought to have coincided with an increase in brain volume, and many linguists see the structures of language as having evolved to serve specific communicative functions. [among the multitude and variety of academic descriptions for language, this serves as well as any -- as does wikipedia as a source.]

Historical institutions develop around language that neglect accurate and comprehensive definition and description of language while relying upon it as pathway, vehicle and destination (see, for instance, religion, law, science, academia, politics, business ... almost any traditional aggregation of meaning.)

We've agreed, apparently, that since we can't truly know meaning, we'll assume we do.

What does it mean to "mean?"

This is the task I attempt to address -- not as an academic or as a linguist, nor as an anthropologist or psychologist, nor even as a philosopher or poet, all (among many other ways of structuring understandings) legitimate, if self-limiting ways of giving meaning to life. Perhaps I hope to discover within chaos, order.

If we are to save ourselves from everyone else ("them"), we must understand our own place in the universe: which is to say, we must understand how our meanings destroy us in very real ways.

Sometimes it feels to me like you are all over the map. It's not the State, it's not the mouth pieces, it's not the advocates for the Brand™, it's not the individual effectors of policy, it's not the abstraction, but instead the two megacorps (Are you really so sure there are two?).[bystander]

I have hoped (for some time) someone would ask this question. It's the right question.

Without getting into academic details (often ego driven), I subscribe to a structuralist view of culture.

the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract culture

I would amend the above statement to replace the words "constant laws" with the word "regularities" (perhaps a piffling distinction, but if academics don't piffle, then tenures are lost and reputations destroyed.)

Over the years (since, say, de Saussure [also see previous link]) the renaming/rebranding project continues as each objection to prevailing orthodoxy falls to newer, more persuasive, more adaptive or more fashionable labels for essentially the same analytic process. Recently I've been drawn to the word "unbuilding" as a label.

I'm not an academic though and I don't keep current on the most recent trends. I simply use a structuralist approach to specifics.

Further I try to distinguish between structures and "agency": that is, between those analyses of cultural architectures that demand this or that doorway or this or that height and the meaningful decisions and actions taken by real people in actual situations despite structural obstacles and facilitating pathways.

For instance (an extreme to be sure) the structures of the Army demand obedience and ruthlessness -- the ability to kill humans without consideration or remorse. Yet these same military structures demand restraint in certain situations (displayed, perhaps, through such concepts of "just war" or the protection of civilians.)

In actual fact people can and do act in direct contradiction to the structures of their culture -- they jump out a window because they decide (for whatever reasons) they cannot leave through a door ... or they take the stairs because there are too many bodies and too much blood in the elevator.

Often (as in this morning's post) I try to describe the cultural structures -- the regularities of cultural thought -- so that one may better negotiate the maze of signs, designs, mood music, plastic plants, and even smells that make the cultural mall so confusing and seemingly inescapable.

With an eye on maximizing quarterly profits, privately run facilities are even less inclined than state-run prisons to treat their involuntary customers humanely, skimping on health care and anything else that could hurt their bottom line, particularly programs aimed at reducing recidivism. As the ACLU noted in a report released late last year, “Not only is there little incentive to spend money on rehabilitation, but crime, at least in one sense, is good for private prisons: the more crimes that are committed, and the more individuals who are sent to prison, the more money private prisons stand to make. [Charles Davis -- source]

Exactly.

Humans have been turned into commodities. We are assessed and then operated on by an institution which by design destroys all notions of humanity and the common good.

Prisoners adjudicated by an industrial "justice" system (enriching judges and lawyers to be sure) lose hope.

All prisons should have Dante's words inscribe in stone above the entrance:

Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

But these institutions -- corporations -- also treat patients needing medical treatment, children needing competent education, communities needing electricity, or dependent adults as simple disembodied numbers on a balance sheet (which they forward to the NYSE.)

They demand that actual people serve them without conscience, sacrifice their dignity and their autonomy, waste their resources and have their voices muted or drown out. Corporations demand individual people relinquish the very essence of their humanity: their ability to make the world a better place.

The sole justification for these and other grotesqueries?

A healthy revenue stream.

That's it, the entire raison d'etre of a corporation. Products and services are merely the means to that end.

We -- citizens -- have a simple choice.

We can demand an end to corporate rule.

Or we can allow them to continue to exploit us using these "legal" institutions able to direct more resources than a small city to accomplish a financial or political goal (including the "election" of suitably compliant representatives).

These institutions can drive out competition, spend fortunes for positive legal outcomes (for shareholders and managers only), poison their products, dump waste and refuse in otherwise pristine areas, or even massacre human beings with impunity.

Yet people continue to advocate further empowerment of these monsters raping and cannibalizing the body politic. Still people insist that more "freedom" for these behemoths, less tax burdens (they don't pay anyway) to fuel the economic engine of capitalism, fewer regulations so they can unleash their worst depredations, and rewarded with obscenely extravagant incentives for overseers and managers all for these so-called "job providers."

They've even nominated Gordon Gecko for the presidency.

Corporations not only aren't people, they're legal fictions operating as amoral cartels. They eviscerate the common good and, worse, destroy even the earth itself, piece by piece.

Enough!

On Ron Paul

People -- politicians -- attempt to embody and reflect people's hopes and aspirations. As an embodiment of a nebulous set of opinions, feelings, facts, discounting, etc -- all the words and images the campaigner offers in exchange for votes -- the candidate must, above all, appear driven by principle and passion.

Yet government isn't about principle or passion; it's about the day to day creation, interpretation and implementation of a common set of rules.

The disconnect between candidate and official, between the qualifying and the job, increases exponentially as votes increasingly depend upon image over substance.
You can hear this sentiment expressed (for instance) when pundi-people tritely claim that legislation is like "sausage-making".

I voted for Barack Obama in 2009. I would have voted for anyone not named George Bush and not affiliated with the party which hoisted him upon their shoulders and carried him through 8 years of lies, carnage, incompetence, more lies, and Karl Rove's expressed desire for a "permanent Republican majority". (We can be grateful, I suppose, he didn't say "One thousand year Republican rule.")

I expected a return to some semblance of legitimacy and common sense in government. Instead, but for some smoothing of Republican domestic policies, Obama supports and advances a primarily Bushlike Republican agenda -- in some cases taking credit for implementing pre-existing Bush policies like withdrawal from Iraq or TARP, even claiming them as his own.

So the question uppermost in my mind isn't which Hope™ version to support. Indeed we should -- must -- identify the unseen hands pulling the levers in this modern age of callous disregard and oppressive diktats perpetrated by Corporate hirelings masquerading as "public servants" dedicated to Truth and Justice as they trample the US Constitution.

Dr Paul's failing isn't that he's a hireling; quite the contrary. He's a Republican -- a true believer in returning to an idealized and bucolic past as if, by wishing or legislating away a hundred plus years since before Teddy Roosevelt, industrial cartels (corporations) would suddenly stop being driven by money and, therefore, government regulations and laws are unnecessary.

(Besides, civil rights legislation discriminates against the white man in theory, and oppresses the white man in practice. Shhhh ... we better make it about the Fed.)

He succeeds as a politician because he doesn't have to "sell out"; he supports and explicitly advocates this Holy Grail of Republicanism (as glibly expressed by Grover Norquist): I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

I'm in favor of a government that serves the collective interests of all Americans -- and of humans in general. Government should not be outsourced to capital interests or coopted to act as agent for corporate enrichment and governance.

In a mediated and fractured world, we cannot know the consequences of our actions.

We live blindly, despite almost infinite information.

We can trust but we cannot verify.

That which we can verify, we rely upon more steadfastly than a train between cities because we've lost the ability to walk -- to experience for ourselves our simple movement from point A to point B.

We rely upon others to know ourselves.

That is our terminal flaw.