Well, I had a gratifying experience today. I recently had been thinking that if someone asked me for change, instead of simply giving them money I should offer to pay them for doing something, e.g., singing their favorite song. The first time I was solicited today, I tried doing this, but found myself unable to. My social anxiety was getting in the way -- the fear of my offer's being rejected -- and so I ended up just giving him change. Now, in addition to my original motives, I saw also the importance of achieving this as an "exposure" to an anxiety-inducing situation. A little later I saw a second opportunity approaching. This time I prepared by going into "trance" for a second so I could make the offer without thinking about it. Far from being offended, he readily complied, and sang an entire song ("Love on a Two-Way Street") that he evidently had committed to memory. It was very pleasing to be honored in this way with something he loved, and to be able to not only pay him but give honest praise too. Persisting afterward was a heady feeling from having done the "impossible," like that I first had on 2 July 2005 after introducing myself to several attractive strangers that day (with the difference that going into trance took more effort back then).

Porn You Can Salute and 11 Years of Space Docking

I attended a cool event last Friday titled Porn You Can Salute, a workshop on alternatives to mainstream pornography. It was presented by a new group called Screw Smart, which is about promoting sex-positive, queer-positive sex education to the public. We had an erotic "exquisite corpse" exercise -- the first such I've participated in -- followed by screenings of several varieties of alternative porn. Their web site is www.screwsmartly.com.

This Saturday I'm going to a night of sf-themed comedy called 11 Years of Space Docking. I saw the flyer for it at the Green Line Cafe when I was there last Thursday for the humanist arts circle.

Narconon (Scientology) Promo Piece Appears in Public Record

Last week's issue of the Philadelphia Public Record included an article about a club drug called mephedrone, toward the end of which it became apparent the article is meant to promote the Scientology-connected Narconon program. After doing a little homework I submitted the following letter.

Dear editor: Your last edition features an article titled, "New Club Drug Endangers Many Lives," which promotes the Narconon organization and may be assumed to reflect its views. While I claim no expertise on club drugs, Narconon is not a credible source of information. As discussed on Wikipedia, Narconon was founded by Scientologists and continues to be run by them. The Church of Scientology opposes all use of psychoactive substances, even those legally prescribed by psychiatrists or other doctors. They ignore or misrepresent any evidence that such drugs can be beneficial because it is an article of religious faith for them that they can't be. Scientific and medical authorities have widely rejected Narconon's claims. In 1991, for instance, the Oklahoma Board of Mental Health denied them a license, saying that "credible evidence establishes Narconon's program is not effective," and adding that "the program offered by Narconon-Chilocco is not medically safe." Similarly, in 2005 California's superintendant of public instruction "officially recommended that all schools in the state reject the Narconon program." Wikipedia also reports that Narconon has been linked to two deaths. In addition to direct medical hazards from a program that is faith-based rather than evidence-based, Narconon is accused of being a front for recruitment to the Church of Scientology, a science fiction-based cult and pyramid scheme which many former members say has done them enormous financial and emotional damage. It may well be that mephedrone is dangerous as the article says, but one must look elsewhere than to Narconon for reliable information on just how dangerous, in what ways, and under what circumstances. For more information on cults and warning signs of a psychologically abusive or manipulative group, visit the International Cultic Studies Association at www.icsahome.com.

Bad Science or Bad Journalism? (Or Both?)

Yesterday my eye was caught by this headline on the front page of the Weekly Press: "Hiding Pollution Behind Science." The article is about how a group of agricultural scientists are allegedly defending an inappropriate method of estimating safe levels of manure use to put nitrogen in soil. I wrote the following comment:

Tom Horton's approach does a disservice to readers and insults our intelligence. He never explains why he considers Water Stewardship more credible than SERA-17. Nor does he even explain what the harmful consequences of "excess" phosphorus are supposed to be -- and neither does the executive summary nor the introduction to Water Stewardship's report. Instead, he seems to think a couple quotes lifted out of context will suffice to convince us that SERA-17 is biased, without even suggesting what possible motive they would have for preferring farmers at the expense of the environment. Of course this problem, if problem it is, would be moot if we weren't supporting factory farms with our meat-heavy diet. Environmental debates aside, it appears beyond dispute that these industrial facilities create a hellish existence for the animals, which is reason enough to avoid supporting them.

I don't pretend to know who is right in this dispute, and there's unfortunately nothing unusual about a piece of advocacy journalism that insults the critical-minded reader's intelligence. But my attention was siezed by the headline, which is inappropriate even if the author's view is correct. If pollution is being hidden, it's being hidden by bad science, not by "science" as such. Of course that may be the editor's fault rather than Horton's.

I saw a very decadent T-shirt yesterday. It read, "I'll have a cafe mocha vodka marijuana latte, please."



I also got my first "live one" as a Census enumerator -- a resident who was actually at home to give me an interview. Till then I'd only gotten information from neighbors or else had to leave Notices of Visit.

In the course of my rounds today, I saw Senate candidate Joe Sestak giving an outdoor press conference at 15th and Market. He's been courting progressives by contrasting himself to Arlen Specter as the "true Democrat," yet he's supporting the troop escalation in Afghanistan that Specter opposed. So as I walked past I shouted, "US out of Afghanistan NOW!" I then heard someone pointlessly mutter, "Shut up."

Correction

On reading the souvenir from Herb Lewin's memorial, I found I had gotten a couple incidents confused in my previous post. It has now been corrected, based on an account of his career originally written by his wife Pauline for his eightieth birthday.

Remembering Herb Lewin

Today a memorial was held to celebrate the life of Herb Lewin, an old friend and comrade of my parents whom I also knew. I'd heard a few weeks ago of his death at age 95, which occurred 18 March, but didn't learn the time and place of the memorial till today, after arriving at the event in Elmwood Park described in my previous post. Being without a car or a ride, I had to leave that event early to get to this one. It would actually have been quite appropriate had the memorial been held in conjunction with the Elmwood park event. The park was sited where it was because of a major labor struggle that was waged just a few blocks away. In fact, I've learned that this was the very struggle that put Herb's picture on the cover of Life magazine, being clubbed by mounted police. A few years later he was dismissed for his political views and his coworkers walked out to demand his reinstatement along with another worker likewise fired as a "security risk," which they won. After becoming a socialist in early adulthood, Herb spent his entire life as a radical labor activist. He also ran for office for several times, including once for President (as the candidate of California's Peace and Freedom Party) and twice for governor of Pennsylvania. His obituary appeared in the 29 March edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, on page B08. It's unfortunate that because of a lack of communication the two events weren't coordinated. But for me there was no question about priorities. Herb had attended and spoken at my mother's memorial seven years ago. I had to be at his, and felt I should speak at it too, despite -- or in a sense, perhaps, because of -- knowing I would get emotional. But that seemed appropriate to the circumstances so there was no embarrassment. Thanks are due to Doug Buchholz and his partner Simone for organizing the memorial, to the officiant and other staff of Unitarian Universalist House (I'm afraid I don't remember their names) for hosting it, and to all those who attended. I estimate that about forty were present.

May Day: Rally for Workers' Rights and Remember Our Heroes

I regret that, because of personal issues, I didn't post this sooner. But I certainly hope and plan to be there:

Rally for the Rights of All Workers MAY DAY USA

May Day is the Global day to Honor All Workers. Come and Learn the True American History of May Day and its Origins in Chicago During the Struggle for the 8 Hour Day.
Saturday, May 1- Noon til 2 PMElmwood Park @ South 71st St. &Buist Ave. in Southwest Philly

Join us for the Dedication of a Labor Monument in the Park That Will Honor Eugene V. Debs; The Wobblies; Bread and Roses; Child Labor Reform; “Si Se Puede!”; “I Am a Man”; and Karen Gay Silkwood.

Guest Speakers:

Reverend Chester Williams- Pres., Nat’l Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees Local 509
Cathy Brady- Friends of Elmwood Park/SEIU Healthcare Pa.
Pedro Rodriguez- Member, Phila. Civil Service Commission
Royce Adams- Int. Longshoreman’s Assoc. (ILA) Local 1291
Fabricio Rodriguez- Lead Crdntr, Phila. Security Officers Union
Tom Paine Cronin- Dir. Comey Inst. of Industrial Relations @ St. Joe’s Univ., Pres. (Ret.) AFSCME DC 47
Kathy Black- Pres., CLUW (Phila. Chapter), Co-Convener of USLAW, Health & Safety Director AFSCME DC 47
Barbara Rahke- Executive Director, Philaposh

Music & Entertainment “The K&A Mob” (Rock) , “Tha Truth” (Rap) “Legendario” (Spanish Rap)

Sponsored By: The Penna. Labor History Society (PLHS) and the Phila. Area Project on Occupational Safety and Health (Philaposh)

For more Information Contact us at 215-301-2633 or www.maydayusa.org

Another Test Passed

It's been a little while since I gave myself any major challenges to my social anxiety, and I'd started to feel I was stagnating/regressing. But I had occasion to change that today. I should back up and explain that on 10 March I received a notice from my landlord congratulating me on having my lease renewed as of May on new terms (higher rent) of which I'd previously been notified. Problem is, I hadn't received said prior notification. This made me very anxious as it activated the "bait and switch" trigger tracing back to my adolescent experience with a cult. Within a few days I met with someone at Community Legal Services. He could give me limited advice at that point since I had brought the lease renewal currently in effect, but not the lease itself from two years ago. I sent him a copy of that a day or two later. I then procrastinated a while. It took me a few more weeks to get around to actually reading the lease and start advertising that I was looking for a new place (since at that point I didn't think I had an alternative). Finally I talked to the guy at CLS again, who'd reviewed my lease and said that since I hadn't received the stipulated sixty days notice of a change in terms, it was renewed on the old terms. Of course the landlord could claim that I had received timely notice, but in any case, I was told, their position would be that a change in terms constitutes a new lease which has to be agreed to affirmatively and not just passively. It was advised that I meet with the landlord's representative to state this view of things. For a change, circumstances actually beyond my control delayed my doing so for another week. My employer was short-handed because a coworker's heart trouble was turning out to be worse than first realized. (I felt a little guilt since I'd encouraged his interest in switching from another employer; on the other hand, since his previous job was pretty similar, there's no particular reason to think I hastened this development, which now has had him out for a week.) But I already had this week scheduled as personal vacation (more on which below), so today I visited the management office and showed one of them the pertinent documents, and she said she'd research the issue. It was no big deal in the event, but that's just the point with exposures: you intellectually understand there's not much to be afraid of, but you have to go through the experience to prove that to yourself on an emotional level. The reason for the vacation is another bright spot in the picture: starting tomorrow, I'll be getting training to be a Street Enumerator for the Census. This will provide a quite considerable, if temporary, boost to my income that will be particularly handy if I find I have to move without receiving a refund of my deposit.

Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Being Considered

As reported in this week's On the Media, legislation has been proposed in Congress to deter so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), defamation cases brought not because they have legal merit or are likely to be successful, but simply to harass and bankrupt the defendants and thereby silence them, and pre-emptively induce self-censorship by others who might criticize the plaintiff. SLAPPs have targeted a variety of groups and individuals. Environmental activists have been sued for expressing their view that an industrial facility will be polluting; James Randi and CSICOP (now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) were sued by Uri Geller and other purported psychics for pointing to evidence that they were fakers. According to the story, SLAPPs have proliferated as social media expand the opportunities for public expression. The situation is even worse in the United Kingdom, where libel law appears to be stronger than whatever protection for free speech is considered to be in that country's unwritten constitution. A recently prominent case involving a skeptic/consumer advocate being sued by homeopaths is described here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/. Called the Citizen Participation Act, the bill has been introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN9). A summary by the Public Participation Project can be read at http://www.anti-slapp.org/?q=node/16. It would not supercede anti-SLAPP laws already in place in several states, but would create the option of moving a case to federal jurisdiction. If you are in Cohen's district you can express your support through his web form at http://cohen.house.gov/index.php?option=com_email_form&Itemid=113; otherwise you can write him at 1005 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.

I've recently updated my post reviewing Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, based on the results of an inquiry prompted by something in the book. You can read it here.

Stop Land Grab at Beit Sahour

I just received word from Playgrounds for Palestine about an Israeli attempt to confiscate private and community land in Beit Sahour in the West Bank, including a park where one of their next playgrounds is to be built. I've whittled the information down to fall well within the green zone on congress.org's "impact meter," as follows:

As a supporter of Playgrounds for Palestine, I am disturbed by news of an Israeli land grab against the community of Beit Sahour in the West Bank. As described by town residents, Ha'aretz, Ma'an News, and other sources in recent days, Israeli soldiers and bulldozers arrived on February 10 at a family recreation park in Beit Sahour and declared it a closed military zone, for the stated purpose of building a watchtower. Included in this swath of land is the treasured Oush Grab Peace Park, which serves as a community space, park, and recreational facility where Palestinian families gather daily and was to be the site of one of PfP's next playgrounds. I urge you to call and write to Israeli officials to protest this action, call upon them to stop the construction of the watchtower, stop settler attacks on the park, and cease any idea of building a settlement on the site.

I've already sent this to Senator Specter and will shortly send it to my other representatives. The full text of the message from PfP is copied below. Although the original call to action comes from a Christian group, it should resonate with any humanist. 

From: Playgrounds for Palestine <contact@playgroundsforpalestine.org> Subject: CALL TO ACTION Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 5:19 PM. . . helping children reclaim their childhoods February 27, 2010 We are sending out this CALL TO ACTION to alert our supporters about a troubling development in the Oush Grab Peace Park, the site designated for a 2010 PfP playground installation. The Israeli military is trying to implement a decision to confiscate community and privately held property belonging to the community and families in the Palestinian Christian town of Beit Sahour. Included in this swath of land is the treasured Peace Park, which serves as a community space, park and recreational facility where Palestinian families gather daily and was to be the site of one of PfP's next playgrounds. We ask you to call and write to Israeli officials in order to protest this action, call upon them to stop the construction of the watchtower, prevent settlers from attacking the park, and cease any idea of building a settlement in the site. Follow the link and enter zip for to contact local congressmen - http://www.congress.org/communicate Call the Israeli ambassador 202 364 5500 or email info@washington.mfa.gov.il Email the Consulate General of the US, Jerusalem - uscongenjerusalem@state.gov Call the Israeli consulate in Philly 215 977 7600 Contact the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Near East Affairs - Jeffrey D Feltman 202 647 7209 Injustice in Beit SahourA Statement by Kairos Palestine (Jerusalem 20.03.2010) As described by town residents, Ha'aretz,Ma'an News, and other sources in recent days, Israeli soldiers and bulldozers arrived on February 10 at a family recreation park in Beit Sahour – a town slightly east of Bethlehem in the West Bank, and the site of the former army base Osh Grab, which was abandoned by the IDF in 2006 – and declared it a closed military zone. KAIROS Palestine condemns this action and calls upon churches worldwide to advocate for the Christians and all residents of Beit Sahour and intervene in the damage, present and projected, wrought upon their home. Since 1967, Beit Sahour, one of the last Christian majority towns in the West Bank, has repeatedly lost land to the Jerusalem municipality and to the nearby settlement of Har Homa. Much of the remaining land was occupied by an Israeli military base, Osh Grab. After the army evacuated the base in 2006, the Beit Sahour municipality regained control of the land – largely private plots and some public ones. (That said, all of the land remained part of what Israel calls Area C, keeping it under harsh regulation by the Israeli State.) The municipality renovated the public land, built a recreational park and playground – the "Peace Park" – and was planning to build a hospital as well. Over time, fanatical Jewish settler groups have often threatened to take over the site, protested there as part of their aggressive claim as its "true" owners, and even physically vandalized the park, as they did last month. As it stands, Israel's stated intention is to build a new watchtower: a troubling reassertion of a military presence in Beit Sahour. The other worry is that this could pave the way for a new settlement, which nearby settlers have been demanding for years. As Amira Hass writes in Ha'aretz, "The Beit Sahour residents have no reason to doubt either the settlers or the Har Homa neighborhood committee chairman, who declared that 'This could become a reality, just as Har Homa spilled beyond what was planned and expected.'" Either way, this new display of control on the part of the State – arriving with bulldozers, excavating the site around the park, prohibiting the entry of the Beit Sahour residents and various internationals who came to protest, declaring the land a closed military zone – is a grave affront. It is painful and unjust for some reasons of specific import to Christians (who form 80% of Beit Sahour); others are simply questions of humanity and legality, crucial for both Christians and Muslims. First, the park area lies between two sacred sites: "Shepherds Field" and the place, as told in the Bible, where Boaz fell in love with Ruth. These are places of immense spiritual significance, and the State's commandeering of the land is profoundly distressing. (As we wrote in the Kairos Document, "freedom of access to the holy places is denied under the pretext of security.") Second, the takeover is yet another example of the way Israeli occupation displaces us, divorces us from our basic rights of mobility and autonomy, and enforces a divisive view of human interaction that perverts the Word of God and the love and compassion it calls us to. We request the solidarity of churches in the international community: to support us, to intervene in this latest encroachment on Beit Sahour and prevent it from continuing, and to speak out against the occupation in all such instances. We ask individuals and communities worldwide to contact Israeli officials and condemn their actions, to write the mayor of Beit Sahour and express support, and engage in other such forms of outreach and network-building. As we make these requests, we quote again from the KAIROS Document itself to remind ourselves and each other of what is at stake and what we must call for: "Our connectedness to this land is a natural right. It is not an ideological or theological question only…[w]e suffer from the occupation of our land because we are Palestinians." And finally: "We also declare that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God…and distort [s] the divine image in the human beings living under both political and theological injustice." Please join KAIROS Palestine in condemning these oppressive actions in Beit Sahour and working to restore the justice that is both our calling and our right. We ask you to call and write to Israeli officials in order to protest this action, call upon them to stop the construction of the watchtower, prevent settlers from attacking the park, and cease any idea of building a settlement in the site. Please make appeals to: [Ehud Barak] Minister of Defense, Ministry of Defense, 37 Kaplan Street, Hakirya, Tel Aviv 61909, Israel Fax: +972 3 691 6940 Email: minister@mod.gov.il Salutation: Dear Minister Israeli Ambassador in your respective country Copy to: the Mayor of Beit SahourEmail: bsmuni@p-ol.com Kairos Palestine: http://www.kairospalestine.ps/ Email: Kalimatuna@gmail.com KAIROS Palestine is a group of Palestinian Christians who authored "A Moment of Truth" – Christian Palestinian's word to the world about the occupation of Palestine, an expression of hope and faith in God, and a call for solidarity in ending over six decades of oppression – and published it in 2009. From our board member, Nathan Dannison, more information – Here is a great background video re: the site:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ZaFwi6WBo&feature=player_embeddedand more background information from decolonizing architecture:http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/?page_id=428 Here are two articles regarding my non-violent protest and its result:http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=204315http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=56403 Here are some photographs of the event:http://picasaweb.google.com/dannison/BethlehemPart2#5233543371141960338 (scroll forward to see more) Here are my relevant blog entries:http://michigantopalestine.blogspot.com/2008/08/praying-for-childrens-hospital.htmlhttp://michigantopalestine.blogspot.com/2008/08/ush-ghrab-is-safe-again.html Here is some troubling information regarding the current state of affairs:http://michigantopalestine.blogspot.com/2008/08/ush-ghrab-is-safe-again.html Also – Photos of popular resistance including tearing down the apartheid fences in Bilinhttp://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100219/ids_photos_wl/r1248158112.jpg/#photoViewer=/100219/481/4865168bfb7a4784947f920bbbd07b13 Beit Sahour: a new struggle by Ben White - 21 February 2010 11:49, The Newstatesmanhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/02/palestinian-israeli-settlers This message was sent from Playgrounds for Palestine, 132 Pennsylvania Ave, Yardley, pa 19067.

Review: Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism

Today I finished reading this book by Robert Jay Lifton, originally published in 1961 and sometimes called the "bible" of the cult awareness movement.

By comparing the accounts of a number of people of varying backgrounds who were subjected to Maoist "thought reform" in the early Fifties, Lifton develops much insight into the processes and mechanisms by which coercive persuasion is attempted and sometimes accomplished, as well as some ideas about the possible motives of the reformers (including non-rational motives) and the kind of historical context that can give rise to such practices.

It was interesting to read about the personal backgrounds of some of the subjects and recognize similarities to elements of my own early life. This provided some insight into why I have had some susceptibility to totalism, as well as successful resistance to its most destructive potentialities. And I became quite engaged by the concluding discussion outlining his idea of "open personal change," as contrasted with the totalistic sort. This seemed very relevant to my own current struggle to find a comfortable balance between engagement and autonomy. I wish Lifton could have gone into greater detail on this topic; perhaps he's done so in subsequent writings.

I was also challenged by the fact that one of his Chinese subjects had come to the conclusion that the methods of thought reform were compatible with and rooted in Leninism, not a deviation from it as he'd assumed before studying Lenin. Although I'm no longer calling myself a Leninist, I'm still resistant to the notion that there's a continuity between Leninism and Stalinism. I'll have to look up the writing cited in the book so that I can make my own judgment.

Update 11 March: I skimmed through the book but couldn't find the citation from Lenin I'd thought I remembered — just an epigram attributed to him at the opening of the section on thought reform of Chinese intellectuals: "We must become engineers of the human soul." But when I try GoodSearching the Web for the source of this quote, I can't find it. Instead, I find the source for a similar statement by Stalin, in which he called writers "engineers of the human soul." On at least one occasion a representative of Stalin also used this expression at a conference, reportedly in reference to all cultural workers. So it appears the phrase is misattributed in Lifton's book.

Of course this doesn't explain why one of his subjects came to the conclusion he did, but it doesn't leave me much to go on; he may have simply been making an incorrect conflation of ideas that really are different.

It did occur to me a few years ago that the tension between the two sides of the democratic centralist formula — "freedom of discussion, unity in action" — would tend to create cognitive dissonance issues for any member of a Leninist group who finds timself in the minority; and I was forced to acknowledge the implications of this when I saw it discussed in Dennis Tourish's paper "Ideological Intransigence, Democratic Centralism, and Cultism." In brief, even relatively loose versions of DC will put such people in the position of appearing to assent, if only by their silence, to positions they don't really hold, and this will produce in them a feeling of insincerity that will bother their conscience. There are two ways of resolving this: adapting to the majority's position inwardly (which may become an automatic habit if done repeatedly), or else leaving the group so as no longer to be bound by its discipline. This rather neatly explains why the one thing Leninist groups are derided for more often than cultism, is serial splintering.

But with all that said, this cognitive dissonance problem alone falls far short of being all the essential elements of thought reform. The other element treated as centrally important in Tourish's paper, ideological intransigence, he sees as more essential to Trotskyism than to Leninism. In fact a quote from Lenin that is sourced — and with which I happen to be acquainted because it appeared for years on the inside front cover of Bulletin in Defense of Marxism, journal of the Fourth Internationalist Tendency to which I belonged 1986-92 — suggests a spirit quite contrary to that of thought reform:

All members of the party must begin to study, completely dispassionately and with utmost honesty, first the essence of the differences and second the course of the dispute in the party.... It is necessary to study both the one and the other, unfailingly demanding the most exact, printed documents, open to verification by all sides. Whoever believes things simply on someone else's say-so is a hopeless idiot, to be dismissed with a wave of the hand. -- "The Party Crisis," 19 January 1921.

The objection may be made that this quote refers to an inner-party struggle and doesn't necessarily apply to non-members. But if internal differences are regarded as legitimate and not necessarily the expression of "the bourgeoisie inside the party" as Maoist doctrine would have it, it's difficult to see how the same allowance would not be made for the views of non-members which may, after all, echo those that some members also hold.

Economics and Ideology — Redux

I have to wonder: do the commentaries on Marketplace have such a predominantly neoliberal tilt because of the producers' own bias? Or does it just reflect what they think their listeners want to hear? The latest is by one Susan Lee, who recently shared a stage with the Archbishop of Canterbury. She says this is because she has a degree in theology as well as one in economics, but she sounds indistinguishable from any capitalist apologist. On one side, she says Canterbury's (admittedly fuzzy) definition of an ethical economy is met by "capitalism in the U.S." Although she only speaks of capitalism in general subsequently, she thereby creates the impression that her arguments justify the particular choices made in this country, ignoring the evidence that different choices — choices not reflecting the priorities she argues for — actually produce better results in human terms. On the other side, she doesn't offer any coherent description of what Canterbury stands for, defining his position only by the assumptions of hers that he doesn't share. This results in what looks like a cartoonish caricature of whatever his real position might be. This is what I wrote in response on their comments page:

Mind-boggling. Lee speaks as if the United States had the world's only functioning economy. Can she really be unaware that most developed countries actually function better by human criteria — average longevity, infant mortality, illiteracy? And that these better-performing economies are based on different social choices, with less inequality of wealth and income? This is only logical since, as any economist should know, the more equally income is distributed the larger the proportion that will be invested in necessities rather than luxuries, with beneficial consequences for the species. And as any biologist knows, what nature ultimately cares about is not accumulation but reproduction. So if an economic system is based on democracy and transparency, the most productive individuals will be correctly identified and rewarded with greater reproductive opportunities, which is all the incentive anyone needs. For further discussion of these concepts, see the essay "Making the Right to a Job More Than a Slogan" on my blog Gondwanaland.

The last paragraph is responding in particular to the most overtly neoliberal part of Lee's commentary, where she accuses Canterbury of believing in "work without incentives, enterprise without income inequality, investment without market-rates of return." Where, in other words, she assumes implicitly that the only kinds of incentives possible are the kinds that exist under capitalism.

The Hunger Project Gets Free Ride on The World

PRI's The World had a story today about a family that sold their home and gave half the proceeds to The Hunger Project. THP got a lot of good press without any mention of its controversial nature. I sent The World this letter:

Ironic that in the same program in which you reported in such detail on the cultlike practices of the Pakistani Taliban, you also gave free, unrebutted advertising for another cult-related group, The Hunger Project. THP was founded by Werner Erhard of Erhard Seminars Training (est) and several of his followers, and did not end (formal) ties to that group 'til 1991. It has quite recently been accused of trying to suppress critical information about itself. See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Project#Public_criticism. I also find it objectionable that those you interviewed, in praising THP's stated emphasis on helping people sustainably overcome hunger, spoke as if it were unique in this respect. Even if it is true that this is really their practice now (and they've been accused of misrepresenting their activities in the past), they are hardly alone in this. To name just one example, Oxfam is also known for emphasizing development aid over handouts.

You can write them at theworld@pri.org.

Quote of the Week

"In the bible God kills every species on Earth except for the creatures in Noah's ark because he was angry with man. That's a god that needs a hug." — Erik Buchanan on the Philadelphia-area Atheist Meetup Message Board

From Slate: Why Did We Focus on Securing Haiti Rather Than Helping Haitians?

Forwarded from Slate to the Philly Socialists list:

Why Did We Focus on Securing Haiti Rather Than Helping Haitians?
Here are two possibilities, neither of them flattering.
By Ben Ehrenreich
Posted Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010, at 1:39 PM ET

By the weekend, it was clear that something perverse was going on in Haiti, something savage and bestial in its lack of concern for human life. I'm not talking about the earthquake, and certainly not about the so-called "looting," which I prefer to think of as the autonomously organized distribution of unjustly hoarded goods. I'm talking about the U.S. relief effort.

For two days after the quake, despite almost unimaginable destruction, there were reasons to be optimistic. With a few notable exceptions — Pat Robertson and David Brooks among them — Americans reacted with extraordinary and unhesitating generosity of spirit and of purse. Port-au-Prince is not much farther from Washington, D.C., than, say, New Orleans, and the current president of the United States, unlike his predecessor, was quick to react to catastrophe. Taking advantage of "our unique capacity to project power around the world," President Barack Obama pledged abundant aid and 10,000 troops.

Troops? Port-au-Prince had been leveled by an earthquake, not a barbarian invasion, but, OK, troops. Maybe they could put down their rifles and, you know, carry stuff, make themselves useful. At least they could get there soon: The naval base at Guantanamo was barely 200 miles away.

The Cubans, at least, would show up quickly. It wasn't until Friday, three days after the quake, that the "supercarrier" USS Carl Vinson, arrived — and promptly ran out of supplies. "We have communications, we have some command and control, but we don't have much relief supplies to offer," admitted Rear Adm. Ted Branch. So what were they doing there?

"Command and control" turned out to be the key words. The U.S. military did what the U.S. military does. Like a slow-witted, fearful giant, it built a wall around itself, commandeering the Port-au-Prince airport and constructing a mini-Green Zone. As thousands of tons of desperately needed food, water, and medical supplies piled up behind the airport fences — and thousands of corpses piled up outside them — Defense Secretary Robert Gates ruled out the possibility of using American aircraft to airdrop supplies: "An airdrop is simply going to lead to riots," he said. The military's first priority was to build a "structure for distribution" and "to provide security." (Four days and many deaths later, the United States began airdropping aid.)

The TV networks and major papers gamely played along. Forget hunger, dehydration, gangrene, septicemia — the real concern was "the security situation," the possibility of chaos, violence, looting. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of on-the-ground accounts from people who did not have to answer to editors described Haitians taking care of one another, digging through rubble with their bare hands, caring for injured loved ones — and strangers — in the absence of outside help. Even the evidence of "looting" documented something that looked more like mutual aid: The photograph that accompanied a Sunday New York Times article reporting "pockets of violence and anarchy" showed men standing atop the ruins of a store, tossing supplies to the gathered crowd.

The guiding assumption, though, was that Haitian society was on the very edge of dissolving into savagery. Suffering from "progress-resistant cultural influences" (that's David Brooks finding a polite way to call black people primitive), Haitians were expected to devour one another and, like wounded dogs, to snap at the hands that fed them. As much as any logistical bottleneck, the mania for security slowed the distribution of aid.

Air traffic control in the Haitian capital was outsourced to an Air Force base in Florida, which, not surprisingly, gave priority to its own pilots. While the military flew in troops and equipment, planes bearing supplies for the Red Cross, the World Food Program, and Doctors Without Borders were rerouted to Santo Domingo in neighboring Dominican Republic. Aid flights from Mexico, Russia, and France were refused permission to land. On Monday, the British Daily Telegraph reported, the French minister in charge of humanitarian aid admitted he had been involved in a "scuffle" with a U.S. commander in the airport's control tower. According to the Telegraph, it took the intervention of the United Nations for the United States to agree to prioritize humanitarian flights over military deliveries.

Meanwhile, much of the aid that was arriving remained at the airport. Haitians watched American helicopters fly over the capital, commanding and controlling, but no aid at all was being distributed in most of the city. On Tuesday, a doctor at a field hospital within site of the runways complained that five to 10 patients were dying each day for lack of the most basic medical necessities. "We can look at the supplies sitting there," Alphonse Edward told Britain's Channel 4 News.

The much-feared descent into anarchy stubbornly refused to materialize. "It is calm at this time," Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, deputy commander of the U.S. Southern Command, admitted to the AP on Monday. "Those who live and work here tell me that the level of violence that we see right now is below pre-earthquake levels." He announced that four — four, in a city of more than 2 million — aid distribution points had been set up on the sixth day of the crisis.

So what happened? Why the mad rush to command and control, with all its ultimately murderous consequences? Why the paranoid focus on security above saving lives? Clearly, President Obama failed to learn one of the basic lessons taught by Hurricane Katrina: You can't solve a humanitarian problem by throwing guns at it. Before the president had finished insisting that "my national security team understands that I will not put up with any excuses," Haiti's fate was sealed. National security teams prioritize national security, an amorphous and expensive notion that has little to do with keeping Haitian citizens alive.

This leaves the more disturbing question of why the Obama administration chose to respond as if they were there to confront an insurgency, rather than to clear rubble and distribute antibiotics and MREs. The beginning of an answer can be found in what Rebecca Solnit, author of A Paradise Built in Hell, calls "elite panic" — the conviction of the powerful that their own Hobbesian corporate ethic is innate in all of us, that in the absence of centralized authority, only cannibalism can reign.

But the danger of hunger-crazed mobs never came up after the 2004 Pacific tsunami, and no one mentions security when tornados and floods wipe out swaths of the American Midwest. This suggests two possibilities, neither of them flattering. The first is that the administration had strategic reasons for sending 10,000 troops that had little to do with disaster relief. This is the explanation favored by the Latin American left and, given the United States' history of invasion and occupation in Haiti (and in the Dominican Republic and Cuba and Nicaragua and Grenada and Panama), it is difficult to dismiss. Only time will tell what "reconstruction" means.

Another answer lies closer to home. New Orleans and Port-au-Prince have one obvious thing in common: The majority of both cities' residents are black and poor. White people who are not poor have been known, when confronted with black people who are, to start locking their car doors and muttering about their security. It doesn't matter what color our president is. Even when it is ostensibly doing good, the U.S. government can be racist, and, in an entirely civil and bureaucratic fashion, savagely cruel.

Ben Ehrenreich, a journalist and novelist based in Los Angeles, is the author of The Suitors. He reported from Haiti in 2006 for L.A. Weekly.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2242078/

Don't Think of an Elephant!

The guest at this month's PhACT meeting was Kenneth Biddle of the Paranormal Investigators and Research Association, who spoke on the topic ""Orbs or Dust? A Practical Guide to False Positives." When the role of expectations in alleged "electronic voice phenomena" came up, I was reminded of what I thought I heard in a news segment years ago, and led to wonder if I'd heard the same thing others had. So I GoodSearched for "Mr. Ed" plus "satanic message," and what I saw on the TV Acres site led me to write them the following:

On your page about Mr. Ed you write, "It's not true that if you play the MISTER ED theme song backwards you will hear a satanic message." This is actually a rather nonsensical statement on your part. The only reason you're mentioning it is that some people have heard a satanic message there. I'm one of those people, so I know your statement is untrue as applied to myself. It was probably twenty years ago, and I heard it in a TV news segment about a couple of Christian radio DJs who said they'd discovered it unexpectedly while playing various TV themes backward. When they played it for the news show, it sounded to me like, "Someone sung this song for Satan." Now, I'll certainly allow that I may have heard this only because I'd been "primed" for it by the news story (as the DJs may have been primed by stories about "backward masking" in heavy metal). Nonetheless, I did hear it — and presumably would hear it again, given the opportunity — so your statement is false. Perhaps I'm meant to take your statement only as meaning that, if I do hear such a message, it's my own imagination. This seems highly likely, but I wouldn't need you to tell me that — and if I were the kind of person who would, I probably wouldn't believe you anyway. In fact, by mentioning this rumor without explaining how such priming works, you are likely causing more people, rather than fewer, to believe it. The people disinclined to believe would already disbelieve, while those inclined to believe might be hearing this story for the first time, and ask themselves how you can be so sure that it isn't true. (After all, how can you?) Some may even go to the trouble of finding such a backward recording or making their own and, having had the idea put in their heads by you, hear exactly that. Telling people who've given credence to such rumors to "grow up" will not impress them. They'll probably think you're naive (even a "dupe of Satan") in dismissing something like this as ridiculous. If you really want to promote critical thinking, you'll have to get a better handle on the psychology of belief than you seem to have at present.

Funds Sought for Progressive Relief Team to Haiti

This message just received from the Philly Socialists list:

Folk, we need your help in raising funds for the Progressive Relief team. Please
ask any and everyone to assist with donations sent via mail to IFCO/GHT 418
145th Street, New York, New York 10031. The Interreligious Foundation of
Community Organizations is tax exempt 501c3. The organization is best known for
one of its groups- Pastors for Peace.

I tried to set up a pay pal
account but have been unsuccessful with getting it to function. I will ask IFCO
for help on Monday. If we can get it functioning I will send information.

One of our Progressive Medical Relief Teams is entering Haiti now. The
others are soon off. The group from Boston, New York and Philadelphia take off
this coming week with 12 medical personnel (doctors, herbalist, nurses). The
group is accompanied by a 3 member New York radio team for immedate news from
the ground.

We need approximately $25,000 for the team, medical
suppplies and survival kits. If you have medical supplies or can help secure
survivl kits call Pierre Leroy at 845-679-7320 or email:
pierre_leroy2003@yahoo.com or pierre@hatiansupportproject.org.

Colia L.
Clark
Alan Benjamin
Co-Coordinators
Guadeloupe Haiti Tour USA
International Commission of Inquiry On Haiti 2009