Monday, December 7, 2009
The Sacrifices of the Greatest Generation
Today, December 7th, 2009, is the 68th anniversary of the attack of Pearl Harbor that left thousands of Americans dead, and began World War II. I wouldn't be doing the WWII generation justice if I called WWII the defining point of 20th century US history. WWII had implications for the entire human race, and left and indelible mark on the psyche of those who fought and labored to see its end. Pearl Harbor, the second worst attack on US soil (Sept 11th being the worst) polarized an already sympathetic nation to unite to defeat totalitarianism, from the navy yards in San Francisco, to the beaches of Normandy, to the islands of the Pacific.
As someone who had widely read about WWII, I find that the 20th century is defined by two eras: Pre and Post-war. The brave soldiers who fought and died in the Pacific, N Africa, Europe and Russia were working towards protecting the world from the threats of Nazis and imperialists, but their actions had wider implications for the following 68 years. WWII spawned the atomic age, the cold war, the modern American family, affordable universities, cheap housing, suburbia, the FDR amendment, the Berlin Wall, cherry blossom festival, Rosie the riveter, modern healthcare, racially integrated armed forces, the defense industry and defined the "united homefront." All of these legacies spawned their own set of principles and ideals that still define what it means to be American. It brought us out of a depression, put us on the world stage and set that stage for the beginning of the most prolific generation: the baby boomers.
Most importantly, WWII gave us the greatest generation. They survived two world wars and a economic depression, to come out during one of the most prosperous times in our history. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, one as a bombadier and one as a dive bomber. My living grandfather, who flew divebombers against the Japanese in the pacific with Marine Corps, is 92 years old and flies the Marine flag from his home in North Hollywood every day. Its a simple gesture whose meaning transcends many generations.
If there is something we can take from remembering Pearl Harbor, its that decisions to go to war, to respond to an attack on our homeland, is something that will inevitably reverberate through many generations. And, the sacrifices of soldiers put in harms way should, and will always be held in the highest honor.
As someone who had widely read about WWII, I find that the 20th century is defined by two eras: Pre and Post-war. The brave soldiers who fought and died in the Pacific, N Africa, Europe and Russia were working towards protecting the world from the threats of Nazis and imperialists, but their actions had wider implications for the following 68 years. WWII spawned the atomic age, the cold war, the modern American family, affordable universities, cheap housing, suburbia, the FDR amendment, the Berlin Wall, cherry blossom festival, Rosie the riveter, modern healthcare, racially integrated armed forces, the defense industry and defined the "united homefront." All of these legacies spawned their own set of principles and ideals that still define what it means to be American. It brought us out of a depression, put us on the world stage and set that stage for the beginning of the most prolific generation: the baby boomers.
Most importantly, WWII gave us the greatest generation. They survived two world wars and a economic depression, to come out during one of the most prosperous times in our history. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, one as a bombadier and one as a dive bomber. My living grandfather, who flew divebombers against the Japanese in the pacific with Marine Corps, is 92 years old and flies the Marine flag from his home in North Hollywood every day. Its a simple gesture whose meaning transcends many generations.
If there is something we can take from remembering Pearl Harbor, its that decisions to go to war, to respond to an attack on our homeland, is something that will inevitably reverberate through many generations. And, the sacrifices of soldiers put in harms way should, and will always be held in the highest honor.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Folly of Conservative Guerrilla Tactics: Open Note to Lila Rose and Hannah Giles
Two events in the last year, involving young conservatives using guerrilla media tactics, have been shortsighted and disgustingly partisan at the expense of the livelihoods of the less fortunate.
The first happened when UCLA student Lila Rose went into a Planned Parenthood with a camera, and a story about statutory rape. The worker told her to lie on her application, and it was all caught on tape. This whipped up the pro-life community (as if they were not whipped up already), and Planned Parenthood took the necessary actions to fire the worker. But, this wasn't enough. The video evidence was used as the reason for revoking funding from some Planned Parenthood locations.
Here's what grinds my gears: the worker at planned parenthood made a mistake, and the worker got fired. This is NO reason to consider revoking funding from such an organization. People who don't want to see planned parenthood on the streets are just looking for that one slip-up to throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended). Lila Rose's ruse turned into a fiasco for reproductive rights and threatened to set us back 35 years. Planned parenthood is not only about abortion. Planned parenthood gives reproductive health counseling, parenthood advice and information about adoption. Abortion consultation is only one element. And, if funding is cut, it affects every aspect of the organization, which could have terrible implications for women seeking reproductive and/or parenthood counseling.
The pro-life movement is incredibly short-sighted and their reasoning is ethically and physically unproven. No one has the right to define where life starts. The argument that it starts at conception is arbitrary and ethically spurious. Ethics aside, other people's reproductive choices are none of their business! How dare someone even consider that they have the power to make decisions about the body of someone else! A woman has an inherent right to choose what she does with the baby that she carries. To pass any kind of law restricting abortion in any term would be an affront to privacy.
The second event involved Hannah Giles, young conservative, who dressed as a prostitute and went into ACORN. An ACORN worker gave her advice on tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution. The worker was fired and the conservative wingnuttosphere went...nutty. ACORN received flak stemming from voter fraud allegations during the election, and many criticisms levied against Obama during his run were stemmed from his work with ACORN. An outraged congress passed a resolution that cut all federal spending from ACORN.
There are two questionable things about the ACORN case. Congress passing a bill that targets ACORN is a bill of attainder and illegal under the constitution. If Congress wanted to cut spending from ACORN, it could have done it without a bill and not made it such a public humiliation for ACORN. If they applied the same rules in the ACORN bill to other federally funded contractors, half of the organizations rebuilding Afghanistan would have their funding cut. I guess the mistake of one worker is worth more punishment than the electrocution of American soldiers by faulty wiring or the rape and humiliation of a woman working for Halliburton. ACORN provides valuable services to underprivileged and underrepresented groups, employing ethnic and racial minorities to get them off the street and out of gangs. They register those communities to vote, train local leaders for social justice grassroots movements and do advocacy for communities that cannot advocate for themselves. And, because of this selfish, unbelievably short-sighted act, all of these programs will lose out. One can surely see the folly in it all.
When the LA Times did a cover story on Ms. Giles and her speech in Santa Barbara to young conservatives, her audience sounded like they were the oppressed minority of the CA political world. Here's some advice from our esteemed governor: Stop Whining! To add insult to injury, Giles had the audacity to quote great community organizer Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a champion of community organizations and grassroots movements that defined ACORN. If Alinsky were alive, he would have opposed, and probably organized a campaign against what Giles did. I'm sure he's turning in his grave.
The first happened when UCLA student Lila Rose went into a Planned Parenthood with a camera, and a story about statutory rape. The worker told her to lie on her application, and it was all caught on tape. This whipped up the pro-life community (as if they were not whipped up already), and Planned Parenthood took the necessary actions to fire the worker. But, this wasn't enough. The video evidence was used as the reason for revoking funding from some Planned Parenthood locations.
Here's what grinds my gears: the worker at planned parenthood made a mistake, and the worker got fired. This is NO reason to consider revoking funding from such an organization. People who don't want to see planned parenthood on the streets are just looking for that one slip-up to throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended). Lila Rose's ruse turned into a fiasco for reproductive rights and threatened to set us back 35 years. Planned parenthood is not only about abortion. Planned parenthood gives reproductive health counseling, parenthood advice and information about adoption. Abortion consultation is only one element. And, if funding is cut, it affects every aspect of the organization, which could have terrible implications for women seeking reproductive and/or parenthood counseling.
The pro-life movement is incredibly short-sighted and their reasoning is ethically and physically unproven. No one has the right to define where life starts. The argument that it starts at conception is arbitrary and ethically spurious. Ethics aside, other people's reproductive choices are none of their business! How dare someone even consider that they have the power to make decisions about the body of someone else! A woman has an inherent right to choose what she does with the baby that she carries. To pass any kind of law restricting abortion in any term would be an affront to privacy.
The second event involved Hannah Giles, young conservative, who dressed as a prostitute and went into ACORN. An ACORN worker gave her advice on tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution. The worker was fired and the conservative wingnuttosphere went...nutty. ACORN received flak stemming from voter fraud allegations during the election, and many criticisms levied against Obama during his run were stemmed from his work with ACORN. An outraged congress passed a resolution that cut all federal spending from ACORN.
There are two questionable things about the ACORN case. Congress passing a bill that targets ACORN is a bill of attainder and illegal under the constitution. If Congress wanted to cut spending from ACORN, it could have done it without a bill and not made it such a public humiliation for ACORN. If they applied the same rules in the ACORN bill to other federally funded contractors, half of the organizations rebuilding Afghanistan would have their funding cut. I guess the mistake of one worker is worth more punishment than the electrocution of American soldiers by faulty wiring or the rape and humiliation of a woman working for Halliburton. ACORN provides valuable services to underprivileged and underrepresented groups, employing ethnic and racial minorities to get them off the street and out of gangs. They register those communities to vote, train local leaders for social justice grassroots movements and do advocacy for communities that cannot advocate for themselves. And, because of this selfish, unbelievably short-sighted act, all of these programs will lose out. One can surely see the folly in it all.
When the LA Times did a cover story on Ms. Giles and her speech in Santa Barbara to young conservatives, her audience sounded like they were the oppressed minority of the CA political world. Here's some advice from our esteemed governor: Stop Whining! To add insult to injury, Giles had the audacity to quote great community organizer Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a champion of community organizations and grassroots movements that defined ACORN. If Alinsky were alive, he would have opposed, and probably organized a campaign against what Giles did. I'm sure he's turning in his grave.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Some Hearing Updates: CEJAP, Cap and Trade and Fraudulent Letters
These last couple weeks I haven't been updating my blog, mostly because I have been very busy. Busy with what? Well, other than busy not being paid, I have been rushing around the Hill from hearing to hearing over the new energy bill. That is: Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, Boxer-Kerry, CEJAP or S.1733. This is the Senate version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, Waxman-Markey, ACES or H.R.2454. Here are a couple highlights from the last two weeks:
-I went to the Environment and Natural Resources Hearing on Cap-and-trade economics. The emphasis was on trying to find a way to give money back to the consumer, who would inevitably bear the brunt of cap and trade. The panel questioned witnesses from Academia and non-profits, including my favorite Resources for the Future (sounds cool, huh?) Senator Bingaman, Cantwell and Dorgan asked how rates of electricity would vary across regions and how money could be funneled back to low income communities for transitional support into new low energy appliances. Sen Murkowski harped on regional differences between her home state of AK and those "coastal regions." Bunning, Bennett and Barrasso made their usual diatribes about an energy tax and how carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, etc. Polemics aside, they had the same question about how the average consumer was going to be helped to transition to a green economy. Some good ideas from the witnesses were cap and dividend which gives money back in the form of a stimulus-like check, and a 15% rebate for low income communities.
-The big enchiladas were the Environment and Public Works hearings on the new bill, featuring various experts on national security, adaptation, trade and economics and a panel of Obama Administration secretary members (DOE, EPA, DOT, DOI, etc). Senator Boxer took control of the hearing quickly, and acted as a moderator for the witnesses and Sen Inhofe. Inhofe was surprisingly less crazy about his global warming denial and stuck to the tax complaint. Sen Alexander made his point about building 100 new nuclear power plants, electrifying 50% of the vehicle fleet and creating mini "Manhattan Projects." There were some questions about agriculture from Sen Klobuchar, but mostly the democrats asked about the need for regulation of GHG emissions and the availability of technology. The most interesting segments involved Boxer and Inhofe's exchanges and questioning of retired Vice Admiral McGill, of the Center for Naval Analysis. His reiteration that climate change was a threat to national security, and my experience reading over his work, has given me great respect for him.
-Lastly, I attended the Fraudulent Letters hearing by the House Selection Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This was held by chairman Ed Markey, who I have great respect for from his authorship in H.R.2454. He questioned representatives from the NAACP, the American Association of University Women, Bonner and Associates and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). Fraudulent letters supposedly sent by a temp worker at Bonner and Associates, who was contracted by ACCCE, were sent to congressmen on behalf of senior, veterans and ethnic groups opposing the Waxman-Markey bill. These letters were fake, and the transgression was found out 2 days before the bill was sent to the floor. ACCCE and Bonner took slow action to remedy this, as the parties involved, representatives and groups who were victims of the fraud were not notified until almost 1 month after the vote. Markey and Rep Jay Inslee shamed Bonner and ACCCE and called what they did an affront to democracy. Markey and Inslee went a step further to say that the memos that ACCCE was putting out about higher energy bills were as fraudulent as the letters. Steve Miller of ACCCE gave contraditing statements about whether or not he intended on supporting the bill, which Markey did not believe. Markey concluded the hearing by telling Miller to go to global warming naysayers like Sen Inhoff and tell them that ACCCE supports a cap on emissions and thinks global warming is an important threat to deal with. Most importantly, Markey said that this kind of rhetoric about energy bills gets to the floor debate and hinders good discussion.
That's all folks.
-I went to the Environment and Natural Resources Hearing on Cap-and-trade economics. The emphasis was on trying to find a way to give money back to the consumer, who would inevitably bear the brunt of cap and trade. The panel questioned witnesses from Academia and non-profits, including my favorite Resources for the Future (sounds cool, huh?) Senator Bingaman, Cantwell and Dorgan asked how rates of electricity would vary across regions and how money could be funneled back to low income communities for transitional support into new low energy appliances. Sen Murkowski harped on regional differences between her home state of AK and those "coastal regions." Bunning, Bennett and Barrasso made their usual diatribes about an energy tax and how carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, etc. Polemics aside, they had the same question about how the average consumer was going to be helped to transition to a green economy. Some good ideas from the witnesses were cap and dividend which gives money back in the form of a stimulus-like check, and a 15% rebate for low income communities.
-The big enchiladas were the Environment and Public Works hearings on the new bill, featuring various experts on national security, adaptation, trade and economics and a panel of Obama Administration secretary members (DOE, EPA, DOT, DOI, etc). Senator Boxer took control of the hearing quickly, and acted as a moderator for the witnesses and Sen Inhofe. Inhofe was surprisingly less crazy about his global warming denial and stuck to the tax complaint. Sen Alexander made his point about building 100 new nuclear power plants, electrifying 50% of the vehicle fleet and creating mini "Manhattan Projects." There were some questions about agriculture from Sen Klobuchar, but mostly the democrats asked about the need for regulation of GHG emissions and the availability of technology. The most interesting segments involved Boxer and Inhofe's exchanges and questioning of retired Vice Admiral McGill, of the Center for Naval Analysis. His reiteration that climate change was a threat to national security, and my experience reading over his work, has given me great respect for him.
-Lastly, I attended the Fraudulent Letters hearing by the House Selection Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This was held by chairman Ed Markey, who I have great respect for from his authorship in H.R.2454. He questioned representatives from the NAACP, the American Association of University Women, Bonner and Associates and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). Fraudulent letters supposedly sent by a temp worker at Bonner and Associates, who was contracted by ACCCE, were sent to congressmen on behalf of senior, veterans and ethnic groups opposing the Waxman-Markey bill. These letters were fake, and the transgression was found out 2 days before the bill was sent to the floor. ACCCE and Bonner took slow action to remedy this, as the parties involved, representatives and groups who were victims of the fraud were not notified until almost 1 month after the vote. Markey and Rep Jay Inslee shamed Bonner and ACCCE and called what they did an affront to democracy. Markey and Inslee went a step further to say that the memos that ACCCE was putting out about higher energy bills were as fraudulent as the letters. Steve Miller of ACCCE gave contraditing statements about whether or not he intended on supporting the bill, which Markey did not believe. Markey concluded the hearing by telling Miller to go to global warming naysayers like Sen Inhoff and tell them that ACCCE supports a cap on emissions and thinks global warming is an important threat to deal with. Most importantly, Markey said that this kind of rhetoric about energy bills gets to the floor debate and hinders good discussion.
That's all folks.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Nobel Prize: Diplomatic Texas Hold 'Em
This week a survey was released that said there is 6.3 people for every 1 job. There hasn't been this kind of competition for jobs in 70 years (IE Great Depression).
This week a mixed American-Afghan force stormed an Al-Qaeda compound, killing 18 militants.
This week, it was realized that Northern Alaska, once a glacier filled area, is now a viable commercial and recreational port because of global warming.
This week a group of Gay activists will march on Washington to demand equal rights.
Last month a report came out that said August was the deadliest for Afghan citizens. Sen McCain called equivocation on troop increases a "historic error."
This week, a Pakistani force freed hostages held by militants in a 20 hour gun battle that left many dead.
...
Oh yah...and this week President Obama won the Nobel Prize.
Of course, in reaction to the last "happening" detractors went nuts. Chairman Michael Steele was fast to denounce the win for the president and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck had their usual rants. Wingnuts and some lefties found a reason to learn about the Nobel Prize process, and found it astounding that the nomination deadline was February of this year, meaning that Obama was in office for a total of 10 days when he got nominated. Other than ignoring the fact that he promised to fight global warming, a flagging economy, bring the US back to the table in diplomacy, close Gitmo and eliminate nuclear arms months before he even stepped into office, I understand that actions are stronger than words. Some detractors (not just wingnuts, but lefties too) said that Obama won because he was not George W Bush.
The Nobel Prize win also brought out an unusual occurrence...a consensus of opposition to the prize between elements of the right wing and the Taliban. Woah...
Let me put this in perspective for those who are completely outraged about Obama's win. This Nobel Peace prize winner is picked by a panel of 5 who are recommended by the Norwegian Storting (parliament). The deadline for a nomination is the 1st of February of the year the prize is given. So people are in outrage over a nomination made over 8 months ago, and taken up by a panel of 5 Norwegians?!?! I don't mean to detract from the Nobel Peace Prize, but is it really that important? Does Obama winning the Nobel Prize help us reduce unemployment or beat the Taliban in Afghanistan...?
No...but neither does harping on Obama's win. In fact, I think a recognition by an international body for the diplomatic efforts (yes...efforts, not results) is an inherent win, because it has the possibility of legitimizing further diplomacy. Of course that is all speculation and risk. But, isn't that what the nomination was? I say we should look at it as an investment, a risk, a bet that someone put on Obama that he might fulfill his diplomatic aspirations and make the US a more respected country on the international scene. Think of this win as taking the pile in Hold 'Em, but not yet winning that Bracelet (The winner of the World Series of Poker wins a bracelet...and a lot of cash).
Did Obama win on a bluff or was he holding pocket aces?
This week a mixed American-Afghan force stormed an Al-Qaeda compound, killing 18 militants.
This week, it was realized that Northern Alaska, once a glacier filled area, is now a viable commercial and recreational port because of global warming.
This week a group of Gay activists will march on Washington to demand equal rights.
Last month a report came out that said August was the deadliest for Afghan citizens. Sen McCain called equivocation on troop increases a "historic error."
This week, a Pakistani force freed hostages held by militants in a 20 hour gun battle that left many dead.
...
Oh yah...and this week President Obama won the Nobel Prize.
Of course, in reaction to the last "happening" detractors went nuts. Chairman Michael Steele was fast to denounce the win for the president and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck had their usual rants. Wingnuts and some lefties found a reason to learn about the Nobel Prize process, and found it astounding that the nomination deadline was February of this year, meaning that Obama was in office for a total of 10 days when he got nominated. Other than ignoring the fact that he promised to fight global warming, a flagging economy, bring the US back to the table in diplomacy, close Gitmo and eliminate nuclear arms months before he even stepped into office, I understand that actions are stronger than words. Some detractors (not just wingnuts, but lefties too) said that Obama won because he was not George W Bush.
The Nobel Prize win also brought out an unusual occurrence...a consensus of opposition to the prize between elements of the right wing and the Taliban. Woah...
Let me put this in perspective for those who are completely outraged about Obama's win. This Nobel Peace prize winner is picked by a panel of 5 who are recommended by the Norwegian Storting (parliament). The deadline for a nomination is the 1st of February of the year the prize is given. So people are in outrage over a nomination made over 8 months ago, and taken up by a panel of 5 Norwegians?!?! I don't mean to detract from the Nobel Peace Prize, but is it really that important? Does Obama winning the Nobel Prize help us reduce unemployment or beat the Taliban in Afghanistan...?
No...but neither does harping on Obama's win. In fact, I think a recognition by an international body for the diplomatic efforts (yes...efforts, not results) is an inherent win, because it has the possibility of legitimizing further diplomacy. Of course that is all speculation and risk. But, isn't that what the nomination was? I say we should look at it as an investment, a risk, a bet that someone put on Obama that he might fulfill his diplomatic aspirations and make the US a more respected country on the international scene. Think of this win as taking the pile in Hold 'Em, but not yet winning that Bracelet (The winner of the World Series of Poker wins a bracelet...and a lot of cash).
Did Obama win on a bluff or was he holding pocket aces?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Zombies R Us: Zombieland, and a Quick Look at the Genre
Yesterday night, after a long day at my unpaid internship, I decided to take a trip to Chinatown with a friend (from my previous unpaid internship) to see Zombieland. Zombieland is the zombie-comedy, where the world has been taken over by the living dead. It stars Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin (yup, the same little, innocent Abigail Breslin from Little Miss Sunshine). Director Ruben Fleisher puts a fresh, fun spin on the zombie genre, the likes I have only seen from Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead. It puts you right into the fray and never lets you go. It is filled with gory, zombie "kills of the week" as well as non-stop comedy that can sometimes make you feel bad that you're laughing...uncontrollably. It really is that good. Stir up the buddy-cop element, mixed with a little stoner humor, a twinkie fetish and zombies (and lots of big guns) and you have...Zombieland. Enjoy!
(There is also a extremely funny guest star in the movie...don't look at the IMDB page if you want to be pleasantly surprised.)
ZOMBIES
Zombieland brought back my interest in the Zombie genre, moreso than most recent zombie movies have. While the reasoning behind zombification remains constant in the last couple decades (Viruses), the zombie, and the setting surrounding the zombie have changed to fit the times. I have invested a lot of time and intellectual power into researching the zombie genre, including teaching two undergraduate lectures at UCLA about zombies. So, I am going to take you, the reader, down a historical trip through the zombie genre, starting with the prolific, midnight movie extravaganza Night of the Living Dead in 1968, all the way up to Zombieland. Mostly, I will consider the master of the zombie, George A Romero, and the indelible impact he has made on the genre.
Night of the Living Dead (NOTLD) was shot on a shoestring budget, in the woods of Pennsylvania by rookie filmmaker George A Romero. Originally to be called Night of Anubis, Romero did not even consider his new creations any kind of "Zombie." The zombies before Romero were fantastical voodoo creations from the Bela Lagosi age, where horror and science fiction were more of an outer space/castle in Transylvania type genre. The zombie was exotic, scary and usually arrived in small numbers. Romero turned this characterization into the modern zombies we see today. Night of the Living dead, shot on 16mm looked more like a 90 minute news report than a serious movie. But, it was the content that surpassed the medium with NOTLD; the same content that shocked midnight movie goers at the violent end of the 1960s. Romero used shocking B-roll of zombies munching down on the flesh, innards and bones of their victims while mindlessly surrounding the small house that the survivors lay barricaded in. This B-roll is mixed in with news reports of radiation from Venus, the dead coming to life and instructions on how to dispatch of walking corpses.
What is so significant about NOTLD is that it is the first modern zombie film to reach the taboos of society and reflect the chaos of the end of the 1960s. NOTLD was shot like a news story because of the low budget, but its texture reminded Romero, and moviegoers of the same pictures they had seen on TV. 1967-1968 Tet offensive was being televised in all its bloody glory, and the American people finally got to see the carnage of Vietnam, including the famous shot of a ARVN general executing a suspected Vietcong rebel. They had also seen the televised beatings and killings of civil rights leaders, whose nonviolence was met with "southern hospitality." This kind of American on American, human on human violence was not new. NOTLD reminded us that zombies are just like us. Zombies maybe dead, but they were once people too. NOTLD also put one simple element into the zombie genre: Zombies don't succeed without human error. Most of the conflicts in NOTLD, and in later Romero, and non-Romero films, are as a result of the elements of human nature: panic, competition and survival. The conflicts that arise between survivors end up dooming their survival. The zombies are just a medium through which the story progresses, but they are definitely not the main conflict vehicle. The end of the movie (which I won't reveal to you) reminds of the ultimate chaotic ending to a lot of the idealistic, nonviolent movements of the 1960s. Like the end of the movie, they were met with internal struggle that led to a violent conclusion.
In my lecture, They're Coming To Get You Barbara: Night of the Living Dead and the Violent End to the 1960s" I chronicled the events of 1968 that could have reflected NOTLD. Lets take a look:
Vietnam
-Troop levels reach 500,000
-Johnson backs down from 1968 nomination because of Vietnam
-Negotiations deadlock
-Westmoreland's "light at the end of the tunnel" speech is disregarded after the Tet Offensive
-Mai Lai massacre
-Walter Conkite calls the war "unwinnable"
Civil Right
-Assassination of MLK, Jr.
-Rise of the Black Panthers: beginning of violent non-integration in civil rights, which replaced nonviolent protest
-Race Riots
-Purging of whites from SNCC
-Rise of the Weathermen
Politics and Education
-RFK assassinated
-Nixon elected
-Prague Spring crushed
-Riots in Chicago at Dem. National Convention
-Student revolt at Columbia University
-Students killed in protest in Mexico
-Student riots in France
The next movie I want to consider is Dawn of the Dead (1978)/(2003). Dawn of the Dead was Romero's attack on the excesses of the 1970s, and consumerism in general. What can be more of the a symbol of American consumerism than the shopping mall? Dawn of the Dead puts us right in the middle of the beginning of a zombie apocalypse where a group of survivors take refuge in a shopping mall. Once they arrive the male characters are immediately lured by luxury items that are available without constraints. Ignoring the fact that consumer items beyond food are useless, these characters indulge in the amenities of the mall. One very poignant scene in the movie shows a montage of characters enjoying nice clothes, trying out golf clubs and having a super-market spree of items in the mall. This scene shows, that regardless of the valueless nature of the items, the characters vie for that consumer, middle class lifestyle that they once had, before the zombie outbreak. It also shows that the mall offers a quick fix, short term stimulation that can be complimented by constant indulgence. The mall is also a place of constant contact and fluid relationships. The people you see at the mall are anonymous consumers who have no special connection to each other, except for the need to consume. This constantly changing environment leads to instability in the constructed social hierarchy. Or, in other word, everyone is equal...at the mall. The mall is two systems that work simultaneously, but are traditionally in conflict with each other. The safe haven of capitalism while living in an unstable world, as the goods that are consumed only provide short term satisfaction. In Dawn, the survivors see that guns are a good deterrent, but it is the mall goods that provide their ultimate comfort, even if that comfort is useless and exists in a unstable, zombie filled world.
Dawn of the Dead redefines the zombies in a new light. Zombies in Night of the Living Dead was a problem that exacerbated the human conflicts between living characters (something that is not abandoned in Dawn). In Dawn, zombies are us. Zombies pour into the outskirts of the mall dressed in the clothing they had on before went to work. There are nurses, baseball players, doctors, plumbers, garbage men, etc. They are reduced to their base institutional characterization: defined by their job. But, they are all the same when they come to window shop for flesh at the mall. They are just like the living consumers who come to the mall before it opens to grab those lucrative sale items before everybody else. They, like the characters in the mall, look to consume without restraint. Even the blood looks like ketchup, a favorite consumer condiment. In one scene, Peter, a main character observes the zombies at the door, and says to Fran (female lead) that "they're us." She shivers, then grabs an expensive fur coat. Near the end of the movie, Fran is confronted by Zombie Roger (another character, now zombified), whose face is half gone, presenting us with the conundrum of half dead, half-human looking. Lastly, we are presented with criticisms by the media during the movie that we have to contain our waste by feeding the zombies (an idea that was put in the original Dawn script). This is reminiscent of Jonathan Swift's satire "A Modest Proposal" where he suggests that impoverished Irish eat their babies, in response to Thomas Malthus' proposal on population and food supplies. Dawn certainly presents a likely result of that satire.
Reactions to Dawn of the Dead were as contradictory as the movie themes. The experience was lauded heavily by the same culture that the movie set out to satirize. In my lecture "Dawn of the Dead: Consumer Culture and the 70s" I emphasized audience reactions, and the reasons Dawn became the highest grossing horror flick that year. The attractiveness comes from the familiarity that the moviegoers saw in Dawn. In Night, the setting was an rural farmhouse, which most of the urban moviegoers could not identify with. But, a shopping mall was a mainstay in American culture at the end of the 70s. This consuming, whether its by happy-go-lucky survivors or flesh-eating zombies, is a routine experience for the average moviegoer in 1978. The "happy shopper" mentality was ripped to shreds...literally. Whether or not this caused shoppers to realize some of their contradictory consuming habits is to be seen, but it certainly shows that the critique of consumer habits is not exclusive to Marxist theorists, but can be realized through the everyday experiences of your regular shopper...or zombie.
Lastly, I want to go through the modern day zombie with consideration of Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), 28 Days Later (2002) and Zombieland (2009). All of these movies contain an element that puts them in the same light at Night and Dawn of the Dead. They blatantly, moreso that Night and Dawn, reflect an opinion about a overarching cultural theme in society, or they present a total apocalypse. 28 Days Later gives the audience the perspective of someone with a "blank slate" who wakes up after a biking accident to find that London is empty, and inhabited by zombies infected with "rage." This Danny Boyle directed, Digital Video zombie flick is a reference to the hype over super viruses. Diary of the Dead (2007) is supposedly set at the beginning of the infection, coinciding with Night of the Living dead. College students, shooting a student film are caught up in the Zombie apocalypse and face the consequences. This movie is interspersed with production of the student film, which is shot on amateurish consumer grade cameras for a viral audience. This film reflects the youtube culture of viral videos, as well as the media bias. The film blurs the line between a film-within-a-film by employing the use of digital film making to keep the viewer questioning whether they are watching the product of the students' film, or the film itself.
Lastly, Land of the Dead and Zombieland deal with the concept of total zombie apocalypse. Land of the Dead is Romero's critique of the corporate culture, or a bloody, zombie Frank Capra movie, with a less-than-desirable ending. It is an oppressed against the oppressor, with zombies as a sideshow. In the movie, one corporation controls the last vestige of human existence in a well fortified city. This corporation controls the lives of all in the city, whose only alternative is to take their chances with the zombiefied outside. In times of crises, like in Rome, the empire must provide entertainment to get the masses to not think about the zombie majority, so they put on gladiator shows, which put zombies against humans. Eventually, a band of soldiers are fed up and they decide to unleash the horde on the city. It solves their short term goals, but alas, dooms the rest of humanity. Zombieland offers the same apocalyptic message, but instead gives us the smaller picture. It is about personal relationships and the acceptance of the zombie world. It is even instructional, telling the viewers how they can survive, once a zombie apocalypse happens. In times where people have accepted giving up luxuries and pinching pennies in a recession, and with instructional mediums helping those in trouble survive, this movie is appropriate. Just like Harrelson's and Eisenberg's character have accepted the zombie apocalypse, and find ways to survive from moment to moment, conflict to conflict, those who have weathered the recession have found, as Eisenberg's character says "to appreciate the little things."
Zombies are us. They are the reflection of our fears and our mistakes. But, more importantly they bring out the true nature, just like a long night of drinking would do to someone's personality. The riding message in zombie films is that any kind of cultural medium is a reflection of its times and that regardless of the supernatural element of the living dead, there are areas that evoke familiarity and realism that make zombies scary. The settings, whether its a barn in Pennsylvania, a Mall or Sunset Blvd. are realistic places familiar to the audience, which puts them in an uneasy position questioning the reality of zombies, and the reality of their own habits. Dawn showed us that consumerism can be self defeating (or self-gorging) and Zombieland put those elements of wonder and fun (Beverly Hills, Texas and a Fair) in a light of pure terror. All of the movies prove that zombies, while a conflict medium, do not produce most elements of the plot. It is the conflict between living characters that determine whether or not they will survive the zombie apocalypse.
(There is also a extremely funny guest star in the movie...don't look at the IMDB page if you want to be pleasantly surprised.)
ZOMBIES
Zombieland brought back my interest in the Zombie genre, moreso than most recent zombie movies have. While the reasoning behind zombification remains constant in the last couple decades (Viruses), the zombie, and the setting surrounding the zombie have changed to fit the times. I have invested a lot of time and intellectual power into researching the zombie genre, including teaching two undergraduate lectures at UCLA about zombies. So, I am going to take you, the reader, down a historical trip through the zombie genre, starting with the prolific, midnight movie extravaganza Night of the Living Dead in 1968, all the way up to Zombieland. Mostly, I will consider the master of the zombie, George A Romero, and the indelible impact he has made on the genre.
Night of the Living Dead (NOTLD) was shot on a shoestring budget, in the woods of Pennsylvania by rookie filmmaker George A Romero. Originally to be called Night of Anubis, Romero did not even consider his new creations any kind of "Zombie." The zombies before Romero were fantastical voodoo creations from the Bela Lagosi age, where horror and science fiction were more of an outer space/castle in Transylvania type genre. The zombie was exotic, scary and usually arrived in small numbers. Romero turned this characterization into the modern zombies we see today. Night of the Living dead, shot on 16mm looked more like a 90 minute news report than a serious movie. But, it was the content that surpassed the medium with NOTLD; the same content that shocked midnight movie goers at the violent end of the 1960s. Romero used shocking B-roll of zombies munching down on the flesh, innards and bones of their victims while mindlessly surrounding the small house that the survivors lay barricaded in. This B-roll is mixed in with news reports of radiation from Venus, the dead coming to life and instructions on how to dispatch of walking corpses.
What is so significant about NOTLD is that it is the first modern zombie film to reach the taboos of society and reflect the chaos of the end of the 1960s. NOTLD was shot like a news story because of the low budget, but its texture reminded Romero, and moviegoers of the same pictures they had seen on TV. 1967-1968 Tet offensive was being televised in all its bloody glory, and the American people finally got to see the carnage of Vietnam, including the famous shot of a ARVN general executing a suspected Vietcong rebel. They had also seen the televised beatings and killings of civil rights leaders, whose nonviolence was met with "southern hospitality." This kind of American on American, human on human violence was not new. NOTLD reminded us that zombies are just like us. Zombies maybe dead, but they were once people too. NOTLD also put one simple element into the zombie genre: Zombies don't succeed without human error. Most of the conflicts in NOTLD, and in later Romero, and non-Romero films, are as a result of the elements of human nature: panic, competition and survival. The conflicts that arise between survivors end up dooming their survival. The zombies are just a medium through which the story progresses, but they are definitely not the main conflict vehicle. The end of the movie (which I won't reveal to you) reminds of the ultimate chaotic ending to a lot of the idealistic, nonviolent movements of the 1960s. Like the end of the movie, they were met with internal struggle that led to a violent conclusion.
In my lecture, They're Coming To Get You Barbara: Night of the Living Dead and the Violent End to the 1960s" I chronicled the events of 1968 that could have reflected NOTLD. Lets take a look:
Vietnam
-Troop levels reach 500,000
-Johnson backs down from 1968 nomination because of Vietnam
-Negotiations deadlock
-Westmoreland's "light at the end of the tunnel" speech is disregarded after the Tet Offensive
-Mai Lai massacre
-Walter Conkite calls the war "unwinnable"
Civil Right
-Assassination of MLK, Jr.
-Rise of the Black Panthers: beginning of violent non-integration in civil rights, which replaced nonviolent protest
-Race Riots
-Purging of whites from SNCC
-Rise of the Weathermen
Politics and Education
-RFK assassinated
-Nixon elected
-Prague Spring crushed
-Riots in Chicago at Dem. National Convention
-Student revolt at Columbia University
-Students killed in protest in Mexico
-Student riots in France
The next movie I want to consider is Dawn of the Dead (1978)/(2003). Dawn of the Dead was Romero's attack on the excesses of the 1970s, and consumerism in general. What can be more of the a symbol of American consumerism than the shopping mall? Dawn of the Dead puts us right in the middle of the beginning of a zombie apocalypse where a group of survivors take refuge in a shopping mall. Once they arrive the male characters are immediately lured by luxury items that are available without constraints. Ignoring the fact that consumer items beyond food are useless, these characters indulge in the amenities of the mall. One very poignant scene in the movie shows a montage of characters enjoying nice clothes, trying out golf clubs and having a super-market spree of items in the mall. This scene shows, that regardless of the valueless nature of the items, the characters vie for that consumer, middle class lifestyle that they once had, before the zombie outbreak. It also shows that the mall offers a quick fix, short term stimulation that can be complimented by constant indulgence. The mall is also a place of constant contact and fluid relationships. The people you see at the mall are anonymous consumers who have no special connection to each other, except for the need to consume. This constantly changing environment leads to instability in the constructed social hierarchy. Or, in other word, everyone is equal...at the mall. The mall is two systems that work simultaneously, but are traditionally in conflict with each other. The safe haven of capitalism while living in an unstable world, as the goods that are consumed only provide short term satisfaction. In Dawn, the survivors see that guns are a good deterrent, but it is the mall goods that provide their ultimate comfort, even if that comfort is useless and exists in a unstable, zombie filled world.
Dawn of the Dead redefines the zombies in a new light. Zombies in Night of the Living Dead was a problem that exacerbated the human conflicts between living characters (something that is not abandoned in Dawn). In Dawn, zombies are us. Zombies pour into the outskirts of the mall dressed in the clothing they had on before went to work. There are nurses, baseball players, doctors, plumbers, garbage men, etc. They are reduced to their base institutional characterization: defined by their job. But, they are all the same when they come to window shop for flesh at the mall. They are just like the living consumers who come to the mall before it opens to grab those lucrative sale items before everybody else. They, like the characters in the mall, look to consume without restraint. Even the blood looks like ketchup, a favorite consumer condiment. In one scene, Peter, a main character observes the zombies at the door, and says to Fran (female lead) that "they're us." She shivers, then grabs an expensive fur coat. Near the end of the movie, Fran is confronted by Zombie Roger (another character, now zombified), whose face is half gone, presenting us with the conundrum of half dead, half-human looking. Lastly, we are presented with criticisms by the media during the movie that we have to contain our waste by feeding the zombies (an idea that was put in the original Dawn script). This is reminiscent of Jonathan Swift's satire "A Modest Proposal" where he suggests that impoverished Irish eat their babies, in response to Thomas Malthus' proposal on population and food supplies. Dawn certainly presents a likely result of that satire.
Reactions to Dawn of the Dead were as contradictory as the movie themes. The experience was lauded heavily by the same culture that the movie set out to satirize. In my lecture "Dawn of the Dead: Consumer Culture and the 70s" I emphasized audience reactions, and the reasons Dawn became the highest grossing horror flick that year. The attractiveness comes from the familiarity that the moviegoers saw in Dawn. In Night, the setting was an rural farmhouse, which most of the urban moviegoers could not identify with. But, a shopping mall was a mainstay in American culture at the end of the 70s. This consuming, whether its by happy-go-lucky survivors or flesh-eating zombies, is a routine experience for the average moviegoer in 1978. The "happy shopper" mentality was ripped to shreds...literally. Whether or not this caused shoppers to realize some of their contradictory consuming habits is to be seen, but it certainly shows that the critique of consumer habits is not exclusive to Marxist theorists, but can be realized through the everyday experiences of your regular shopper...or zombie.
Lastly, I want to go through the modern day zombie with consideration of Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), 28 Days Later (2002) and Zombieland (2009). All of these movies contain an element that puts them in the same light at Night and Dawn of the Dead. They blatantly, moreso that Night and Dawn, reflect an opinion about a overarching cultural theme in society, or they present a total apocalypse. 28 Days Later gives the audience the perspective of someone with a "blank slate" who wakes up after a biking accident to find that London is empty, and inhabited by zombies infected with "rage." This Danny Boyle directed, Digital Video zombie flick is a reference to the hype over super viruses. Diary of the Dead (2007) is supposedly set at the beginning of the infection, coinciding with Night of the Living dead. College students, shooting a student film are caught up in the Zombie apocalypse and face the consequences. This movie is interspersed with production of the student film, which is shot on amateurish consumer grade cameras for a viral audience. This film reflects the youtube culture of viral videos, as well as the media bias. The film blurs the line between a film-within-a-film by employing the use of digital film making to keep the viewer questioning whether they are watching the product of the students' film, or the film itself.
Lastly, Land of the Dead and Zombieland deal with the concept of total zombie apocalypse. Land of the Dead is Romero's critique of the corporate culture, or a bloody, zombie Frank Capra movie, with a less-than-desirable ending. It is an oppressed against the oppressor, with zombies as a sideshow. In the movie, one corporation controls the last vestige of human existence in a well fortified city. This corporation controls the lives of all in the city, whose only alternative is to take their chances with the zombiefied outside. In times of crises, like in Rome, the empire must provide entertainment to get the masses to not think about the zombie majority, so they put on gladiator shows, which put zombies against humans. Eventually, a band of soldiers are fed up and they decide to unleash the horde on the city. It solves their short term goals, but alas, dooms the rest of humanity. Zombieland offers the same apocalyptic message, but instead gives us the smaller picture. It is about personal relationships and the acceptance of the zombie world. It is even instructional, telling the viewers how they can survive, once a zombie apocalypse happens. In times where people have accepted giving up luxuries and pinching pennies in a recession, and with instructional mediums helping those in trouble survive, this movie is appropriate. Just like Harrelson's and Eisenberg's character have accepted the zombie apocalypse, and find ways to survive from moment to moment, conflict to conflict, those who have weathered the recession have found, as Eisenberg's character says "to appreciate the little things."
Zombies are us. They are the reflection of our fears and our mistakes. But, more importantly they bring out the true nature, just like a long night of drinking would do to someone's personality. The riding message in zombie films is that any kind of cultural medium is a reflection of its times and that regardless of the supernatural element of the living dead, there are areas that evoke familiarity and realism that make zombies scary. The settings, whether its a barn in Pennsylvania, a Mall or Sunset Blvd. are realistic places familiar to the audience, which puts them in an uneasy position questioning the reality of zombies, and the reality of their own habits. Dawn showed us that consumerism can be self defeating (or self-gorging) and Zombieland put those elements of wonder and fun (Beverly Hills, Texas and a Fair) in a light of pure terror. All of the movies prove that zombies, while a conflict medium, do not produce most elements of the plot. It is the conflict between living characters that determine whether or not they will survive the zombie apocalypse.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Some Fun 9/12 Protest Videos
The messages that these people are touting are the result of generalized misinformation fed to them by people like Glenn Beck. It looks like people are just angry that they have experienced a slumping economy and high job losses. Like I had mentioned in other posts, the highly conservative element of the population seems to come out during times of Depression, especially when it comes to popular media. But popular media, like Glenn Beck, should never be taken literally. His ad emotional arguments and cathartic diatribes are nothing but generalizations, dramatizations and hyperbolic statements. His argument is a skeleton with no tissue, organs, muscles or marrow. Hollow bones.
My question for the protesters: Who gives a shit about birth certificates, religious inclinations and "czars" (a position started before Obama) when we are fighting a war, fixing the economy, tackling global warming, dealing with Iran and containing North Korea? There are more important problems out there.
But, it is your right to protest. And, maybe its possible that other protesters not interviewed have better ideas, or more progressive stances on ACTUAL PROBLEMS.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Housing and the American Dream: A Short History, and a Comparison to Healthcare
Since the recession began and the housing bubble burst, I have been following news about economic growth and educating myself in the intricacies of real estate and economic indicators (mostly job growth and vigorously following the rise and fall of stocks). The recession and the economy was the first inherited problem that Obama vowed to take on, even before we tacked on the word "administration." In his campaign, he promised to pass another stimulus bill that would help jumpstart the economy and put more people to work. The Bush administration had passed a similar stimulus bill that gave households a 300,600 or 1200 dollar check based on income and marital status. He also set up the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to stabilize troubled financial institutions (see Bear-Sterns, Lehman Bros., AIG, etc) All of this alienated Bush from many fiscal conservatives who would have rather cut services than spent more money, especially those seeing an imminent economic crises. Bush banked (no pun intended) on the idea that these checks would be spent to stimulate the economy and we would avoid a huge downturn. Of course, this money was mostly deposited into savings accounts or used to pay bills, or in my parents case, donated to the Obama campaign. So, when Obama came into office, the first major bill he signed was the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which injected nearly 900 billion into the economy. Fiscal conservatives fought tooth and nail to get it reduced from its original 1 trillion dollar price-tag, and complained that Obama was going on a unregulated spending spree, which would translate into higher costs for the American people. They also believed that with government bailouts came government control, which is something much worse that simple business regulation. With the government (and the people) taking a financial stake in companies like GM, conservatives had a field day, bemoaning socialism in the Democratic party and lack of oversight in bailing out unsavory financial institutions.
What has happened since? Obama has defended his Stimulus Bill, which had wide support from his economic advisers, as well as my favorite economist, Paul Krugman. Obama has articulated to his opponents that the bill has a long term affect on it, and the economy will not see the full force of its spending power until at least 2010. But, the American people want recovery fast, and now, so they responded to the falling economy and job losses as a failure of the administration in its Stimulus bill. Unemployment remains at 9.7-9.8% and economists forecast it will hit 10% by 2010, and won't drop off until 2011. Job losses have slowed significantly and the stock market is nearing 10,000. Nontheless, jobs are being lost and the jump in the stock market is mostly due to strategic cost cutting and layoffs by companies, not forward moving growth and/or profit. The economy is recovering, but we will not see return to growth for another couple years.
But, what about the housing market? The bursting of the "housing bubble" caused house values to plummet, leading to mortgage defaulting and massive foreclosures. This mostly happened because of highly unethical practices by organizations like Countrywide in packaging high risk mortgages as securities and selling them off to firms like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack. Of course, these high risk mortgages were a result of the late 90s idea that everybody should have access to a house. This involved the risky business of giving people with low credit "sweet deal"mortgage rates on housing. Someone with low credit who wanted a house could get one at a 3% starting rate. But, soon enough the mortgage rate went up, it was no longer possible to pay off the mortgage with just their salary. But, the house value had increase dramatically, so they borrowed against the equity of the house. Soon, enough they could not pay off their higher mortgage rate, and defaulted on their loans. Well, you can imagine what came next. All the defaults on these high risk mortgages packed as securities translated into crises with companies that invested in these securities, and we're left with trillions in mortgage debt until they were "bailed out" by the government. What would have happened if the government let some of these companies fail? Most likely, financial catastrophe, but here in my blogosphere, we don't deal in normative statements.
My feelings about giving everyone housing regardless of financial stability aside (I am against it...there, I said it, but you can't be mad at a government that uses deregulation and risky lending practices at a time of prosperity), I always asked myself about how the American Dream of owning a house turned into the crises we have today. In another post I explored the idea of credit, and how credit had evolved into the system it is today. The theme was that when people started identifying themselves with what they owned, they began to spend beyond their means because of the access to "pay-later" credit. This extended into not just the arena of appliances and possessions, but into the housing and automobile industries, and stock market loan practices (see Buying on Margin). All of this access to credit, along with investment of money into shattered economies abroad led to financial interconnectedness, and created an environment whereby failure would mean worldwide financial depression. And...you know happened in 1929.
How does this apply to the housing market? Well, it would be a misnomer to call it a market, if you lived in the mid 18th Century, when the idea of Manifest Destiny and the "American Dream" was in its infant stages. The first incarnation of the American Dream was a an idea that Americans would rule the continent from "sea to shining sea" and create a self-reliant, independent yeoman farmer nation, much like Thomas Jefferson had touted. To live in your own house, built by your own hand, on your own land was the fulfillment of the American Dream. So, the government tried to make that happen by facilitating easy access to land, through the Homestead Act, and the breakup of Native American lands through legislation like the Dawes Severalty Act (look them up). But, the American dream was transformed once new technology made it easier to access wealth with less work. But, one idea remained: Owning your own home. At the end of the 19th century, with the era of Big Business ("Gilded Age") and Railroads, people began to move into cities and worked in backbreaking jobs and lived in high rent, disease ridden tenements. Once a reform movement came along (Progressives) they promised to bring housing back to masses, or at least reform the tenements. Progressives pressured governments to sign reform bills, support cheap housing, beautify cities and facilitate access to recreation for the masses. Up until then, robber barons like Henry Clay Fricke, Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan and John D Rockefeller owned large estates and restricted access to housing. By the time the depression arrived, many people lacked proper housing.
In the Depression era, a huge experiment in government took place. FDR's New Deal expanded the power of the government to attempt to pull the country out of the worst depression in its history. One of these programs was to have access to public, government provided housing. Started under the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) before the depression, efficient housing in the Fredrick Winslow Taylor model (Taylorism) was a necessary, especially for those who could not afford it. Into the depression, FDR set up the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Public Works Administration (PWA) Housing Division in order to streamline government supported housing. This was followed by the United States Housing Administration (USHA)who facilitated large successes in creating housing for the masses at a low cost. Regardless of their success, government-run housing was attacked by conservatives, who saw government intervention as inefficient socialism. In the post-war era, Senator McCarthy from Wisconsin set up Congressional hearings to analyze the condition of housing in the US. He used his congressional committee as a platform to attack public housing and praise the private industry as the true medium through which the country could solve its housing problem. With the passing of the GI Bill, and the construction of "model communities" and new suburbs, housing and education became accessible.Or, so it seemed.
At this point, the American Dream was a house in the suburbs. Of course, this dream was only available to White, Christians, as private housing organizations used redlining and racism to prevent minorities, Blacks and Jews from owning houses. Housing in the post-War era was much different than the "investment" that many saw as housing in the post-Cold War era. To have a house, a stable (white) family with a working father and a housewife mother was a necessary domestic bulwark against Communism. It was a social value more than a financial investment to have a house. Housing was cherished as something you could access, and pay off in about 20 years. A house was not something that a family invested in order to turn it over in a couple years to make money on their original investment. There was a social conscience that encouraged stability, not risk. It was an contradictory society, insomuch that encouraged conformity as a stable obstacle to...conformity. Regardless of the nuanced problems of Cold-War domestic ideology, there was a common enemy to work against, and stability in the home was a sure-fire way to contain that enemy. But, what happened when the myth of the Communist monolith was debunked? In my opinion, the protections given to home owners, coupled with a new generation of excess and greed (See the movie Wall Street) remade housing as just another investment. The richest people in the US became either the tech geniuses, or the real estate moguls. In the last decade, it was 4 times more likely to find someone investing in a house in excess of 2,000 square ft than it was in the 1970s. Housing was connected with financing and easy access to credit for people who recently could not afford mortgage payments allowed for a widespread, albeit unstable, housing market.
Like the instability caused by easy credit access in the Depression era, the instability in the housing market caused a financial crises. But, a recent article in the LA Times has articulated that point that this housing crises is not something that home owners will be able to bounce back from, easily. The article suggests that maybe it's time to return to the post-war era ideology that stability in the home is a pathway to stability in life, and that high risk investments, specially when one cannot possibly afford the consequences is foolish.
Healthcare Debate and Housing (Ooooh...a subtopic)
As promised in the title, I will make a comparison to the Healthcare debate. This is a historical comparison, and has to do with the attempt to build government backed public housing in the New Deal and Post-war eras. As mentioned in the above passages, FDR tried to encourage the growth of public government backed housing in during the Depression in order to give the masses access to affordable housing. This idea was attacked by many groups including the US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Real Estate Boards and the Savings and Loan League, all who would benefit tremendously from a private housing market. They believed that once the government sold houses, it would come into competition with private industry and undercut progress towards efficient housing. They went so far as to say people would be discouraged from spending on mortgages if they knew the government was in the housing business. The government charged, after FDR's victory in 1937, that housing was a "perpetual social obligation" and that eradication of the slums and providing good housing for low income families was necessary. The government wanted to provide an alternative to private housing that would make sure cost would not be a deciding factor in gauging home quality and access. The government wanted to make housing a right for all Americans and the Real Estate Lobby wanted to encourage renting. They advertised that private companies could offer low cost housing for everyone, and government intervention would undercut competition to lower the cost of quality housing.
During the era, an experiment in cooperative housing became a source of awe. The Greenbelt housing cooperative created by and underwritten by the guidelines of the Resettlement Administration used cooperative business ventures (stores, shopping centers, markets) and a cooperative local government model to create a self-sufficient town model, on a small budget. According to Rosalyn Baxandall and Elizabeth Ewen, authors of "Picture Windows" the cooperative encompassed every aspect of life including preventative medical care, transportation, citizen's associations, baseball teams, newspapers and even a credit union. But this successful experiment was ignored by private housing advocates.
In the post-war era, under the Truman administration, the government passed the Taft Ellender Wagner Act (TEW), which was a conglomerate of New Deal legislation to provide housing for people who the private industry could not assist without taking a profit loss, which made them prime for public assistance. Before he became the Communist witch hunter, Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin had a hearing on housing. He used his position as chairman of the Housing Committee to attack public housing and discredit TEW. He made several highly publicized visits to public housing complexes and declared them decrepit, and a breeding ground for socialists and communists. He showed his bias by giving public housing advocates less time to testify during hearings than private industry analysts. The private housing industry put on a campaign that highlighted the "socialist dangers" of public housing. As "Picture Windows" states, they put out fliers, leaflets, petitions and cartoons to create the illusion that there was a grassroots campaign against public housing. They chose to forget that this grassroots campaign was underwritten and highly organized by the Real Estate Lobby and Savings and Loan, who were both private housing advocates. Private housing advocates also chose to ignore the fact that many private housing companies had failed to provide adequate housing for everyone, especially at a time when home ownership was defined with containment of communists. Lastly, private industry was hell bent on removing government from housing, but they still supported government subsidies to home owners in order to obtain housing. In other words "the real estate interests wanted government out of the construction end of housing, but they were happy to be eating out of the hidden hand of government." (Picture Windows, 114).
Does this all sounds familiar? A system in need of reform is co-opted by the government to provide access to that system because widespread access is an "inherent right." But, government intervention in that said system leads to "socialism" and inefficiency, even though the current system does not provide that service efficiently anyways. And, there is a so-called "grassroots" protest against such an intervention, which is really underwritten by conservative politicians who are against a government role in that system. And, it has been repeated over and over again that the system is an alternative to the public system, whose abuses do not provide services to low income individuals. But, those against a public option in that system are happy to be using a government supported idea, even though they decry that government in the first place. Oh yah...there is also an idea to provide experiments in cooperatives in that system.
Am I being too vague? Is the comparison not extremely obvious?
Government run housing is not so glamorous, now. Just take a look at the projects in NY City or Public Housing in Detroit or East LA. People live in it, but the neighborhood is violent prone, and the quality of housing is low. But, that is because we are willing, without the blink of an eye, or the opening of a history book, to cut funding to public initiatives once a crises caused by unregulated private industry hits us in the pocketbook. We hold on to the idea that private industry is the end all, and that everything else, especially if its government run is inherently inefficient. But, at the same time we need government spending to increase because private industry cannot give universal access to basic rights. Just look at how people hate the idea that the government would ever touch their Medicare.
Is it a sure fact that any government intervention into a highly privatized industry means undercutting of competition, and ultimately more government growth to bolster that industry? Is there any role for government in private industry? What would private industry look like without any government regulation? Can we have a private industry whose services are deemed universal for all Americans, provide those services efficiently without government assistance?
There may never be a clear cut answer to any of these question. But, one thing for sure is that America will never lose its contempt for the government.
What has happened since? Obama has defended his Stimulus Bill, which had wide support from his economic advisers, as well as my favorite economist, Paul Krugman. Obama has articulated to his opponents that the bill has a long term affect on it, and the economy will not see the full force of its spending power until at least 2010. But, the American people want recovery fast, and now, so they responded to the falling economy and job losses as a failure of the administration in its Stimulus bill. Unemployment remains at 9.7-9.8% and economists forecast it will hit 10% by 2010, and won't drop off until 2011. Job losses have slowed significantly and the stock market is nearing 10,000. Nontheless, jobs are being lost and the jump in the stock market is mostly due to strategic cost cutting and layoffs by companies, not forward moving growth and/or profit. The economy is recovering, but we will not see return to growth for another couple years.
But, what about the housing market? The bursting of the "housing bubble" caused house values to plummet, leading to mortgage defaulting and massive foreclosures. This mostly happened because of highly unethical practices by organizations like Countrywide in packaging high risk mortgages as securities and selling them off to firms like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack. Of course, these high risk mortgages were a result of the late 90s idea that everybody should have access to a house. This involved the risky business of giving people with low credit "sweet deal"mortgage rates on housing. Someone with low credit who wanted a house could get one at a 3% starting rate. But, soon enough the mortgage rate went up, it was no longer possible to pay off the mortgage with just their salary. But, the house value had increase dramatically, so they borrowed against the equity of the house. Soon, enough they could not pay off their higher mortgage rate, and defaulted on their loans. Well, you can imagine what came next. All the defaults on these high risk mortgages packed as securities translated into crises with companies that invested in these securities, and we're left with trillions in mortgage debt until they were "bailed out" by the government. What would have happened if the government let some of these companies fail? Most likely, financial catastrophe, but here in my blogosphere, we don't deal in normative statements.
My feelings about giving everyone housing regardless of financial stability aside (I am against it...there, I said it, but you can't be mad at a government that uses deregulation and risky lending practices at a time of prosperity), I always asked myself about how the American Dream of owning a house turned into the crises we have today. In another post I explored the idea of credit, and how credit had evolved into the system it is today. The theme was that when people started identifying themselves with what they owned, they began to spend beyond their means because of the access to "pay-later" credit. This extended into not just the arena of appliances and possessions, but into the housing and automobile industries, and stock market loan practices (see Buying on Margin). All of this access to credit, along with investment of money into shattered economies abroad led to financial interconnectedness, and created an environment whereby failure would mean worldwide financial depression. And...you know happened in 1929.
How does this apply to the housing market? Well, it would be a misnomer to call it a market, if you lived in the mid 18th Century, when the idea of Manifest Destiny and the "American Dream" was in its infant stages. The first incarnation of the American Dream was a an idea that Americans would rule the continent from "sea to shining sea" and create a self-reliant, independent yeoman farmer nation, much like Thomas Jefferson had touted. To live in your own house, built by your own hand, on your own land was the fulfillment of the American Dream. So, the government tried to make that happen by facilitating easy access to land, through the Homestead Act, and the breakup of Native American lands through legislation like the Dawes Severalty Act (look them up). But, the American dream was transformed once new technology made it easier to access wealth with less work. But, one idea remained: Owning your own home. At the end of the 19th century, with the era of Big Business ("Gilded Age") and Railroads, people began to move into cities and worked in backbreaking jobs and lived in high rent, disease ridden tenements. Once a reform movement came along (Progressives) they promised to bring housing back to masses, or at least reform the tenements. Progressives pressured governments to sign reform bills, support cheap housing, beautify cities and facilitate access to recreation for the masses. Up until then, robber barons like Henry Clay Fricke, Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan and John D Rockefeller owned large estates and restricted access to housing. By the time the depression arrived, many people lacked proper housing.
In the Depression era, a huge experiment in government took place. FDR's New Deal expanded the power of the government to attempt to pull the country out of the worst depression in its history. One of these programs was to have access to public, government provided housing. Started under the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) before the depression, efficient housing in the Fredrick Winslow Taylor model (Taylorism) was a necessary, especially for those who could not afford it. Into the depression, FDR set up the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Public Works Administration (PWA) Housing Division in order to streamline government supported housing. This was followed by the United States Housing Administration (USHA)who facilitated large successes in creating housing for the masses at a low cost. Regardless of their success, government-run housing was attacked by conservatives, who saw government intervention as inefficient socialism. In the post-war era, Senator McCarthy from Wisconsin set up Congressional hearings to analyze the condition of housing in the US. He used his congressional committee as a platform to attack public housing and praise the private industry as the true medium through which the country could solve its housing problem. With the passing of the GI Bill, and the construction of "model communities" and new suburbs, housing and education became accessible.Or, so it seemed.
At this point, the American Dream was a house in the suburbs. Of course, this dream was only available to White, Christians, as private housing organizations used redlining and racism to prevent minorities, Blacks and Jews from owning houses. Housing in the post-War era was much different than the "investment" that many saw as housing in the post-Cold War era. To have a house, a stable (white) family with a working father and a housewife mother was a necessary domestic bulwark against Communism. It was a social value more than a financial investment to have a house. Housing was cherished as something you could access, and pay off in about 20 years. A house was not something that a family invested in order to turn it over in a couple years to make money on their original investment. There was a social conscience that encouraged stability, not risk. It was an contradictory society, insomuch that encouraged conformity as a stable obstacle to...conformity. Regardless of the nuanced problems of Cold-War domestic ideology, there was a common enemy to work against, and stability in the home was a sure-fire way to contain that enemy. But, what happened when the myth of the Communist monolith was debunked? In my opinion, the protections given to home owners, coupled with a new generation of excess and greed (See the movie Wall Street) remade housing as just another investment. The richest people in the US became either the tech geniuses, or the real estate moguls. In the last decade, it was 4 times more likely to find someone investing in a house in excess of 2,000 square ft than it was in the 1970s. Housing was connected with financing and easy access to credit for people who recently could not afford mortgage payments allowed for a widespread, albeit unstable, housing market.
Like the instability caused by easy credit access in the Depression era, the instability in the housing market caused a financial crises. But, a recent article in the LA Times has articulated that point that this housing crises is not something that home owners will be able to bounce back from, easily. The article suggests that maybe it's time to return to the post-war era ideology that stability in the home is a pathway to stability in life, and that high risk investments, specially when one cannot possibly afford the consequences is foolish.
Healthcare Debate and Housing (Ooooh...a subtopic)
As promised in the title, I will make a comparison to the Healthcare debate. This is a historical comparison, and has to do with the attempt to build government backed public housing in the New Deal and Post-war eras. As mentioned in the above passages, FDR tried to encourage the growth of public government backed housing in during the Depression in order to give the masses access to affordable housing. This idea was attacked by many groups including the US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Real Estate Boards and the Savings and Loan League, all who would benefit tremendously from a private housing market. They believed that once the government sold houses, it would come into competition with private industry and undercut progress towards efficient housing. They went so far as to say people would be discouraged from spending on mortgages if they knew the government was in the housing business. The government charged, after FDR's victory in 1937, that housing was a "perpetual social obligation" and that eradication of the slums and providing good housing for low income families was necessary. The government wanted to provide an alternative to private housing that would make sure cost would not be a deciding factor in gauging home quality and access. The government wanted to make housing a right for all Americans and the Real Estate Lobby wanted to encourage renting. They advertised that private companies could offer low cost housing for everyone, and government intervention would undercut competition to lower the cost of quality housing.
During the era, an experiment in cooperative housing became a source of awe. The Greenbelt housing cooperative created by and underwritten by the guidelines of the Resettlement Administration used cooperative business ventures (stores, shopping centers, markets) and a cooperative local government model to create a self-sufficient town model, on a small budget. According to Rosalyn Baxandall and Elizabeth Ewen, authors of "Picture Windows" the cooperative encompassed every aspect of life including preventative medical care, transportation, citizen's associations, baseball teams, newspapers and even a credit union. But this successful experiment was ignored by private housing advocates.
In the post-war era, under the Truman administration, the government passed the Taft Ellender Wagner Act (TEW), which was a conglomerate of New Deal legislation to provide housing for people who the private industry could not assist without taking a profit loss, which made them prime for public assistance. Before he became the Communist witch hunter, Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin had a hearing on housing. He used his position as chairman of the Housing Committee to attack public housing and discredit TEW. He made several highly publicized visits to public housing complexes and declared them decrepit, and a breeding ground for socialists and communists. He showed his bias by giving public housing advocates less time to testify during hearings than private industry analysts. The private housing industry put on a campaign that highlighted the "socialist dangers" of public housing. As "Picture Windows" states, they put out fliers, leaflets, petitions and cartoons to create the illusion that there was a grassroots campaign against public housing. They chose to forget that this grassroots campaign was underwritten and highly organized by the Real Estate Lobby and Savings and Loan, who were both private housing advocates. Private housing advocates also chose to ignore the fact that many private housing companies had failed to provide adequate housing for everyone, especially at a time when home ownership was defined with containment of communists. Lastly, private industry was hell bent on removing government from housing, but they still supported government subsidies to home owners in order to obtain housing. In other words "the real estate interests wanted government out of the construction end of housing, but they were happy to be eating out of the hidden hand of government." (Picture Windows, 114).
Does this all sounds familiar? A system in need of reform is co-opted by the government to provide access to that system because widespread access is an "inherent right." But, government intervention in that said system leads to "socialism" and inefficiency, even though the current system does not provide that service efficiently anyways. And, there is a so-called "grassroots" protest against such an intervention, which is really underwritten by conservative politicians who are against a government role in that system. And, it has been repeated over and over again that the system is an alternative to the public system, whose abuses do not provide services to low income individuals. But, those against a public option in that system are happy to be using a government supported idea, even though they decry that government in the first place. Oh yah...there is also an idea to provide experiments in cooperatives in that system.
Am I being too vague? Is the comparison not extremely obvious?
Government run housing is not so glamorous, now. Just take a look at the projects in NY City or Public Housing in Detroit or East LA. People live in it, but the neighborhood is violent prone, and the quality of housing is low. But, that is because we are willing, without the blink of an eye, or the opening of a history book, to cut funding to public initiatives once a crises caused by unregulated private industry hits us in the pocketbook. We hold on to the idea that private industry is the end all, and that everything else, especially if its government run is inherently inefficient. But, at the same time we need government spending to increase because private industry cannot give universal access to basic rights. Just look at how people hate the idea that the government would ever touch their Medicare.
Is it a sure fact that any government intervention into a highly privatized industry means undercutting of competition, and ultimately more government growth to bolster that industry? Is there any role for government in private industry? What would private industry look like without any government regulation? Can we have a private industry whose services are deemed universal for all Americans, provide those services efficiently without government assistance?
There may never be a clear cut answer to any of these question. But, one thing for sure is that America will never lose its contempt for the government.
Monday, September 21, 2009
International Day of Peace, and a Little History Lesson
September 21st is the International Day of Peace. While unknown to most people, the day is significant because of its noble intentions. I believe that a day so unspecific in its strategy as to be called the "Day of Peace" allows for people to ponder what peace might mean to them, and how they have experienced peace in their lives. Obviously the word "peace" has different meanings, and can oftentimes be warped and abused by those seeking power and control. But, this is where my original perception of the "Day of Peace" comes into play. There are so many definitions of peace and so many varying methods on how "peace" can be obtained that a definition is almost an irrelevant pursuit. For the individual on this day, peace must become a source of introspection on their lives, and how they have experienced "peace." For me, this means looking back at similar events in history and surveying my own lifetime to see different times of peace, and war, which, in my opinion, is oftentimes the opposite of peace.
One event in the last century strikes me as the most significant in the pursuit of peace, and the vanquishing of war. This gesture, passed in the years after WWI, under the most internationally ideological president we have ever had (Woodrow Wilson), was more symbolic than realistic, and like most of Wilson's foreign policies failed miserably. But, it is as symbolically relevant as the International Day of Peace is, and gives the world insight into not only the motivations and causes of WWI, but the reaction that the Western world had to war, death and peace.
In order to grasp such an event, some history needs to be recounted. WWI was considered to first mechanized, mass-scale war that included the likes of machine guns, tanks, flame throwers, biochemical weapons, airplanes and mass scale artillery. On one side was the German, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empire, and on the other was the English, French, Russian and eventually American forces. Millions of soldiers were killed to gain insignificant amounts of land in the stalemate trench warfare across both the Eastern and Western fronts. After anti-war demonstrations, low industrial output and a massive loss of military gain, The 3 Axis Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans) signed an armistice on November 11th, 1918.
The addition of American forces not only turned the tide of the war, but catapulted the US onto the world stage militarily. At Versailles, President Wilson declared that this "Great War" would be the "War to End all Wars." Like a lot of counterparts at home, he saw this war as the result of territory claims and imperialism that was characteristic of the "Old World." Entangling alliances from colonial powers like Russia, Britain, Germany, France and Austria-Hungary had turned a single assassination into a massive, bloody war that left millions dead. These anachronistic alliances and methods of government were too volatile and should be abandoned. But, in the eyes of Lloyd-George of Britain, Clemenceau of France and Orlando of Italy, the US was an upstart nation with no experience in international warfare. Wilson's 14 points, including transparency on international alliances, self determinations for all free nations, freedom of the seas, reduction of armaments, readjustment of borders, trade access and the creation of the League of Nations were idealistic, and fraught with good intention. Compromise destroyed most of the points, and only Wilson's 14th point, the creation of the League of Nations was passed unscathed. As a final blow, after Wilson was unwilling to compromise on US involvement in the League of Nations, a team of "Reservationist" Senators blocked the resolution, and it did not pass. Wilson suffered a stroke while campaigning for participation in the League of Nations, and his wife took presidential responsibility for the rest of his term.
What were the reactions and results of such a monumental failure on a policy that attempted to gain international peace? The concessions by Wilson in the 14 points allowed for the European powers to take colonial revenge on Germany by taking away all of its land claims and putting a monumental $300 billion war debt on their economy. The German economy tanked, and super-duper hyperinflation made the deutschemark useless. The US saw this is a return to the "Old World" of Imperialism, and movements towards isolationism thrived. A candidate, Warren G Harding called for a "Return to Normalcy" and to bolster what makes America great. But, the reactions were not all bad. The European powers in the League of Nations along with the US signed armament reduction treaties, like the 9 and 5 powers pacts, which reduced naval armaments by all participating nations. The US continued its policy of Dollar Diplomacy by injecting capital into the broken economies in Europe, hoping that the mony would return as investments into American companies. Unfortunately, most of these plans including the Dawes Plan to help Germany repay its war reparations only resulted in those nations using the money to pay off debt instead of investing in their economy. This, in part, was the reason for a global depression at the end of the 1920s.
But, what about peace? What was this monumental occurrence that happened after WWI? In 1928, Secretary of State Kellogg, and French foreign minister Briand helped usher in the signing of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Signed by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, UK, US and 50 other countries by 1929, it had a lofty goal:
It Outlawed War.
Simple, and unattainable. But, its intentions were clear. None of the nations who signed the pact wanted to see mechanized slaughter, like they experienced in WWI. WWI had wiped out an entire generations of young men. Its ineffectiveness was highlighted in the decade following its signing, as Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Hitler invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Rhineland at the end of the 1930s, ushering in another World War that would cause the death of 50 million people.
WWI is a lesson in history for most people. There are only a few who can remember living through it, and only a hand-full who remember fighting through it. So, I want to take this space to think about the conflicts that have highlighted my 22.5 year life so far. This retrospective/analysis looks to answer 2 questions: How many civil unrests and wars have I experienced? How many peace accords/pacts in that same time period have been effective?
Wars/Unrest
1. Gulf War 1 (1991)
2. Somalia (1993)
3. Yugoslav Wars (1991)
4. Rwandan Genocide (1994)
5. Military Coup in Pakistan (1999)
6. Civil Wars in the Congo (1990s)
7. Yitzhak Rabin is assassinated (1995)
8. Taliban take Afghanistan (1996)
9. Bosnian ethnic cleansing (1992)
10. Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003)
11. War in Afghanistan (2001)
12. Sept 11th attacks on World Trade Center (2001)
13. 1st World Trade Center Bombing (1993)
14. Oklahoma City Bombing (1995)
15. LA Riots (1992)
16. War in Gaza (2008)
17. War in Lebanon (2007)
18. Violence in Iran following election (2009)
19. Han ethnic violence in China (2009)
20. Military Crackdown in Burma (2008)
21. Chinese crackdown in Tibet (2008)
Peace Accords/Treaties
1. Oslo Accords (1993)
2. Israeli-Jordanian Peace (1994)
3. German Reunification (1990)
4. Release of Nelson Mandela (1994)
5. Belfast Accords (1998)
6. Ethiopian Civil War Ends (1991)
I am sure there are more peace treaties and unrest/war events that I haven't covered. Looking at the peace accord list, the major events like the Oslo Accords between Rabin and Arafat were symbolic. It ensured continued peace talks, but with the assassination of Rabin and Arafat's terrorist ties and inability to govern the new Palestinian Authority, peace was never reached. The Middle East, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has no discernible end in sight, as hard lined radicals are not willing to compromise. The Palestinian Authority is split between violent factions of Hamas and Fatah and West Bank settlements are still being built. And, many forces in the Middle East refuse to recognize Israel as a state and will only settle for its complete dissolution.
So, on this symbolic International Day of Peace, let's remember the atrocities and violence we experienced in our lives, and the peace attempts that are being made as I write. Progress towards peace can only be obtained by looking back at these situations and realizing the cause of the violence and war. Was our war in Vietnam justified because Communism would destroy the Western World? Were Weapons of Mass Destruction a convincing reason to invade Iraq? Is Afghanistan worth fighting for? Does America have any obligation to act on behalf of a nation in the cause of Democracy? These are questions we should be asking ourselves and our leaders. But more importantly, can we obtain a peaceful resolution to our international conflicts that is actually effective?
One event in the last century strikes me as the most significant in the pursuit of peace, and the vanquishing of war. This gesture, passed in the years after WWI, under the most internationally ideological president we have ever had (Woodrow Wilson), was more symbolic than realistic, and like most of Wilson's foreign policies failed miserably. But, it is as symbolically relevant as the International Day of Peace is, and gives the world insight into not only the motivations and causes of WWI, but the reaction that the Western world had to war, death and peace.
In order to grasp such an event, some history needs to be recounted. WWI was considered to first mechanized, mass-scale war that included the likes of machine guns, tanks, flame throwers, biochemical weapons, airplanes and mass scale artillery. On one side was the German, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empire, and on the other was the English, French, Russian and eventually American forces. Millions of soldiers were killed to gain insignificant amounts of land in the stalemate trench warfare across both the Eastern and Western fronts. After anti-war demonstrations, low industrial output and a massive loss of military gain, The 3 Axis Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans) signed an armistice on November 11th, 1918.
The addition of American forces not only turned the tide of the war, but catapulted the US onto the world stage militarily. At Versailles, President Wilson declared that this "Great War" would be the "War to End all Wars." Like a lot of counterparts at home, he saw this war as the result of territory claims and imperialism that was characteristic of the "Old World." Entangling alliances from colonial powers like Russia, Britain, Germany, France and Austria-Hungary had turned a single assassination into a massive, bloody war that left millions dead. These anachronistic alliances and methods of government were too volatile and should be abandoned. But, in the eyes of Lloyd-George of Britain, Clemenceau of France and Orlando of Italy, the US was an upstart nation with no experience in international warfare. Wilson's 14 points, including transparency on international alliances, self determinations for all free nations, freedom of the seas, reduction of armaments, readjustment of borders, trade access and the creation of the League of Nations were idealistic, and fraught with good intention. Compromise destroyed most of the points, and only Wilson's 14th point, the creation of the League of Nations was passed unscathed. As a final blow, after Wilson was unwilling to compromise on US involvement in the League of Nations, a team of "Reservationist" Senators blocked the resolution, and it did not pass. Wilson suffered a stroke while campaigning for participation in the League of Nations, and his wife took presidential responsibility for the rest of his term.
What were the reactions and results of such a monumental failure on a policy that attempted to gain international peace? The concessions by Wilson in the 14 points allowed for the European powers to take colonial revenge on Germany by taking away all of its land claims and putting a monumental $300 billion war debt on their economy. The German economy tanked, and super-duper hyperinflation made the deutschemark useless. The US saw this is a return to the "Old World" of Imperialism, and movements towards isolationism thrived. A candidate, Warren G Harding called for a "Return to Normalcy" and to bolster what makes America great. But, the reactions were not all bad. The European powers in the League of Nations along with the US signed armament reduction treaties, like the 9 and 5 powers pacts, which reduced naval armaments by all participating nations. The US continued its policy of Dollar Diplomacy by injecting capital into the broken economies in Europe, hoping that the mony would return as investments into American companies. Unfortunately, most of these plans including the Dawes Plan to help Germany repay its war reparations only resulted in those nations using the money to pay off debt instead of investing in their economy. This, in part, was the reason for a global depression at the end of the 1920s.
But, what about peace? What was this monumental occurrence that happened after WWI? In 1928, Secretary of State Kellogg, and French foreign minister Briand helped usher in the signing of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Signed by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, UK, US and 50 other countries by 1929, it had a lofty goal:
It Outlawed War.
Simple, and unattainable. But, its intentions were clear. None of the nations who signed the pact wanted to see mechanized slaughter, like they experienced in WWI. WWI had wiped out an entire generations of young men. Its ineffectiveness was highlighted in the decade following its signing, as Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Hitler invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Rhineland at the end of the 1930s, ushering in another World War that would cause the death of 50 million people.
WWI is a lesson in history for most people. There are only a few who can remember living through it, and only a hand-full who remember fighting through it. So, I want to take this space to think about the conflicts that have highlighted my 22.5 year life so far. This retrospective/analysis looks to answer 2 questions: How many civil unrests and wars have I experienced? How many peace accords/pacts in that same time period have been effective?
Wars/Unrest
1. Gulf War 1 (1991)
2. Somalia (1993)
3. Yugoslav Wars (1991)
4. Rwandan Genocide (1994)
5. Military Coup in Pakistan (1999)
6. Civil Wars in the Congo (1990s)
7. Yitzhak Rabin is assassinated (1995)
8. Taliban take Afghanistan (1996)
9. Bosnian ethnic cleansing (1992)
10. Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003)
11. War in Afghanistan (2001)
12. Sept 11th attacks on World Trade Center (2001)
13. 1st World Trade Center Bombing (1993)
14. Oklahoma City Bombing (1995)
15. LA Riots (1992)
16. War in Gaza (2008)
17. War in Lebanon (2007)
18. Violence in Iran following election (2009)
19. Han ethnic violence in China (2009)
20. Military Crackdown in Burma (2008)
21. Chinese crackdown in Tibet (2008)
Peace Accords/Treaties
1. Oslo Accords (1993)
2. Israeli-Jordanian Peace (1994)
3. German Reunification (1990)
4. Release of Nelson Mandela (1994)
5. Belfast Accords (1998)
6. Ethiopian Civil War Ends (1991)
I am sure there are more peace treaties and unrest/war events that I haven't covered. Looking at the peace accord list, the major events like the Oslo Accords between Rabin and Arafat were symbolic. It ensured continued peace talks, but with the assassination of Rabin and Arafat's terrorist ties and inability to govern the new Palestinian Authority, peace was never reached. The Middle East, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has no discernible end in sight, as hard lined radicals are not willing to compromise. The Palestinian Authority is split between violent factions of Hamas and Fatah and West Bank settlements are still being built. And, many forces in the Middle East refuse to recognize Israel as a state and will only settle for its complete dissolution.
So, on this symbolic International Day of Peace, let's remember the atrocities and violence we experienced in our lives, and the peace attempts that are being made as I write. Progress towards peace can only be obtained by looking back at these situations and realizing the cause of the violence and war. Was our war in Vietnam justified because Communism would destroy the Western World? Were Weapons of Mass Destruction a convincing reason to invade Iraq? Is Afghanistan worth fighting for? Does America have any obligation to act on behalf of a nation in the cause of Democracy? These are questions we should be asking ourselves and our leaders. But more importantly, can we obtain a peaceful resolution to our international conflicts that is actually effective?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tweet Tweet Y'all.
I have given in and joined Twitter.
See everyone on the dark side.
http://twitter.com/JulianCarm
Become a follower.
See everyone on the dark side.
http://twitter.com/JulianCarm
Become a follower.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The News of the Months: Weird, Angry People and Evolution
I have been reading the times over the last couple months, and I found that people are becoming crazier, and it seems that those random acts of anger and wierd occurings are happening more often in a shorter period of time. Here are some stories I have read in the news in the last couple months:
1. In a healthcare rally, a pro-healthcare overhaul individual got her/his finger bitten off by a an anti-healthcare protester.
2. During a speech in a joint session of Congress, Sen Wilson screamed "You Lie" to the President. He later apologized, but the damage had been done. He will be rebuked on the House floor (something I disagree with)and it has resulted in 1.5 million dollars of contributions to his campaign for 2010, as well as his opponents.
3. The Yankees and Blue Jays got in a bench-clearing fight that ended with cuts a bruises and 2 ejections.
4. A man at a healthcare town hall called for the death of Obama and his family.
5. People in Phoenix,AZ carried guns to an Obama speech about healthcare.
6. Bill O'Reilly gave Glenn Beck a copy of his book, with an inscription inside by...Jay-Z?!?!?
7. Glenn Beck continues to see higher ratings and increased audience.
8. After deciding to run the ball instead of down it, Leodis McKelvin's gave the Patriots a game winning fumble. Later, his lawn was vandalized with the score 25-24 on it.
9. Danny Pang, investor extraordinaire was found dead in his apartment. He had been under investigation for operating a Ponzi Scheme, which included using investors money to buy a private jet to Vegas, pay for some of the female staff to go with and then showering them with money on the plane. Further investigation might show that he might have never received his BA, or MBA for that matter, from UCI, as he claimed.
10. Roger Federer, #1 in the world, was beat by a 20 yr old Argentinian Juan Martin Del Potro.
11. Serena Williams cussed out the lines-woman, resulting in a 1 pt fault, leading to her defeat by technicality.
12. After almost 100 yrs of good service, water pipes are breaking in multiple places all over the San Fernando Valley, and nobody knows why.
13. No Republicans have decided to back the highly compromised Baucus healthcare bill, and because of the compromises, some liberal democrats might not back in either.
14. A caucus at CPAC asked to run a special meeting on the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. CPAC denied their request.
15. A group called the 10thers, who are based on what they call a "strict" interpretation of the 10th amendment powers delegation clause, called for all states to reject an Obama signed healthcare bill because they think the states have sovereignty over the Fed in all regards. They also think that FDR used the depression to overthrow the constitution, John C Calhoun was right in his nullification doctrine (a precursor to secession) and that Marbury v Madison which created the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review was unconstitutional because only state legislatures can do that. Jim DeMint, a SENATOR (that's right, a Senator) from South Carolina, also a 10ther, called Medicare and Social Security "probably unconstitutional (not remembering the fact that a lot of the residents of S Carolina are on both).
16. The admission by some groups at healthcare rallies that they were really using healthcare as a "metaphor" and the bigger struggle was stopping the spread of Socialism.
17. A student at Johns Hopkins University killed and intruder with a Samurai Sword.
18. Someone was shot to death on the campus of UC Irvine. In 2006, Irvine was voted one of the safest cities in the country.
Lastly, there was a story in the Time yesterday that said that evidence has shown that human have evolved at a higher rate because of things like domestication of animals and urbanization. The story explained that common genes, like the ability to digest milk, were passed on more rapidly to higher populations before any significant mutation could take place. This means that the higher the population, the faster genes evolve, which means the faster a favorable mutation could arise. Anybody who has taken high school biology knows that mutations are oftentimes the drivers of evolution, but those mutations take a long to take effect in large and often separated populations. New environments create hardships and humans are forced to adapt to them. And, we have...relatively quickly on an evolutionary scale. This accounts for lighter skin in Northern peoples and things like malaria resistance in Blacks, but not Asians or Whites.
I find this article very appropriate. It shows that humans are a resilient species and can adapt to harsh environments very quickly. But, is it really because we are superior in any way from a close nit group of animals? The findings are based on the fact that because we live in close quarter in big populations that we transmit genes and favorable mutations faster, driving evolution. This means that it is possible to have a disconnect between evolutionary change and intelligence. By no means do I believe that the urbanization of human society was done by dumb apes, but in fact hard working intelligent architects, planners, farmers, scientists, etc. But, with that established do we really find ourselves socially evolving in a progressive way? I would say the jury is out on this one. On one side we have good ideas, smart businessmen, etc. But, on the other side we have people who represent an undermining of our media through unintelligible use of our social space. I am talking about birthers, 10thers, truthers, 912ers and the pundits. In the 1950s we searched our collective psychological medium through experimentation to find out how one person (Hitler) could persuade so many that death and exclusion were mainstays of a "master race" and a united Germany, and blind people from the stench of rotting flesh. The experiments showed that a person with perceived authority will always convince those who believe they have been lacking authority or are disenfranchised, by using propaganda and often fallacious arguments. In my mind, the current situation had confirmed such results. Our social discourse has turned into a fractured platform for irrelevancies.
My ending question: Are we really evolving if we cherish that which is anathema to progress?
1. In a healthcare rally, a pro-healthcare overhaul individual got her/his finger bitten off by a an anti-healthcare protester.
2. During a speech in a joint session of Congress, Sen Wilson screamed "You Lie" to the President. He later apologized, but the damage had been done. He will be rebuked on the House floor (something I disagree with)and it has resulted in 1.5 million dollars of contributions to his campaign for 2010, as well as his opponents.
3. The Yankees and Blue Jays got in a bench-clearing fight that ended with cuts a bruises and 2 ejections.
4. A man at a healthcare town hall called for the death of Obama and his family.
5. People in Phoenix,AZ carried guns to an Obama speech about healthcare.
6. Bill O'Reilly gave Glenn Beck a copy of his book, with an inscription inside by...Jay-Z?!?!?
7. Glenn Beck continues to see higher ratings and increased audience.
8. After deciding to run the ball instead of down it, Leodis McKelvin's gave the Patriots a game winning fumble. Later, his lawn was vandalized with the score 25-24 on it.
9. Danny Pang, investor extraordinaire was found dead in his apartment. He had been under investigation for operating a Ponzi Scheme, which included using investors money to buy a private jet to Vegas, pay for some of the female staff to go with and then showering them with money on the plane. Further investigation might show that he might have never received his BA, or MBA for that matter, from UCI, as he claimed.
10. Roger Federer, #1 in the world, was beat by a 20 yr old Argentinian Juan Martin Del Potro.
11. Serena Williams cussed out the lines-woman, resulting in a 1 pt fault, leading to her defeat by technicality.
12. After almost 100 yrs of good service, water pipes are breaking in multiple places all over the San Fernando Valley, and nobody knows why.
13. No Republicans have decided to back the highly compromised Baucus healthcare bill, and because of the compromises, some liberal democrats might not back in either.
14. A caucus at CPAC asked to run a special meeting on the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. CPAC denied their request.
15. A group called the 10thers, who are based on what they call a "strict" interpretation of the 10th amendment powers delegation clause, called for all states to reject an Obama signed healthcare bill because they think the states have sovereignty over the Fed in all regards. They also think that FDR used the depression to overthrow the constitution, John C Calhoun was right in his nullification doctrine (a precursor to secession) and that Marbury v Madison which created the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review was unconstitutional because only state legislatures can do that. Jim DeMint, a SENATOR (that's right, a Senator) from South Carolina, also a 10ther, called Medicare and Social Security "probably unconstitutional (not remembering the fact that a lot of the residents of S Carolina are on both).
16. The admission by some groups at healthcare rallies that they were really using healthcare as a "metaphor" and the bigger struggle was stopping the spread of Socialism.
17. A student at Johns Hopkins University killed and intruder with a Samurai Sword.
18. Someone was shot to death on the campus of UC Irvine. In 2006, Irvine was voted one of the safest cities in the country.
Lastly, there was a story in the Time yesterday that said that evidence has shown that human have evolved at a higher rate because of things like domestication of animals and urbanization. The story explained that common genes, like the ability to digest milk, were passed on more rapidly to higher populations before any significant mutation could take place. This means that the higher the population, the faster genes evolve, which means the faster a favorable mutation could arise. Anybody who has taken high school biology knows that mutations are oftentimes the drivers of evolution, but those mutations take a long to take effect in large and often separated populations. New environments create hardships and humans are forced to adapt to them. And, we have...relatively quickly on an evolutionary scale. This accounts for lighter skin in Northern peoples and things like malaria resistance in Blacks, but not Asians or Whites.
I find this article very appropriate. It shows that humans are a resilient species and can adapt to harsh environments very quickly. But, is it really because we are superior in any way from a close nit group of animals? The findings are based on the fact that because we live in close quarter in big populations that we transmit genes and favorable mutations faster, driving evolution. This means that it is possible to have a disconnect between evolutionary change and intelligence. By no means do I believe that the urbanization of human society was done by dumb apes, but in fact hard working intelligent architects, planners, farmers, scientists, etc. But, with that established do we really find ourselves socially evolving in a progressive way? I would say the jury is out on this one. On one side we have good ideas, smart businessmen, etc. But, on the other side we have people who represent an undermining of our media through unintelligible use of our social space. I am talking about birthers, 10thers, truthers, 912ers and the pundits. In the 1950s we searched our collective psychological medium through experimentation to find out how one person (Hitler) could persuade so many that death and exclusion were mainstays of a "master race" and a united Germany, and blind people from the stench of rotting flesh. The experiments showed that a person with perceived authority will always convince those who believe they have been lacking authority or are disenfranchised, by using propaganda and often fallacious arguments. In my mind, the current situation had confirmed such results. Our social discourse has turned into a fractured platform for irrelevancies.
My ending question: Are we really evolving if we cherish that which is anathema to progress?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Glenn Beck, at it Again
This comes from the same guy who said "it took me 1 year to HATE the 9/11 victims families" and called the victims of Hurricane Katrina "Scumbags" for staying with their homes during the Hurricane. Beck brings about another wallop of his bullshit, getting ratings at the cost of respect, intelligence, media integrity and makes light of one of the worst tragedies in US history. A profiteer of stupidity.
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Deciding Stretch: Sept, 2009 - Nov, 2010
As Congress comes back from August recess, the president will be swamped with the lion’s share of problems that he has inherited from the last administration, and backlash from drastic changes that he intends to put through. Here is a brush up on some of the things we will be seeing in the media and the type of debates we will see in Congress:
Healthcare – This is the 300 pound gorilla in the room. Coming back from an August break filled with angry, gun-toting protesters decrying everything from birth certificates to socialism, healthcare will certainly be a hard sell. My belief is that people are angry, not because they actually know what they are talking about in regards to the many incarnations of the healthcare bill, but because they have not seen a quick fix to our economic situation, and blame the biggest thing they can see: The Government. Over healthcare, the teabaggers, the 2nd amendment Phoenix protesters and the “Obama-as-Joker-Socialist” school of thought all have eaten up the fast-food media business, whose CEOs are Mr. Beck, Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hannity. They give them fast, nicely packed buzzwords and emotional anti-government rhetoric to chew on and spit out, so they don’t have to think for themselves. The fact that a poll recently showed 6 into 10 white women are unsure about Obama’s presidential legitimacy is a little sad, seeing as that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE!!! Obama is going to make a “Custards-Last-Stand” before a joint session on Wednesday, where he will reiterate his ideas of budget-neutrality, exchanges, a new market system for healthcare, no denial for preconditions and if need be, no public option. But, of course, this public option is the main target of those opposed to the bill, even though it is only one part of it, and is expendable. As an article this weekend said, healthcare is losing to ideology. The Regan-era “big government bad, private business good” is still a mainstay of American ideology, and if it means that many children, who have no control over their healthcare situation, will not be insured, then so be it. A victory, albeit a compromised one, will give the administration the OOMPH it needs to take on other problems, like Energy and Afghanistan. But, since the Republicans have made it a political strategy to defeat healthcare (yah, that’ll really make the country better, especially in time for Swine Flu Season), and have already rejected exchanges (Republican idea initially), it looks like healthcare might not win out to politicking.
The Energy Bill – Last we saw, the Energy bill passed the house, with a few Republican supporters and is now heading into the Senate. The forecast will be “cloudy with a high chance of compromise.” The bill coming out the Senate, if it passes, will mostly likely have more concessions for coal-burning states and more promise to bulk up on nuclear power. Some supporters of the bill have dropped off because they believe it will lose all of its power to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. My perspective is that it already has lost its power. The concessions given on the Cap and Trade program to petroleum and coal business has made Waxman-Markey as strong as paper in a hurricane. Of course, there is the Carbon Tax, which is one of the most economically sound ideas, but not during a recession. Ignoring the fact that the bill would cost about 40-50 cents/day/family in energy increases, the main opposition has been the increase in price of energy bills. And, at a time when the forecast has been a $9,000,000,000,000 deficit over the next 10 fiscal years, many people are not happy with spending more on their side, or spending more on the government side. This goes for healthcare as well. If this bill passes, it will be a symbolic gesture for the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen. If it does not pass the Senate, it will be a political defeat that Obama will not recover from, both internationally and nationally. This coupled with a defeat of healthcare might spell a turnover in 2010 in Congress (pretty much a give-in) and a possible one-term “flash-in-the-pan” for Obama. Of course, Secretary Chu, a Noble Prize Winning physicist knows that energy issues and global warming are the “low-hanging fruit” and must be dealt with. But, in a time of skepticism about global warming, and that the EPA might be put on “trial” (think Scopes Monkey Trial, 1920) to prove man-made global warming, we are in no position to accept a higher cost for the abuse we have done to the environment. But, of course, the objective evidence (recently arctic cores have shown a unaccounted rise in temperature that cannot be accounted for as an effect of cyclical climate cycles) is not enough for vocal naysayers, and their inability to think globally is a burden on the bill.
Afghanistan – Out 8 year war with the Taliban has “no end in sight.” Well, not exactly. Our top military advisors say at least 12-18 months. Fresh from his new post and a couple trips to Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal has given a clear and grim assessment. The situation is bad and it is getting worse. McChrystal is the new commander on the ground for the American and NATO forces. His top priority is to protect civilian lives, and through PR and assistance win the hearts and minds of the tribesman and the local populations. This kind of thinking was lacking during our foray into Vietnam, and can work in our favor. The problem facing Afghanistan is something that we saw in Vietnam, and led us to take drastic measures and actions that ultimately led, in part, to our withdrawal. That problem is the corrupt central government. In Vietnam, we instituted a Catholic, Western-educated leader in the south with a population that was mostly peasants, uneducated and Buddhist. This leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, persecuted Buddhists, made himself inaccessible to the populace and looked down upon his own people. This led to high levels of desertion in the ARVN in the south, more instances of guerilla insertion of Vietcong in the South and a united front in the North. This also led to his assassination and a series of inept military leaders. In Afghanistan, during the Bush administration an initial successful election gave us President Hamid Karzai. But, the government has been plagued by corruption, with citizens being shaken down for bribes by anyone from police officers to judges. The utility system is lacking, the government oversight is weak and Karzai is often stubborn when given advice. Even the Taliban has been able to set up visible political presence in smaller towns and districts. Obama will have to deal with the rising death toll, the resurgence of the Taliban and corrupt government. The fact that 450 polling places have been disqualified during this recent election testifies to the divisive conflict that might arise from declaring any kind of victor. Without the support of the government to bolster domestic security and secure military cooperation from Pakistan on the porous border, this fight will be much longer than 12-18 months. And, with McChrystal’s recommendation for 20,000 more troops to make it 68,000 American troops (and a little over 32,000 NATO troops) we are in it for the long haul. (NOTE: Vietnam troop levels capped at around 500,000.)
When returning from recess, the President is going to have a lot on his plate. And, the desire for the quick economic fix will not make any of his policies more palatable for the Republican opposition. The lingering 9 trillion dollar deficit forecast and the ever increasing, albeit slower, unemployment rate (9.8%) will make any spending bill a near impossibility. It has been a historical trend that during a depression, the more conservative, and sometimes nationalist, jingoistic element of the political scene shows itself. We are seeing an upsurge in opposition to Global Warming policy, government and Immigration policy. But, what is more alarming is that we are seeing an upsurge in gun acquisition, bullet purchase, anti-immigrant sentiment, racism and a return to a highly radicalized grassroots conservative movement. People are voicing an opposition to politics itself. I believe that there is a rift occurring in the country between the people and the government, and the lack of knowledge that is spoon-fed to the people puts them in odds with any agent of the government, even if that agent opposes big government. This is fueled by a “small town” mentality that was seen during the Great Depression. These protesters are getting the idea that they are victims of a heartless system that must be pacified. But as Andrew Carnegie once said “mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust.”
My prediction is that if the Energy Bill and Healthcare fail, it will spell a political disaster for Obama, and will result in a drastic change of the guard in Congress. That will lead to an abandonment of the issue of Healthcare and Global Warming. This is why these bills are important to pass. If they are not passed between now and the midterm elections, the issues will never be fully addressed. And, the opposition will get its just desserts when Medicare dwindling causes the government to spend more to bolster it, and when Petroleum dwindles, the price skyrockets and energy because infinitely more expensive. Petroleum is a very volatile market, just like Uranium, and if we see another upsurge of investment into commodities, those prices will shoot up, as Uranium has in the last 3 years. The fault is not in their ideology, it’s in their inability to compromise. And, this goes for both sides.
It’s with great consternation that I write…Gosh, I wish Teddy was around.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Salton Sea Cash Cow: Renewable Energy
If you take the 10 Freeway from Los Angeles, get on the 86S, or 111S, passed Coachella Valley, you will eventually hit the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is a 35 (Length) by 15 (Width) mile lake situated in Southeastern Imperial County. It is situated at an altitude of -227 ft, is 51 ft deep at its maximum point and is highly saline at 44 parts per thousand of salt, or somewhere around 500 million tons. Salton City, located in the Westside of the lake, is where most of the Salton Sea inhabitants live. At the corner of Frontage and Marina St, you will find Sheriff Raymond Loera’s office. By the way, he is also the Coroner and the Marshal. The Salton Sea offers boating, fishing, bird watching and camping for visitors. But, many make their trek to the East Side of the lake, where a failed and abandoned city lays in ruins. Once thought to be the Lake Havasu of California, the East Salton banks are more like a nightmarish, nether-dimensional world, with gutted houses, dead fish and abandoned motels, which offers a counterpoint to the growing Salton City just across the bay.
But, the Salton Sea offers something much more sustaining and important: It is a gold mine for renewable energy. The sprawling desert that make up most of the area around the Salton Sea is a source of Geothermal Energy and provides enough space for large Solar Photovoltaic arrays, Solar Thermal and algae pools to synthesize ethanol and jet fuel. Most of the desert land in the Salton Sea is owned by the government, who uses it for oil drilling. All, except for a small 1,280 acre plot, which is privately owned. The story behind this plot proves not only the importance of renewable energy, it provides an invaluable example of how renewable energy can be a sound private investment, and with the right government incentives, have positive implications for many sectors of the economy.
I met Jeff Horwich on a day trip outing to the Salton Sea with my father. He works in the Jewelry Business in Downtown LA, and one of Jeff’s businesses was gold, so he had been one of my father’s clients. Jeff also dabbles in real estate, with a quite a few mortgages with Countrywide. “After 12 mortgages, you get a free hat” he told the waitress over lunch in a nearby café.
Jeff is the owner of the aforementioned 1,280 acre plot. On the drive to the Salton Sea he told me the story of how he obtained the property. A man walked into his shop a couple of years ago, and he got to talking about a property that he owned. He wanted to sell Jeff this 1,280 acre plot in the Salton Sea for 200$/acre. Jeff thought it over and politely declined. Over the next year, the man kept reminding Jeff about the property, until Jeff gave in and bought it. He thought he could use the land to ride ATVs with his son, and could possibly rent out the land for camping. A year after he bought the land, a real estate company contacted him with interest in buying the land. “I thought I could get maybe $1,000/acre on my $250,000 investment,” Jeff told me. So, he sat down at the bargaining table and asked how much they were willing to offer. Their first offer was $12,000/acre. An alarm went off in Jeff’s mind. Why would they offer $12,000/acre on a land that he got for $200/acre, with no accessible resources (there was oil on the land, but it was under a layer of hot water, and inaccessible)? He told the company he would think about it, and got up. $15,000/acre. “They offered me nearly $4 million just for getting out of my seat,” Jeff explained. Once the cash rolled in, he would make nearly 77 times his investment, or somewhere in the neighborhood of $19.2 million. He said he would have to confer with his wife, and left to go do some research.
He got in contact with Iceland America, a company that does commercial geothermal. He walked into their office and sat in the waiting room. On the wall was a picture of strange looking geological formation, or what looked like a miniature volcano. The secretary explained that it was a Carbon Dioxide well, and it was a sign of commercially viable geothermal energy. He had at least 5 on his property. Stunned, the secretary asked him to point out his property. He showed her the West side of the Salton Sea. At first, she didn’t believe him, as she thought all the land around the sea was government owned. Apparently, the man who sold the property had it in his family since the early 1900s and it had never been bought out. Jeff was rushed into the main office, where deals began to spring up. Their offer was $50,000 up front, and %2.5 of the royalties from anything mined. His counteroffer: $500,000 and %2.5 of the royalties. The deal went back and forth for some time, with Jeff finding himself legal representation. When Jeff didn’t budge, the deal broke down and Jeff went elsewhere.
But, first, Jeff had to verify that the geological formations were actually commercially viable geothermal. He hired an independent geologist to do a Helium-3 to Helium-4 ratio measurement. He said if you’re ratio is below 1, you don’t have commercially viable. But, if it is high enough above 1, then you have a gold mine. His ratio: nearly 5. This meant he had magmatic pockets of geothermal energy, which was commercially viable. The estimates were that he had a 100Mw potential on his property for geothermal energy. His property was also large enough that he could put solar photovoltaic arrays on it as well. When he was approached by a company for solar, they estimated that they could build nearly 50Mw of solar. Beyond solar, he also got an offer from an independent environmental group to dig a algae pool to harvest algae for jet fuel. They could produce 33 million gallons of fuel/yr. at $1.75/gallon revenue, over 200 acres with 1,000 acre ft of water. Did I mention that he could also capture carbon dioxide from the wells to feed back into the algae pools? But, wait, there’s more! He is 1.25 miles from the “Greenpath” line which an 850Mw proposed energy line through Imperial and San Diego Counties. And, he will connect his 100Mw geothermal and his 50Mw solar right to it. This will eliminate the cost of transmission problem that faces many renewable energy projects.
Jeff has what we in the renewable energy field call a renewable energy "farm." Following this discovery, he began to shop around for companies who would build a geothermal plant on his property. After going through the likes of Mitsubishi, he found RAM Power, who offered him 4% of the royalties on all resources mined, and offered to build solar thermal on the property as well. The deal is not set in stone, but he hopes to finish negotiations with some company, RAM or otherwise, by the end of the year. REC is the company that has offered to build the photovoltaic array of nearly 50Mw.
The lingering perception is that renewable energy is not economically profitable, and that traditional oil drilling it much better on the bottom line. Jeff has proved this argument to be false, by turning his $250,000 investment into a nearly $200 million yearly revenue stream. I talked to him on the phone recently, and he told me how this cash breaks down:
1.Federal Incentive: 30% cash grant for geothermal projects starting by 2010 and completed between 2013-2016. This can be taken as a tax credit or a cash grant
2.Federal Incentive: 40% credit for the 1st year, and 20% for every year after up until 2016.
3.500% return in geothermal on every 1$ spent.
4.100 Mw of Geothermal = $135 million/yr in revenue
5.50 Mw of solar = $20 million/yr in revenue
6.200 acres of 1,000 acre ft of water for algae, at $1.75/gallon = $15 million/yr in revenue
With the low transmission cost, Jeff’s project will make its money back in 5 years. Beyond that, he will be contributing to power generation by renewable for the people of the Imperial and San Diego Counties, and the residents of Salton City. Did I mention that a house in Salton City is in the neighborhood of $90,000? Since the area is booming, in another 30 or 40 years, Jeff predicts that this revenue stream will extend to real estate.
What does this mean for the economy? First, it shows that renewable can be a profitable business. Second, this project will generate employment in the area, which has been growing rapidly in the last couple of years. It will also cut down on the cost of electricity for users of the new “Greenpath” line, and help people save on their utility bills. Third, geothermal is generates power 24 hours/day, which makes it 100% renewable in the purest definition. The only power that comes close is nuclear, and even nuclear is vulnerable to temperature increases. Lastly, it provides a renewable, sustainable energy alternative to petroleum. As much as companies like BP, Exxon-Mobil and Chevron have huge profits, those profits are based on a dwindling resource. Oil is not something that will sustain our energy needs into the near future. Besides the dwindling number, and the need for more drilling, oil refining causes high amounts of greenhouse gas pollution, and cars burning gasoline are a main source of carbon dioxide, which is a contributor to global warming. If we are to meet our future energy needs, local, national and international governments need to examine projects like Jeff’s, and promote investment into renewable energy. Jeff’s project shows that private individuals and companies can help clean up the environment, offer low cost power to millions of people and make lots of money in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)