Sunday, January 29, 2012

Positively My Turn at the Blogging Post!

Madame Most M:


To both agree and disagree with you, Madame!  :) While Hedges can seem a sort of dour chap (in that he doesn’t see a lot of tremendous hope), and perhaps he does dwell in the soul-sucking shadows a bit long, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I am going to presume that his objective is to wake people up to reality, and get them to move in the direction of a non-illusional future.  I would think that in itself would be hopeful: legions of the newly awakened squaring their jaws, looking reality in the eye, and getting busy doing what they can to make a better one.

My erstwhile blog-colleague, why are you so “naturally resistant,” to the diatribe against positive psychology? Were you raised on a stream of Norman Vincent Peale,  Robert Schuller, Napoleon Hill, Zig Ziglar, and other positively motivational speakers (none of whom, to my limited knowledge, set out to use positive psychology for strictly selfish or twisted purposes, and many of whom to the contrary apparently had much good effect)?

“Oh yeah, all this positivity is bad for us.”  I guess I don’t follow you, Mad M (permit me my tongue-in-cheek play on words!)  Did Hedges-san imply that to your reading eyes?  Did he, does he, seek to “arouse the people with glaring messages of hopelessness”?  I thought his message is that the PRESENT SYSTEM is hopeless (and thinking it can be changed is in his view a hopeless wish as well), and the newly aroused will have to fashion a different one.  But I see some of your point (gained in watching interviews and talks by him) that he is not overly concerned with efficacy in efforts, and indeed sees little chance of effecting much in the short to intermediate term, but only in registering protest and ripples that will implant the seeds for long-term change. 

Your comments about depression prompt me to wonder if some of that is by design.  That is, does the system seem so rotten and unchangeable, so complex and soul-numbing, as to breed depression by partial design?  Because depression enfeebles or prevents ACTION.   And the masters of the system don’t want action by the overwhelming majority—at whatever percentage that majority defines itself! ;)

You speak sense when you say that positive psychology can be beneficial, harmless, or malicious.  It is thus a tool, yes.  I think Hedges’ point is that it is a tool that has been too often manipulated by the powerful, and used to divert, enfeeble, and control people.   In that, we have, in too many instances, given ourselves over to the manipulations of the system—a system all too happy to use prescription drugs, unhealthy food and drink, and other “accepted” things—to the point where we do hear many people say they’re not sure what they’re feeling, or why.  That they can’t sort their lives out. And all along the way, the illusional siren calls of the culture are telling them to not worry, it’s mind over matter, or mind over situation, or following your favorite sports team will give your life meaning and get you back on track, or any of a number of things which aren’t the reality of people’s lives.  Dave Marsh is fond of saying that he doesn’t put faith in political figures, because they aren’t his reality, aren’t that important to him personally, that he is much more interested in the people he directly knows, and the changes he and they can effect.  Interesting view that I’m not sure I entirely agree with, but at least he is consciously divorcing himself from the celebrity/politician/sports figure culture—and the obsession thereof.

As for the illusion of happiness and positive thinking being hard to pull off, I don’t disagree, but I do disagree with you that the author’s concern is excessive.  We have at least a large minority, and probably a majority, in this culture who believe that what happens to people, and how their lives turn out, is almost entirely “their own fault” (read the arrogant dismissiveness in that sentiment).   I do believe in personal responsibility (and I think it’s the right societal belief), yet I also understand all too well the interconnectedness of so many things about this system (which is, as you’ve pointed out, stacked against the average person in many/most respects).   This system uses up the individual Boxers (“I will work harder”; remember your Animal Farm?) among us in droves.  And we know what happened to him!

Well, pooh, twitter-twatter, and bother, Madame!  I’ve used up (and then some) my five paragraphs I’m trying to hold my postings to, and I haven’t proceeded beyond responding to yours, lol.  Will try again next week, P&H fans! :)

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Happy Bummer

Professor J,

You didn't hear a champagne cork to signal the opening of the chapter but I may need something stronger than that by the time we reach the end. I will admit to being naturally resistant to much of what the author is saying in it. I'm trying to go down the "Oh yeah, all this positivity is bad for us" road with him. I keep getting detoured by things like the difference between happiness (or the kind of shallow positive thinking that he gives examples of) and things like hope (which those " Abused and battered wives or children, the unemployed, the depressed, the mentally ill, the illiterate, the lonely, those grieving for lost loved ones, those crushed by poverty, the terminally ill, those fighting with addictions, those suffering from trauma, those trapped in menial and poorly paid jobs, those facing foreclosure or bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills" are going to desperately need). While we want people to face reality and wake up from thought numbing distractions and delusions, I'm not sure just how much we want to arouse them with glaring messages of hopelessness. One of the main causes of depression, a rampant condition in our culture, is a feeling of having little or no control over one's circumstances. It is necessary for people to imagine that life can be better, that they can improve, that all is not lost.

The system is stacked against the average person and we do have many harsh realities to face.  Those in power benefit from employees and citizens buying into the thinking he lays out. Even when their positive feelings --often whipped up--are counterproductive in ways they may not be aware of, people can be manipulated into specific behaviors. Telling a sales force that their new quotas are reachable if they only work hard enough and focus all their positive energy to that end, when the company knows they are so high that few bonuses will need to be paid out is wrong. Encouraging people to meet their own personal goals, even if you have doubts about whether or not they can do it, is harmless or perhaps helpful. Encouraging a friend in the face of adversity to make changes to improve their lives may be nothing short of speaking "words of life" to that person.


I agree with CH whole heartedly that Positive Psychology can be misused to unfairly place blame on victims of tragic circumstances or who lack genuine opportunity. And yes, it does foster a cultural attitude of dismissive arrogance. I keep getting hung up on the personal responsibility angle. At times he treats us like mindless robots who are incapable of analyzing our own feelings or realities. There are so many recent studies that show that we do have a lot of control over our emotions, and that our thought lives do greatly influence our reality.

The lines are gossamer ones for some of these things. I'll use a paragraph from page 122 as an example:


"Csikszemtmihalyi (yes, Readers, that is someone's name and not the last line of an eye chart ) specializes in 'optimizing' human experience. (Sounds good) The optimal organization man is fitter, more productive (still with him), and less expensive (red flag). The optimal worker complains less (red flag waving). He or she obeys more (...and, he just lost me). The optimal worker costs the employer less in health-care expenditures (If I'm paying into an insurance program I'm going to want all my co-workers to stop smoking and hit the gym, so that isn't exactly evil).

So much to agree and disagree with in one paragraph! 


The balance is one between fully accepting the realities, believing that things can improve, and working to find solutions to make them better. I also can't help wondering, given the prescription rates for mood altering pharmaceuticals--where are all these happy people? Maybe the illusion isn't quite so easy to pull off and this is one area where the author's concern is excessive. 

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Confront The Con Front


Madame:

That is the most common usage/meaning of the word.  However it also means something inserted between other elements or parts.  Steinbeck was famous for doing that in his novels.

One of the central tenets of Hedges’ assertions in this new chapter you have opened [I didn’t hear the champagne cork, lol.  I don’t believe Hedges would be so bah, humbug as to get irked at that bit of humor!] is that positive thinking, cheerful continual optimism, and other elements of positive psychology want to wave away reality.  And we already have a big enough problem from doing that in this culture.  This culture of illusion and spectacle diverts us from waking up to the fact that this culture is crumbling, and it even further diverts us or disengages us from addressing REAL solutions.  Oh, we talk about what could “easily” be done if “only” the ever-pervasive influence of X was not preventing it.  But those statements often aren’t real solutions, but only mindless mantras, platitudes, and ridiculously simplistic political theatrical phrases. 

Hedges lays out the danger of some of that: “It is a generation that will channel positive emotions through corporations and spread them throughout the culture.  The moral and ethical issues of corporatism, from the toxic assets they may have amassed, to predatory lending, to legislation they may author to destroy regulation and oversight, even to the actual products they may produce , from weapons systems to crushing credit-card debt, appear to be irrelevant.  There presumably could have been a ‘positive’ Dutch East Indies Company just as there can be a ‘positive’ Halliburton, J.P. Morgan Chase, Xe (formerly Blackwater), or Raytheon.” (117)

This objective of “merging the self with the corporate collective” takes on many forms.  Retreats, strategic planning getaways, team buildings, leadership exercises, problem-solving obstacle courses, etc. all can be innocent on the face (and sometimes really are).  But they can also, as Hedges says, have the feel “of a religious revival.  They are designed to whip up emotions.  In their inspirational talks, sports stars, retired military commanders, billionaires, and self-help specialists…claim that the impossible is possible.” (117) 

Here is where manipulation intrudes again.  The poor lower rung individual, already hard pressed and struggling on so many fronts, is told that it is HIS/HER fault, that if only he/she  would adopt an outlook that anything is possible and banish any negative talk about “problems,” or “structural realities,” success would result.  If people are poor and struggling, the way out is merely by thinking positively, and further IT IS THEIR FAULT for staying poor and struggling.

A little clear thinking can easily show the hogwash aspect of this.  What’s more important, as Hedges alludes, is the reason for all this clap trap AND WHO AND WHAT IT SERVES.  “The purpose and goals of the corporation are never questioned,” and those who bring up reality are condemned as “obstructive and negative.  The corporations are the powers that determine identity. The corporations tell us who we are and what we can become.  And the corporations offer the only route to personal fulfillment and salvation.  If we are not happy there is something wrong with us.  Debate and criticism, especially about the goals and structure of the corporation, are condemned as negative and ‘counterproductive.’” (117)

This corporate gospel “throws a smokescreen over corporate domination, abuse, and greed.  Those who preach it serve the corporate leviathan.  They are awash in corporate grants.  They are invited to corporate retreats to assure corporate employees that they can find happiness by sublimating their selves into corporate culture.  They hold academic conferences. “  They teach courses, they publish journals.  All this positive propaganda “encourages people to flee from reality when reality is frightening or depressing” when a rational and awake being would CONFRONT reality. (117-119) This culture kicks its problems down the road, but the problems only get bigger and more frightening every time it does so.   True courage and sacrifice—SHARED sacrifice—has been replaced with denial, deflection, and personal, political, and societal theater.

Someone once remarked that pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.  Is that a proper use of positive psychology?  As you’ve intimated, there is granularity in this.  However, Hedges is convincing in relaying to us that “for those who run into the hard walls of reality, the ideology has the pernicious effect of forcing the victim to blame him or herself for his or her pain or suffering.  Abused and battered wives or children, the unemployed, the depressed, the mentally ill, the illiterate, the lonely, those grieving for lost loved ones, those crushed by poverty, the terminally ill, those fighting with addictions, those suffering from trauma, those trapped in menial and poorly paid jobs, those facing foreclosure or bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills, need only overcome their negativity” (they are told) to see a different outcome.  (119).   And, of course, real compassion (and respect for dignity) from those not presently suffering those calamities often becomes lacking.  Or worse, turns callously and arrogantly dismissive.

Hedges helps us to see what all this really comes to work for: “This flight into self-delusion is no more helpful in solving real problems than alchemy.  But it is very effective in keeping people from questioning the structures around them that are responsible for their misery.  Positive Psychology gives an academic patina to fantasy.” (119-120)

He’s said it.  You’ve said it.  I’ve said it:  Please wake up all you Neos!

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Caution: Mandatory Happiness Ahead


 Professor J,


Our intellectual love child didn't seem to suffer in my absence. :) I see that you were trying to help me out but I can't resist moving on to Chapter IV. Do you think our readers knew that "intercalary" means an extra day inserted into the calendar? I'll admit having to look it up. Capital idea! Can we get one every week? :)


As I read this chapter, The Illusion of Happiness, a song kept playing along in my head. "Don't Worry Be Happy" wafted in and out of my consciousness; it seemed to perfectly represent the sometimes silly, sometimes dangerous view that the author gives of positive psychology. He lays out his concerns and sums up the ideology mid-chapter:

Psychologists in and out of government, have learned how to manipulate social behavior. The promotion of collective harmony, under the guise of achieving happiness, is simply another carefully designed mechanism for conformity. Positive psychology is about banishing criticism and molding a group into a weak and malleable unit that will take orders. Personal values, those nurtured by an independent conscience, are gently condemned as antagonistic to harmony and happiness. (129)


More than any other chapter this one caused me to often think, "But wait, what about...?" Like the chapter on porn, I felt this could have been a stand alone book had he explored the matter a little more. This is a broad and complex issue, but perhaps he was operating under the assumption that we are all already too familiar with the argument for the positive thinking side. There are a lot of nuances and fine lines. He indicates on p. 117 that he is talking about "positive psychology--at least, as applied so broadly and unquestioningly to corporate relations--is a quack science."  He makes it clear that he thinks many of these seminars that corporations buy into are nothing short of Cultural Revolution re-education camps with coffee and cream cheese pastries.


I waffled back and forth in my reactions throughout the chapter. On p.121, I agreed fully with Hedges creepy comparison between much of what he describes in the chapter and Huxley's Brave New World:

"Don't you wish you were free Lenina?"
  "I don't know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody's happy nowadays."
   He laughed, "Yes, 'Everybody's happy nowadays.' We have been giving the children that at five." But wouldn't you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for  example; not in everybody else's way." 
   "I don't know what you mean, she repeated.


Other times I thought he was just giving us a curmudgeonly insight to how he views the world. I felt he needed someone to cheer him up, but that he would take a very dim view of that. He's made me feel very self conscious about my happy face emoticons. :)


The thinking the author is outlining negates the benefit of negative experiences in life. Much that is worth knowing is learned in some very dark places (you may recall). Sadness, loneliness, and failure are magnificent, though demanding, teachers. I think Hedges' main point however, is that corporations and governments don't really care if people have rich inner lives or feel fulfilled. That is all so unnecessary for making good workers and soldiers.


Some of the things he points out, like visualization, often used by athletes, and positive self talk, seem harmless. We see him describe some common leadership strategies taken to extremes and used to manipulate workers. The question with a lot of the techniques Hedges lists is one of intent.


Sometimes the line between the acceptable and unacceptable is that it isn't just WHAT you do, but WHY you do it.



The chapter raises a lot of questions: Where is the line between hope and delusion? What is the difference between a government or corporation boosting morale and manipulating people to do what they want? When does cooperation become group think? Can we face glaring reality and be optimistic? Is positive thinking beneficial for individuals but dangerous in organizations and institutions? What's the difference between contentment and "settling?" Were WWII propaganda posters encouraging reminders or a subtle form of brainwashing? (Does that depend who's side you were on?) And how much do things like natural disposition matter?

Monday, January 16, 2012

Intercalary for Madame


Readers, Readers:
I thought it fitting to not put a heavy load on Madame when she returns, and let her use her pre-fashioned posting to give herself a breather.  This also means that we are “in-between” chapters, as Madame has some things to say on this one (and possibly, I have a response, lol!).  Therefore, I thought I would post some selected tidbits from comments others have made on Hedges’ book.  A few are from Hedges’ recent book, Death of the Liberal Class, which expounds on some points made in this one.  I apologize in advance if I have misplaced or left out attribution.

Americans are an “increasingly docile, illiterate peasantry nursed by corporate feudalism.”

We have “casino capitalism, with its complicated and unregulated deals of turning debt into magical assets to create fictional wealth for us, and vast wealth for our elite. Corporations, behind the smoke screen, have ruthlessly dismantled and destroyed our manufacturing base and impoverished our working class. The free market became our god and government was taken hostage by corporations, the same corporations that entice us daily with illusions through the mass media, the entertainment industry, and popular culture.”

From Timothy Lukeman, comes at least the next two:

“Once you're aware of how thoroughly blanderized & infantilized our culture has become, it's all too easy to succumb to despair or cynicism.’

“Since the 1970's our economy has rested on the accumulation of un-unsustainable amounts of corporate and house-hold debt, used to a large extent not for productive investment but for participation in speculative bubbles and consumption to support luxurious living. Our economy is kept afloat by the willingness of foreigners to buy up this debt. As government social services are continuously slashed, the bailouts of 2008/2009 have only strengthened the stranglehold of corporate America on our economy and government resources.  Meanwhile, our politicians have covered up our unraveling. According to Hedges, the Consumer Price Index is constructed to under-estimate the real rate of inflation. Ronald Reagan lowered his unemployment rate by including members of the military in the employment count. Bill Clinton lowered the official unemployment rate of his reign by excluding from the employment count people who had stopped looking for work and also by counting low wage under-employed workers as employed. American jobs have gone to the low wage third world. Hedges notes that, contrary to Clinton's prediction in 1993, NAFTA has thrown 2 million Mexican farmers off the land and many of them have ended up in the US. Even more illegal immigrants have come from Mexico as northern Mexican factories have closed down and relocated to the even lower wage and even lesser regulated paradise of China.”

What is happening to us in this economic totalitarianism is effectively a “slaughterhouse of the emotions. Industrial scale soul rape.”  Too many of us do not recognize our “powerless position in this imaginary world we live in.”

“Every end signals a beginning.  After a time of decay comes the turning point.” (Professor’s Note: The latter is taken from the Tao Te Ching, the book of Dao).

We have a “trite American culture that seems to be blissfully unaware of its decadence, that seems to be a contributor to a civilization that may be circling the toilet bowl.” (And perhaps leading us to societal suicide).

At least the first of the following paragraphs is from a D. Benor:

We exist in a “blizzard of contemporary noise and chatter of the spectacular. A country grown blind to the demeaning aspects of the immensely profitable porn business, and the idiocy of choreographed violent professional wrestling. He speaks of our modern American economy as ‘casino capitalism’ in which the house of the very wealthy always win at the expense of the rest who are so easily conned into thinking ‘that's the American way.’”

We seem unable or unwilling to see or do anything about that we have seen fashioned a culture “wrapped up in greed rather than compassion, in spectacle rather than ideas, and in celebrity rather than authenticity.”

Hedges is “one of the very few remaining journalists in the US who do actual journalism instead of regurgitating washed out mantras handed to them by their keepers, is not afraid of hurting the public's tender sensibilities by the truth. He realizes the gravity of our current situation and is unafraid of telling the readers that our economic and political future looks bleak. The way our government tries to address the collapse of the economy, which it coyly terms "a recession", by throwing taxpayers' money at the problem, is wrong and self-destructive.’

Hedges says we don’t yet sufficiently grasp “corporatism in the US, the downfall of the middle class or stacking of the deck in favor of totalitarian practices behind the scenes.”

Hedges is “disgusted and contemptuous, angry and frustrated at the lame and stupid culture he finds himself suddenly imprisoned in. Unfettered market capitalism, corporate interests, and America's oligarchy have conspired to create a ‘brave new world’ of lies and stupidity that everyone hold dearly to be truth and wisdom.”

Those disquieted that America society has been “systematically degraded to one essentially ‘colonized’ by financial, technical, professional, managerial and academic elites devoid of any real sense of the common good--which was, after all, the whole point of our experiment in self-government--might want to turn to Wendell Berry's many excellent collections of essays. Am thinking in particular of The Art of the Commonplace, What Are People For, or Citizenship Papers. Hedges mentions Berry as a prescient critic of America's ‘march of folly,’ and he provides a long Berry quote at the end of the book's introductory chapter that pretty neatly sums up the whole book, as does Berry's incisive observation in his latest essay on our ‘anti-economy’ in the September 2009 Progressive that our society has become ‘sucker-dependent,’ with manufactured anxiety and human wants in the foreground and real, grounded human needs--like food, land and community--forced into the background. So, if you are even a tiny bit unnerved by Hedges' screed, please read Wendell Berry.”  (Professor’s Note: this jibes with what many have been saying that we have created a form of capitalism too dependent on “bubbles.”)

We have become a “consumer culture which lives on credit, and has come to expect really unreasonable things from government.”

Americans live “lazy and easy, meaningless and morally bankrupt lives that have degraded their humanity. People have chosen, and given a choice they have proven to everyone that they will do what human nature dictates and choose to live lives where they can enjoy their laziness and stupidity, and ignore critics who are trying to get them to read books and criticize.”

“Mr. Hedges has a dark prophecy for this sad current state of affairs. Eventually, a system built on illusion and debt will collapse, and it will hurt the common people the most, leading them to choose fascists and demagogues who will unleash hate and war on the world. This must be true because humanity has done this before (the 1930s).”

“When interpreting, Hedges writes in highly condensed sentences that are so overloaded with wisdom wrought through historical synthesis that many deserve a pause for intellectual digestion, reflections, and verification. He shows that he has digested for a long time what he produces. Almost always, the perceptive reader will quietly and, at times, tragic-comically, say true, true, true. He draws from plenty of famous writers of a similar genre ranging from Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, C. Wright Mills, Christopher Lasch, Neil Postman, John Ralston Saul, to Laura Nader, Daniel Boorstin, Andrew Bacevich, Chalmers Johnson, David Cay Johnston. et al..and Siegfried Sutterlin.”

We have encultured a “brutal, criminal and inhumane sado-masochistic psychopathology.”

“Positive psychology, preached at major universities and inflicted in the most infantile and embarrassing pep rally patterns by corporations upon their employees, generates the illusion of enthusiasm. It permeates governmental agencies and corporations as well as the how-to-find-happiness industry. Real relationships, so Hedges believes, are destroyed by the constant pressure to exhibit false enthusiasm and buoyancy.” (Professor’s Note: And feeds the illusion monster that slowly sucks the heart and soul dry from individuals and this culture).

We are creating “mortal indebtedness and fiscal hopelessness.”

“In the final analysis, in the absence of ethics, overwhelming events will force corrective measures, unfortunately, so history shows.” (Professor’s Note: I can find little to disagree!)

We are “steadily impoverished by our power elites - legally, economically, and politically. Our health care system, if unchanged, is expected to consume one-fifth our GNP by 2017 (despite a Harvard Medical School study estimating a single-payer system would save $350 billion/year), rampant militarism (761 military bases around the globe; spending 10X that of #2, China), and an education system costing 2X that of other developed nations, are draining our lifeblood. We are headed for a long period of social and political instability.”

“Hedges believes our decline began when we shifted from production to consumption during the Vietnam War. Making capital by producing became outdated - money could now be made out of money. Result - of 100 products offered in the 2003 L.L. Bean catalog, 92 were imported; when New York City asked for bids on new subway cars in 2003 no U.S. companies responded. ($3-4 billion contract, 32,000 jobs.) NAFTA was supposed to help both the U.S. and Mexico. Hedges contends it has helped neither - at least 2 million Mexican farmers have been driven out of business by subsidized U.S. farming corporations, and the Mexican border-factories are closing down as production has shifted to China.”

“Lenin said that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch its currency. When money becomes worthless, so does government. Remember pre-WWII Germany? America's rapidly rising debts may take us there too.”

If enough of us awaken from this destructive illusion, perhaps we can change the bleak outlook so many above are seeing.  If not, hugely painful reality will intrude!

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Howard's Beginning


Yes, readers, I think I will have Madame post twice in a row or something, assuming she returns in fine fettle.


Madame in Absentia:

Hedges’ words become prophetic once again: The apparent candidates for the 2012 presidential election will be between the vacuous systems managers that Ivy League connections typically serve up.

Yes, you are so very right.  We have PERMITTED others to do our thinking for us.  We have become distracted.  We have given into spectacle and illusion.  When excessive (or excessively simplistic) ideas are promoted by our few friends who are zealots of one unexamined view or another (rather than seemingly apathetic), we have not only said little to nothing (or worse, let them think we agreed!), but have changed the subject to sports or some other spectacle.  We have rewarded those who promote falsehoods and innuendo.  We have given a pass to ideas instead of examining them, or making their adherents truly defend all their holes.  In our frustration with changes, we have let ourselves be twisted by ideologues who bypass our reason and play to our emotions.  EVEN WHEN THINGS WORSEN, we don’t “question the premises” or shake our heads and say “wait a minute, what you’ve told us doesn’t jive with what happened,” but instead listen to them further twist us emotionally.

We have willingly let ourselves become low (relevant) information citizens.  

And this is how cultures decay: when the people’s character becomes diseased or deficient. 

Of course, it doesn’t help that the mass media is largely corporate controlled, and it frames how things are conveyed.  The true masters wield what they want—including mass confusion, constantly changing focus, and disinformation and contradiction—to continue their inverted totalitarianism.  The anesthetized citizenry largely don’t realize it—or care when they do.  Citizens United has merely made the process infinitely easier.

Betsy Myers.  In addition to the fine points you have illustrated she makes, there is also the disturbing aspect that many people THINK they know (and know ALL) the relevant views—and sources and histories of those views—of the “other side.”  They then ridicule and dismiss.  So certain are they in their own “infallible” beliefs that they twist or even invent the opponent their fervor requires.  I listen to the self-proclaimed radio stations of the “Left” and “Right.”  Each “side” often has things to bring up worth considering.  But when you have a daily stated view for example, on one radio show, that “they’re wrong, we’re right, end of story, the arguments cannot be broken,” it ends rational discussion and furthers polarization.  I keep saying this over and over, but WHO DOES THAT REALLY SERVE?  I think when Americans answer THAT, then perhaps they will be on the way toward getting out of this morass.

Your historical mini-treatise on the HS movement illustrates the very real, and ever growing disconnection, with the way we have “done” education.  When more and more people not only want more options, but are profoundly dissatisfied with things, we get change. 

“Moving in the same direction, for different reasons.”

Madame, there’s your platinum slogan (for many things). 

Returning directly to Hedges: “Moral autonomy is what the corporate state, with all its coded attacks on liberal institutions and ‘leftist’ professors, have really set out to destroy.”  Manipulation is what is idealized.  “The manipulative character has superb organizational skills yet is unable to have authentic human experiences.  He or she is an emotional cripple and driven by an overvalued realism.”  These systems managers are “exclusively trained to sustained the corporate structure, which why our elites wasted mind-blowing amounts of our money on corporations like Goldman Sachs and AIG” (Professor’s Note: and diverted our attention--“nationalizing!” “socialism!”—onto the relatively small amounts sent to the auto industry).  (112)

These systems managers, large and small, swirl around in cults of “activity” and “efficiency” that are far worse than meaningless.  Hedges names some of the big names: “Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Gethner, AIG’s Edward Liddy, and Goldman Sach’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein, along with most of ruling class, have used corporate money and power to determine the narrow parameters of the debate in our classrooms, on the airwaves, and in the halls of Congress—while looting the country.  Many of these men appear to be so morally and intellectually stunted that they are incapable of acknowledging their responsibility for our decline.” (113)

Hedges goes on: “‘It is especially difficult to fight against it,’ warned Adorno, ‘because those manipulative people, who actually are incapable of true experience, for that very reason manifest an unresponsiveness that associates them with certain mentally ill or psychotic characters, namely schizoids.’” (113)  Just like the sociopathic tendencies of corporations and their operators.

“Our power elite has a blind belief in the decaying political and financial system that has nurtured, enriched, and empowered it.  But the elite cannot solve our problems.  It has been trained only to find solutions, such as paying out trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to bail out banks and financial firms, to sustain a dead system.  The elite, and those who work for them, were never taught how to question the assumptions of their age.” (113)  Because the humanities “aren’t important”!

And so bankers extract wealth from the both the struggling public and the treasury.  All while the education system fails to achieve even its corporate state function—to turn out compliant and trained workers to become cogs.  “Ironically, the universities have trained hundreds of thousands of graduates for jobs that soon will not exist.  They have trained people to maintain a structure that cannot be maintained.  The elite as well as those equipped with narrow, specialized vocational skills, know only how to feed the beast until it dies.  Once it is dead, they will be helpless.  Don’t expect them to save us.  They don’t know how.  They do not even know how to ask the questions.  And when it all collapses, when our rotten financial system with its trillions in worthless assets implodes and our imperial wars end in humiliation and defeat, the power elite will be exposed as being as helpless and as self-deluded as the rest of us.” (114)

A good indication of both the utterly, selfishly corrupt nature of the financial elite and their inability to do anything else but serve themselves and their disastrous short-term views, is how, not even a few years after taking us and the rest of the world to the brink of financial ruin, they went right back to their greedy, self-serving ways.  Any other age but this numbed and illusioned one would call them criminal sociopaths, nothing more.  That we would think there could be any other outcome shows how irrational and deluded WE have become.  And that they do so with mostly utter impunity shows where the real power truly is.  We, their serfs and slaves, serve them out of ignorance, fear, or desperation and resignation.  It is not rational.  But it won’t change unless we awaken, then awaken our fellows, then create the change. 

Because if this is in reality a plutocracy where the rich control we the people’s creature (government), we need a reminder that so few (the 1%) can’t really control the rest of us without our consent:

“There is a basic weakness in governments—however massive their armies, however wealthy their treasuries, however they control the information given to the public—because their power depends on the obedience of citizens, of soldiers, of civil servants, of journalists and writers and teachers and artists.  When those people begin to suspect they have been deceived, and when they withdraw their support, the government loses its legitimacy, and its power.  People everywhere understand with supreme clarity that the world is run by the rich.”


“You never know what spark is going to really result in a conflagration…You have to do things, do things; you have to light that match, light that match, not knowing how often it’s going to sputter and go out and at what point it’s going to take hold.”


Thank you, Howard Zinn, for throwing down the challenge to the plutocracy before you left this world.  The challenge of fashioning a world of equal dignity, of peace, of decency.  Perhaps inside this gray and bleak landscape, that world awaits!

Sunday, January 8, 2012

BP Update


Our Dear Good Readers:

Madame is away warmly enjoying herself.  The mischievous Professor is going to delay his full posting until Tuesday or Wednesday.  Even though Madame graciously prepared her posting ahead of time, I may save her efforts for herself to later post.  Haven’t determined yet! :)  In the meantime, however, there is an important update to be made, a follow up to a discussion many, many months back:

BP, true to Exxon’s model from the 1989 spill, has been throwing up multiple delaying actions and bureaucratic roadblocks to paying out its supposed “$20B claim fund.”  How very NOT surprising.  Just as Exxon dragged out its process for years, and ended up paying far less than expected or promised, BP is trying to follow a similar pattern of delay, friendly courts appeals, etc.  One possible counter to this is that the Dept of Justice, and other states and federal law enforcement and regulators, are supposedly so disgusted with BP that more money could start flowing than BP plans.

Btw, BP has also apparently been trading with Iran in violation of sanctions.  Yet  nothing happens to it, here or in Britain or anywhere else.

Patterns…continue!  So far at least!

Friday, January 6, 2012

The Housewife's Fantasy Team

Professor J,

Here's a little piece of political porn I made for you. We need a laugh, don't we? I can't decide, most days when I see the news, if I'm more sick or scared...always a little sad it seems. 

It's a fantasy, but why don't we see a Libertarian/Progressive alliance when they agree on the big 3 or 4 things (debt, wars, and investigating the Fed for example)? Whenever I see them in interviews together I think they would be great on the same ticket. Wouldn't this be the perfect time? It might be the LAST BEST time. Realistically, however with the conventions just around the corner, I know my dream team is unattainable. Still, a girl can dream can't she?

I'm surprised constantly how much people still react to the lies and innuendo from both sides. How much merit is attributed to a soundbite or a simple word or two, misspoken is absurd. My fantasy ticket would pull in people from the right and left. Let the "we'll say anything to get elected" politicians have their custom made suits, silk ties, and talking points. I'm ready for a couple of old, style-less, cranky men who can't be bought, aren't interested in getting invited to all the right cocktail parties, will give it to us straight, and refuse to sit down and be quiet while the country goes to hell.

 Maybe my two cranky candidates could get folks to participate in ways that image/power driven professional politicians aren't capable of because they reek with phoniness. Of course we'd have to revise the debate process as well, wouldn't we? Remember what happened to poor Ralph Nader? (Memory refreshing video here) And in the Republican primaries, though they let Paul participate, there was nary a question for him and scant seconds to answer.
 
I know they disagree on much. Why do they have to agree on everything? What's wrong with running a campaign that says "Listen, we disagree on lots of things, but if we don't fix these major things those other things won't matter. We're sorry if your child is in a terrible school but we can't fix education and many other problems right now. We're going to be busy trying to save something of the country for your children and grandchildren. So we'll need your help." I think honesty would work wonders. Honesty in politics. There's an idea.

Then put out a call to action for people to volunteer in schools and neighborhoods, working together to take up the slack. Put social networking to work in communities to keep people informed of what needs to be done. People in small towns, big cities, and neighborhoods did amazing things during WWII when they felt the sacrifice was needed and the burden was being shared by all.

Couldn't we put a moratorium on any new legislation (maybe undo some) that doesn't specifically deal with the big 3 or 4 major problems, and let the states handle everything else? Couldn't we freeze spending at current levels for a period of time while we deal with the things that might actually pull us under?

I'm fantasizing, of course. But we see people turn out in droves to help fill sandbags when flooding is imminent and volunteer at soup kitchens during the holidays. The rest of the time they don't know HOW to help. What if they were told? I think lots of good people want to be part of a solution if they think their efforts will really make a difference. I think something that frustrates everyone is that so little is expected of us. What if we told the public and civic organizations, and the churches that the government had its hands full ferreting out waste and corruption, and needed everyone to pitch in? What if someone said "Look at what needs to be done in your neighborhood and find a way to do it." People are desperate for a vision of possibility.

Can't we revive Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" concept? Or are we still not in enough pain to adapt for survival?


Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Drinking From the Poisoned Well

Professor J,

Happy New Year to you and to our readers. In recommending how our followers should treat their copy of Empire, you have described perfectly what mine looks like. :)

What, no platinum? I'll have to try harder. ;)


In referring to early twentieth-century capitalists Frank Donoghue has this to say: "(they) were motivated by an ethically based anti-intellectualism that transcended interest in the bottom line. Their distrust of the ideal of intellectual inquiry for its own sake led them to insist that if universities were to be preserved at all, they must operate on a different set of principles from those governing the liberal arts." (109-110)


Did you get that? Their "distrust of intellectual inquiry for its own sake...and with that they poisoned the educational well. And anyone who has been paying even scant attention in the last couple of election cycles, can see that it's contaminated politics to the point of embarrassment.


Let's talk about something else that is wrong. When we remove civil discourse and passionate and respectful debate from the public arena we deprive people of something. That something is interesting and stimulating conversation. We've given in to the despair of trivial exchanges and idle chit-chat. (I'm sure the Romans would recognize the Kardashians and all the meaningless conversation that revolves around them and other "celebrities") We've allowed important ideas  to become the exclusive property of policy wonks and media talking heads. We have taken the big important discussions, drained the life force out of them, embalmed them, and put them on a shelves labeled PROPERTY OF EXPERTS and BORING.  Lots of people have given up trying to understand the complex problems we face, let alone think of solutions.

Thinking about the future should be fun. Imagining creative solutions, dialogue, and collaboration should be interesting and engaging.  We aren't just depriving people of a real education but of the inspired belief that they could, even in some small way, be part of the solution. We don't just have income disparity and economic "haves" and "have nots". We have deep educational poverty and a deficit of fresh ideas. We are breeding hopelessness no matter how much we say we want "hope and change." It is at our peril that we exclude huge segments of the population from the national (or local, or communal) conversation about what is wrong and how to fix it. There is something interesting in what you say about your friend's discussion about OWS and I've encountered it myself. The discussion (and the need for it) is discounted as unimportant. Everyone wants to know whose "side" they are on or what party might put the anger to best use. We have a real need to be able to discuss what is wrong, and how the myriad of things that are wrong connect and contribute to urgency of our situation.

Sometimes there is a Frankenstein style jolt of energy that can momentarily bring the discussion to life but these are fleeting moments of anger and intolerance that prevent listening to the other side. It is the illusion of having given something any thought, disguised as a passionate stance, which is more than likely, not well thought out. Here's a quote from Take the Lead, by Betsy Myers:

"There's not enough civility today among people with different points of view, let alone camaraderie. We don't have to agree on everything, yet we  can still like and respect each other. We can say, "Hey, there's another point of view--okay, let me hear yours." And who knows? I've come full circle on a lot of things in my life.
  
Too many people start out with preconceived ideas, and they decide they don't like you before they know you. And that's dangerous. That's how you become a zealot. If you aren't willing to hear another point of view, how do you grow?"

Then yesterday I read this in That Used To Be Us:

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "Collaboration is important on the battlefield and trust is the cement of collaboration. And trust is the prerequisite for creativity. You will never be creative if you think that what you have to say will be discounted. So creativity cannot happen without trust, communication cannot happen without trust, and collaboration cannot happen without trust. It is the essential driver." (p.91) We are missing so much...trust, collaboration, creativity, communication all of which we need in the worst way.

I have a FB "acquaintance" (Facebook finally figured out that it feels strange to call everyone you know "friend"). who routinely calls the president "Obozo" along with a variety of other creative and original terms like "idiot, moron", and "stupid." I've given up inquiring about specific POLICIES or DECISIONS that she might take issue with. Everything is vague, unsubstantiated or emotionally incendiary. I had a go to diplomatically explain the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but much like the friends you mention, she doesn't seem to value the fact that pointing out what is wrong and awakening others is an important first step in correcting course.

Here's a story about the sad state of education that happened in my city: One month into this school year, a young man attending one of the inner city schools was distressed about the fact that books had not been passed out. Getting no help from the administration, he sued the school system for failing to educate him, which got him a well publicized meeting with the school board. Miraculously, a few days later ALL of the books were discovered in a locked utility room. No one, it would seem, saw the importance of getting those books into the hands of students. What is equally disturbing is that in a school with thousands of students, ONE was concerned and had enough initiative to take on the adults running the system. I get a little weary listening to people criticize change with the argument that something new  might fail. THAT'S the reasoning? Better the devil you know...?

Change is possible. We already have a good example of how powerful refusing to cooperate is. Chris Gardner's quote that the cavalry isn't coming and we are going to have to do it ourselves, could be the slogan for the entire home school movement. It's an example that has already proven that individuals, families, and communities can bring about massive change on a small scale. State laws that were openly hostile twenty-five years ago, have been changed to make it easier. The number of people opting out of the system, have made it socially acceptable. When I started in the late 80s people use to ask: "Is that legal?" or "Can you DO that?" Educating the questioner was nearly as much a part of the mission as teaching a child to read. Passionate and persistent parents were rabid promoters of the idea that their children were not properties of the state. But instead would learn the importance of being excellent CITIZENS.

Eventually I noticed that people stopped asking if it was legal, then began saying that they knew a friend/family member/neighbor who was doing that. That was the tipping point. Now people tell me stories about the college student, or new employee who has a different attitude about learning and work than his peers. There use to be a need for a Home School Legal Defense Fund. These days the sheer numbers are the defense. At the time change seemed so excruciatingly S-L-O-W (the possibility of authorities showing up at your door has that effect) but looking back now, the change actually happened fairly rapidly.

Here's an important point about the success of the HS movement. The people doing it were DIVERSE. You had the ultra conservative mom in a dowdy dress who didn't want her kids taught evolution attending a conference on learning styles next to the Birkenstock wearing mom in her Grateful Dead t-shirt who didn't want her kid learning about American Imperialism. The space between these two extremes was filled with people who wanted the freedom to travel with their kids, not be confined by the school calendar, or give their gifted/special needs child the ability to learn at his own pace. They were doing something that I think is vital for finding practical workable solutions to our problems: Moving in the same direction, for different reasons

We often stall progress by demanding that everyone on "our side" shares the same ideology or claim we can't work with others who don't. Let's come up with inventive ways to fix what's wrong and let people engage in it for whatever reasons they want. You'll recall that I think this would work in a lot of areas including the thinking surrounding environmental issues.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Responding to Madame's Gold


Dear Readers:


Let me take the New Year to suggest once again to you that you urge your friends to get this book we are reviewing.  And then urge them to highlight in it, underline in it, write in it, dog ear it, and otherwise make it their own, to be referred to time and again!

I hope you bookmark the posting of Madame’s that I am responding to, and will make it one of the more popular.  It encapsulates the heart of the matter.

And now to you, Dear Madame:

Paragraph 1: Gold
Paragraph 2: Gold
Paragraph 3: Gold
Paragraph 4: Gold
Paragraph 5: Gold
Paragraph 6: Gold.  And I would add that even a casual perusal of the “history,” “literature,” “philosophy,” and “religion” that is allowed shows them either esoteric or largely for entertainment only.  The subversive, questioning, socially important knowledge and cultural ideas are either sublimated (requiring far more digging or discernment than is reasonable for the average person’s background or time to gather information) or absent entirely.  Where are the discussions, the featured documentaries of us and Rome?  Where are the examinations of how this culture spears itself by repeating its own mistakes, let alone those of others?  Where are the examinations of Jesus’s socialistic words?  Who are the Steinbeck’s and Hemingway’s and Dickens’ and Sinclair’s of this generation?  It is not that some of them don’t exist, or that they haven’t produced some works.  But they are marginalized, never allowed into the media-ized consciousness of the population.

Madame, again, kudos to you on your six paragraphs.  You have written in clear and direct language, instead of the too encompassing prose I sometimes fall into.  I had some old friends of mine this week, who I see far too infrequently, discuss these issues.  One, an incredibly smart and insightful MD, said he was so disheartened by how Americans are too easily twisted by emotional hot button issues (spectacle?) into ignoring their true, common interests, that he doesn’t even follow politics or current events much anymore at all.  But the others asked me about the Occupy phenomenon, and wanted to know what THE OBJECTIVE was. 

I replied that I couldn’t speak for such a diverse group, but that it seemed to me that, rather than a platform issue that could be politicized, AWAKENING the population to the reality of their situation seems to be the common goal. Only upon that awakening, when the average man and woman (of all ages and situations) is upset and ready for change, will specifics be truly necessary.  And far better that those specifics come from the consensus of the newly awakened, because then those specifics will happen because they will have power and momentum behind them, precisely because they the awakened will own them.  Sure, the Occupy movement can provide, via persuasion and guidance and pioneering, suggestions, but only when the mass of people make it their own will unstoppable force come into being.

Hedges has pointed out to us, as have a few political scientists, that too many (vast majority?) of the really “successful” capitalists fall into the limiting box of seeing life as an accumulation of money and power.  An insatiable accumulation.   And that colors, badly, nearly everything this culture becomes about.

In education, it is destroying the social-trustee professional, whose origin, as Hedges reminds us, came from the humanities.  “He or she valued collegial organization, learning, and the volunteerism of public service.  The new classes of expert professionals have been trained to focus on narrow, specialized knowledge independent of social ideas or conceptions of the common good.  A doctor, lawyer, or engineer may become wealthy, but the real meaning of their work is that they sustain health, justice, good government, or safety.”  But we don’t get that connection.  “And by absenting themselves from the moral and social questions raised by the humanities, they have opted to serve a corporate structure that has destroyed the culture around them.” (110-111)

In every walk of life, from health, to business, to government, etc., we have the same results of the above production.  “They are petty, timid, and uncreative bureaucrats superbly trained to carry out systems management.  They see only piecemeal solutions that will satisfy the corporate structure.  Their entire focus is numbers, profits, and personal advancement.  They lack a moral and intellectual core.  They are as able to deny gravely ill people medical coverage to increase company profits as they are to use taxpayer dollars to peddle costly weapons systems to blood-soaked dictatorships.  The human consequences never figure into their balance sheets.  The democratic system, they believe, is a secondary product of the free market—which they slavishly serve.” (111)

A truly astute financial insider had this to say about why he made so much money, and what he thought of those in the oligarchic class who “run” (often into the ground) the investment firms and banks—and the government that is supposed to watch and regulate them:

“The low-hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking.  These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government.  All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy ended up only making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades.  God bless America…”

“On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal,” Hedges records him as saying.  “First, I point out the obvious flaws whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have [reined] in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions.  These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislations designed to protect the common citizen.  This is an outrage, YET NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW OR CARE ABOUT IT. (my emphasis added)  Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith [sic] passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government.” (111)

Gentle Reader, do we need a better example of who owns this democracy and this capitalism?  Do we need a better example of how utterly corrupt and wholesale destructive is the idea that corporations are people and money is free speech?  Do we need a better example of how destructive unlimited money has become (and where it comes from)?  Our ruling class—and the laws and expectancies they have seen to are created—are parasites, poison, and disease in the faltering bodies of the republic and the economic system.   We keep deluding ourselves that we will “get better,” when the very things that are making us gravely sick—killing us really—are “not to be touched” (“class warfare!”).  It is primitively medieval: ticks and leeches? Don’t get rid of them, just get used to them, they are necessary evils; do not treat the snake bite with anything but a little water—and let the snake stay in the same room; and a wet rag on the forehead is about all that is needed for the consuming disease that is literally eating the body alive from the inside and destroying the vital organs.   “That raging fever and paralyzing weakness?  Don’t fret over it.  We’ve got something that you’ll really get upset about—what your neighbor is smoking, reading, or cavorting  on.” Grossly graphic, perhaps, but that is what we are doing as a country. 

Want to know what the Romans aren’t fighting about anymore?  Sex, drugs, sports scandals, etc.  Because there aren’t any—Romans, that is.  
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...