Frontline has made an incredibly well-produced and thorough analysis of the war from 9/11 through late 2007. It’s 2-3 hours long but I highly recommend it because it reveals so much about what happened, especially inside the administration, the pentagon, and the CIA. The focus is on the political side and there are many interviews. There is violence but not too much—but it was very hard for me to watch how the political games, confidence games, partisanship, ignorance, subtle pressures and overt manipulations led to horrific distortions of data and, therefore, to failures of strategy. But I now feel caught up on what’s going on. I hope you’ll make the time to watch this.

Frontline: Bush’s War

I watched a short video this morning of Mr. Rogers appealing to a Washington committee for $20 million in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He is absolutely spell-binding. What I love about Mr. Rogers is his clarity of emotion and his cadence. His speech is slow, clear, and utterly captivating. He exudes genuine kindness and gratitude. He says more with less. A favorite quote:

“If we .. can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable and manageable, we will have done a great service for mental health. I think that it’s much more dramatic that two men could be working out their feelings of anger — much more dramatic — than showing something of gunfire.”

Here’s an excellent quote from Jacques Ellul’s essay Propaganda, as quoted in John Gatto’s book, The Underground History of American Education:

Critical judgement disappears altogether, for in no way can there ever be collective critical judgement… The individual can no longer judge for himself because he inescapably relates his thoughts to the entire complex of values and prejudices established by propaganda. With regard to political situations, he is given ready-made value judgments invested with the power of truth by… the word of experts.

The individual has no chance to exercise his judgement either on principal questions or on their implication; this leads to the atrophy of a faculty not comfortably exercised under [the best of] conditions… Once personal judgment and critical faculties have disappeared or have atrophied, they will not simply reappear when propaganda is suppressed…years of intellectual and spiritual education would be needed to restore such facilities. The propagandee, if deprived of one propaganda, will immediately adopt another, this will spare him the agony of finding himself vis a vis some event without a ready-made opinion.

I think those “critical faculties” are also the root of creativity. I know we always talk about creativity in an artistic sense, but can someone explain the difference between artistic creativity and critical thinking? Which requires the other? Or are they the same thing?

I don’t see what everyone is complaining about. You want wealth? You want fame? Just follow my advice.

1. Two words: Contemporary dance. You would not believe what the foundations are paying these days. They are filthy rich, and they are just waiting for someone like you to strip off your clothes and pogo around the black box. It’s a high-stakes game, but everybody wins. Start early—around 6 or 7 years old—and by 20 you will have funders beating down your door. That beautiful Chelsea brownstone will finally be in your grasp.
2. Win the Tour de France. This is an obvious one, and really I’m not sure why more people don’t do it. Between the sponsorships and prize money, you’ll be set. Brush your teeth before you do that Nike commercial.
3. Build and flip a tech startup. For procrastinators, this usually takes a year, but you could do it in 3 months if you put your mind to it. You really only have to fill out a few forms, and you’re off. Easy.
4. Bring in a great producer. Here’s the real low-hanging fruit. Get Timberland in there to lay some beats down on your tracks, and you will be a high roller in no time flat. You just need some decent marketing folks and a few dollars for promotions. No, you don’t need to know how to sing, just be your hot self. It’s gonna be off the chain!
5. Hit the casino. You just put some cash down on the table, grab a drink, and when you return, you’ll pocket a fat win. Repeat until you run the world.
6. 7 years of silent meditation and prayer. This is a sure-fire route to mega wealth and fame. Don’t worry about the electricity bill—just sit tight and everything will work out.
7. Marry someone really rich. Well, this one goes without saying.

Here’s a recent Al Gore speech—an interesting read. There’s a couple plugs for his television network (I’m intrigued), but the central subject is the public discourse—what happened to it?

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newson gave an excellent public address on gay marriage at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government last week. The KSG has a video feed of the address and the Q&A session that follows. Mayor Newsom sounds like a very grounded politican. I recognize in him the same casual charisma and modesty of Bill Clinton. On gay marriage and other issues (the New Yorker ran a profile on him last year about his work in SF housing projects), he has done great things both for San Francisco and the national debate, and, so far, I can see that his actions match up well with his speech—an admirable attribute for any politician, and an inspiration to me in these times.

I’ve finally found a couple hours to finish makeitequal.com, a web site to promote my re-appropriation of the American flag by marriage eqaulity activists.

Let me know what you think! Buy a t-shirt to support this important battle being fought right now in the Massachusetts state house.

Photos from outside the Zipcar DC office, which is right near the protest (/parade) route.

There’s a good article in the Oct 18th issue of The New Yorker by David Owen called “Green Manhattan”. It’s about the environmental economies of scale that arise from the unique level of density in Manhattan. Owen presents a cogent argument that New York City, per capita, is the greenest city in America: people walk, bike, and subway instead of driving. The density means everyone’s energy bills are lower because apartment buildings are so much more energy efficient than individual homes. Manhattan’s geography altogether prevents parking lots and sprawl (he compares it to Houston).

Under his argument, a city with lots of green space (ala. Washington DC) is technically a bad thing—it creates a barrier between people and it spreads the city out more, making bikes and public transit less effective. Wide roads (DC) induce people to drive more while narrower ones (NYC) encourage public transit use.

I believe people need green space for their own sanity, and while he may be right about the barriers they create, he should consider the stressed-out New Yorker’s need to breathe and be in nature (however artificial) once in a while. New York is so dirty on the street level, it’s only when you step back that the environmental benefits become clear.

And there is the possibility—though we can’t rely on it—of much cleaner long-distance personal transportation in the future. Simply using energy to get around is not necessarily a bad thing: if we could drive around on wind power alone, we’d be just fine. The problem is that the production and delivery of energy is such a destructive and inefficient process today.

Check it out if you get a chance.

This ban is expiring in 3 days and no one is lifting a finger to renew it. It’s going to legalize the sale of Uzis, TEC-9s, AK-47s, etc. Military-grade assault weapons with no sporting use.

Fuck that.

From: Freddie O’Connell
Subject: Assaulting the Assault Weapons Ban
Date: September 9, 2004 7:49:14 PM EDT
To: allayall@conscientiouspeopleiknow.net

Many of you will already be aware of this issue, but I just wanted to provide an easy way to make your voice heard on the subject. In just over 4 days, a ban on the sale of many varieties of assault weapons will expire despite the fact that more than two-thirds of Americans desire its renewal. Much of this is the result of a silent President and Congress whose voices have been replaced by that of the NRA.

Please visit http://www.stopthenra.com/ and sign a petition recording your objection to the impending expiry of the ban. I have already called my senators and congressman.

The petition was organized by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence , a worthwhile organization with a worthwhile website.

As a general supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I still think there are some common sense approaches that can be used to prevent violence and death, and this level of gun control does not strike me as unconstitutional. If any of you think otherwise, then I apologize for the distraction.

-tfo

from News24.com, South Africa: “In an interview with Time magazine US President George W Bush has reflected on his role in the war on terrorism saying: ‘I’m not the historian. I’m the guy making history.’”

Is he saying “I’m shaping history,” or “I’m fabricating history,” or both?

Good thing there are other interpretations.

in 1902, in the midst of the womens suffrage movement, the American flag had 45 stars:

(source: Flags of the World)

But the suffragists created their own US flag with only four stars, representing the four states that, at that time, allowed women to vote. I found a Herstory site that hosts a picture of this flag:

This flag flew at the podium of the First International Womens Suffrage Conference in 1902, where Clara Barton gave a little talk.

The suffrage flag was my inspiration for a 2004 re-appropriation of the American flag which, since 9/11, seems to have been co-opted by conservatives to represent pro-war nationalism, “family values”, etc. I’m taking it back. The flag below has only the 6th star, for Massachusetts (the 6th state), the only state which allows gay marriages. I’ll republish this flag with more stars when more states follow suit.

Download PDF version

Get a t-shirt of it

I went down to the Cambridge City Hall with Karl on Monday morning to witness the first legal gay marriages in the USA. Amazing. So convenient for us to wander just down the street from and watch an historical event that is such a milestone for the gay and lesbian community, that has such an impact on my life and society at large, and that’s getting international coverage. There were probably a thousand or so supporters (I’m never good at guessing, but look at the photos), a dozen or so protesters (from the Westboro Baptist Church, which is not a church, is not Baptist, and is in Topeka), and tons of satellite trucks and camera people. The crowd was clapping and cheering, waiving flags around, blowing bubbles, throwing rice, and handing out flowers as couples came and went out of City Hall.

Walking back to Karl’s house, an older woman along the road told us, “It’s been so long since I saw that much happiness in one place. I love Cambridge!”

From: Charlotte
Subject: Rare political email from Charlotte re: women’s reproductive rights
Date: April 16, 2004 2:23:13 AM EDT

Dear peeps,

Please read the following email.  You may have seen it before now, and if that is the case, I apologize.

You may or may not agree with the appointment of W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee , but I will admit that I disagree with the appointment to the point that I am spamming you, my dear friend.  I can’t believe that I’m doing it, and I promise that I will try not to do it again anytime soon.  

If you disagree with this appointment, please copy and paste this email into a new one, sign the petition and keep it going.  Unfortunately, as of the date you are receiving this email,  Dr. Hager has already been appointed, but is not going to be the chair as originally suggested.  This change is likely due to the great pressure that came upon the President on this subject beginning in October of 2003.  Let’s take what steps we can to keep this country from getting any freakier than it is right now.  At the top of the email I’ve added a couple of links of “research” on this topic, just to verify claims.  So you see, at least I am “seasoning” my spam.

In keeping with the food theme… if you are for the appointment of persons who make a casserole out of church and state, then I hope you will take the time to explain to me why, so that I can still be your friend.  Kidding!

Here’s to the spring and to the good health of you and your families.

Sincerely,
Charlotte

—- snip —-

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/hager.htm
http://www.now.org/press/10-02/10-16.html

Subj: this is really important
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 7:22:56 PM

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial
decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy
termination.

Dr. Hager’s views of reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology.  Dr. Hager is a practicing
OB/GYN who describes himself as “pro-life” and refuses to prescribe
contraceptives to unmarried women.

Hager is the author of “As Jesus Cared for Women:  Restoring omen Then
and Now.”  The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing
Women with case studies from Hager’s practice.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled “Stress and the
Woman’s Body,” he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an
editor and contributing author of “The Reproduction Revolution: A
Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the
Family,” Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate
assertion that the common birth Control pill is an abortifacient.

Hager’s mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in
revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe
and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the
Christian Medical Association in a “citizen’s petition” which calls upon
the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women’s
health.

Hager’s desire to overturn mifepristone’s approval on religious grounds
rather than scientific merit would halt the development of
mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions
disproportionately affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine
cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression
and Cushing’s syndrome.

Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective drugs
for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy.
For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those
undergoing treatment for cancer, pregnancy can be a life-threatening
condition.

We are concerned that Dr. Hager’s strong religious beliefs may color his
assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women’s lives
or to preserve and promote women’s health.

Hager’s track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical
decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to
serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and
research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of
this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and
medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no
less.

There is something you can do.   Below is a letter to be sent to the
White House, opposing the placement of Hager. Please copy and paste,
then sign your name below. SEND THIS TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW WHO IS
CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN’S RIGHTS.

Here’s the letter:
I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position.  Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women’s
health. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis
of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American
women deserve no less.

Talking to Karl at length tonight about activism. He got me thinking (as he usually does). Why haven’t I been an activist all along?—especially when it comes to causes that affect me directly (many orgs do) and/or where there are interesting people and projects. I think it’s threatening to me, in a way, and my tendency when being threatened by something is to fly above (abstract and mull over) the situation, delaying resoluion. I was thinking I might do this when it comes to activism, to keep myself from getting embroiled in the issues and, the thought goes, from getting hurt. In fact, I’m abstracting my role as an activist right now just by writing this paragraph.

In one sense this is a good defence mechanism (I’m definitely not getting hurt), but there are big disadvantages if, in fact, I’m feeling nothing at all. I’m struggling with this… but I know I don’t take the abstract fly-over approach for an issue if I have some preëxisting context or some clearer sign of personal impact. (In my sheltered life,) I feel a responsibility to be an informed citizen, but reading the paper every day so I can understand and respond to everything coming down the pike is a bit much.

So I think I’m struggling to find how and when this stuff fits into my already cluttered life. Especially the how part. I’m happy to be working for a company that considers itself environmentally friendly, but that’s about all I can say for myself. The real question is: How can I find out where I’ll have the most impact and, simultaneously, enjoy my volunteer work enough to not get frustrated? I don’t think it’s selfish to say I should get something out of it (even just a sense of having done my civic duty). It’s just practical.

Speaking of activism, earlier today I found myself in a long conversation with Greg about globalization. A box of electronic components arrived today from Taiwan, and we started thinking about who made them and so on. Did they come from a sweatshop? Or a place with decent labor practices?

Hard to say. Where do you get the hard data on companies and their labor practices, halfway across the world? (is this a web site idea? even if it is, you’d have to have the data first)

This also got me thinking about ways to balance capitalism with the desire to at least do no harm… but I don’t see feasible options here, unless companies either take this stuff to heart as part of their “brand strategy” (eg Aveda) or have a serious PR problem (like P. Ditty’s Haitian t-shirt sweat shops for his “Sean Jean” clothes) and need to address it by paying a higher price for fair labor.

Speaking of fair labor and such, I was reminded that I an idea long ago for a documentary film that takes an object, say a bag of potato chips, and examines the entire production, origins, use, and eventual death of that bag of potato chips. What does the life cycle look like? The bag of chips, lying in a landfill heap, is at once both a tiny, inconspicuous object (micro/macro with the larger pile of trash) and an illustration of so many larger things: natural vs artificial (the expanse between raw materials and final product), neglected environmental responsibility, industrialization, social issues (obesity, etc), globalization and labor issues, and so on..

I am scared by how big this idea sounds. It’s not necessarily any good, but it’s big. I think it takes someone like Godfrey Reggio (Koyaanisqatsi) to cover this kind of ground in a meaningful way.

Anyway, the really important bit here is to show a glimpse of an object’s impact on the world… and tie that back to society and responsibility and so on.

Another idea is to create a chart of these product life cycles. But unlike most corporate versions of this chart (which end when the product leaves the door), this life cycle would continue to consumption and eventual disposal (or, the myth thereof). Create a time bar for each product. The color of the bar at a given point indicates its place in the life cycle (raw material collection, production, shipping/sales, consumption, and eventual decomposition). The length of the line would indicate the length of the entire cycle. What would the line look like for an apple (minimal raw material collection, no production, short shipping/sales cycle, quick consumption, quick decomposition) vs, say, a light bulb (difficult raw material collection, a non-zero production cycle, longer shipping/sales, longer consumption, and longer decomposition)

Went down there last night to see what the hubbub was all about. Here’s what the hubbub was all about (click for larger pix):

In 7th grade I brought a mug of strong black tea to American History class each morning at 7am, and each morning I’d fall asleep by 7:10am. I just couldn’t handle it. I was getting 8 hours of sleep every night. I wasn’t a partier. It didn’t matter. Test after test I barely passed. I didn’t give a shit about our past.

It wasn’t until after college that I returned to American History. Somehow I stumbled upon Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of The United States, so I ran off to Europe with it and, finally, some of it got through to me. This once-radical revisionist history book, first published almost twenty years ago, tells the stories of the victims of American history. It’s colossally depressing, it’s a heavy, thick tome, and it’s riveting. It carries the weight of millions who died so we could sit on our comfy couches and watch American Idol on FOX. Zinn’s history challenges traditional histories which are so often mouthpieces for the imperialists of yesterday.

Instead of watching the State of the Union Address, I saw Howard Zinn speak the other night at The Cambridge Forum. He was discussing his recent book Artists in a Time of War, among other things. From the Cambridge Forum site:

“A new book from leading American historian Howard Zinn reflects on war, dissent, and the role of the artist, illuminating some of the 20th century’s most celebrated voices of conscience, from Mark Twain to Langston Hughes.

What is the everyday potential of artists and citizens to create social apertures for change?”

What a badass.