Arguere

Going Green 1949 Style with Ice Cube

2011-12-11T11:13:00.001-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FRWatw_ZEQI#

the Love Canal chemical waste dump...

2011-12-06T00:45:00.000-08:00

here's a song by San Francisco's finest, Flipper, about the problems in the town near Niagara Falls. Flipper were arguably one of the greatest punk bands (according to myself, a few professors at SFAI, Kurt Cobain, Henry Rollins, among others) and played at the Art Institute a few times.

Geoengineering.

2011-12-04T20:28:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2069449/Could-scientists-reverse-global-warming-The-U-N-discusses-plans-reflect-sun-cool-earth.html

Crazy!

2011-12-04T20:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2069541/Woolly-mammoth-brought-life-cloned-bone-marrow-years.html

The Fight for Water

2011-12-02T17:26:00.001-08:00

Joshua Spencer takes a look at the untold story of contamination in the Amazon.

The full film is available free on

SnagFilms and here

http://ow.ly/1fXx8U

Water Wars Now

2011-11-29T09:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikb4WG8UJRw&feature=channel

And a particularly immediate case:

http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/water_wars

off topic

2011-11-28T17:04:00.001-08:00

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/map/

i'm extremely curious as to the content of the one youtube video google took down in compliance with a us executive, police, etc. order for 'government criticism'.

In their report they also address rumors of law enforcement agencies requests to take down videos of police brutality, (allegedly constituting defamation because the LEOs didn't believe the violence depicted crossed into territory of police brutality as the videos undoubtedly claim?), which google claims they did not comply with...

Video Presentations

2011-11-28T11:46:00.000-08:00

Some of the The Long Emergency stuff as well as the Korten Phantom Wealth discussion are in video formats -- I've occasionally assigned such material before (some Story of Stuff stuff for example), but I'm wondering what you think about it, as compared to assigned texts. Do you get more or less from such presentations, what's the optimal mix, and so on. I personally tend to think the vids are more superficial and seem to provoke less nuanced engagements, but they also do draw you in. What are your verdicts?

Your Saturday Morning cartoon

2011-11-25T17:26:00.000-08:00

The semester wrapped up in one cartoon-

I guess in the end the answer here is design.

A Thanksgiving Prayer

2011-11-24T10:30:00.001-08:00

Unthanksgiving Day

2011-11-23T17:04:00.000-08:00

FYI: Tomorrow morning from 4:30m-7:30am is the annual Indigenous Peoples Sunrise Gathering.

"Every Thanksgiving just before sunrise, several hundred people gather on Alcatraz for the Indigenous Peoples Sunrise Ceremony to remember the true story of Thanksgiving -- not the one about pilgrims and turkeys."

Go here to read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/indigenous-peoples-sunrise-gathering_n_1108925.html

More details on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/events/292702154093314/

Getting Into That Special Thanksgiving Spirit...

2011-11-23T16:40:00.001-08:00

Keyword Final Projects -- Problems? Ideas? Worries? Reactions?

2011-11-20T09:17:00.000-08:00

Feel free to post questions and comments about ongoing projects here on the blog. I check it regularly.

Reminder -- No Class Tuesday

2011-11-20T09:15:00.000-08:00

I've given you the Tuesday before Genocidal US Imperialism Day, er, the Thanksgiving holiday -- so don't come to class, but do get your Keyword Final Projects underway!

Extensions Are Not Likely

2011-11-20T09:14:00.000-08:00

I've given you all an immense headstart to work on the Final and so I am unlikely to feel very kindly disposed to panicky requests for extensions at the end of term. I must warn you -- the final requires some time-consuming work scouting through the assigned texts for quotes in addition to everything else. Many have told me the assignment is not only very enlightening but rather fun once you get into the process of the thing. But this isn't something you can pull of the night before it's due. You've got this week off from class, no reading assignment from me, extra time -- definitely you should get underway. If you put it off, you'll unquestionably regret it.

Keywords Final

2011-11-20T09:10:00.000-08:00

I have posted a permanently visible link to the Keywords Final on the sidebar so that you can all still easily find it even as new content gets posted and it scrolls deeper and deeper out of sight.

There is a farm theme.

2011-11-14T19:10:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stblRudM-4I&feature=related

Batman and Robin eat organic Veggies!

2011-11-14T18:57:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJNicm1ur0

wow........

2011-11-10T11:28:00.001-08:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/politics/administration-to-delay-pipeline-decision-past-12-election.html?_r=2&hp

Eugenics? My middle name is Eugene.

2011-11-07T21:31:00.000-08:00

The World Population totals got me thinking...
Check this out:

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8640744-victims-speak-out-about-north-carolina-sterilization-program-which-targeted-women-young-girls-and-blacks

Every Dollar Makes A Difference

2011-11-07T10:56:00.000-08:00

I recently came across a book, "The Better World Shopping Guide" By Ellis Jones.

Every Dollar You Spend Is A Vote For The World You Want To Live In!

So our dollar is stronger than voting?

I was wondering if anyone else has come across this book, and what do you think?

The answer is coming 11/11/11

2011-11-06T22:17:00.000-08:00

Brian E.- I think Aquaman finally came through and made a Dolphin jump out of the water to help humankind find an alternative source of energy! Look for it in the trailer. Super surfer dude as well. All this helps the credibility factor on the topic- right?

http://thrivemovement.com/

snagged from
http://projectearth.com/

Keywords Final Project

2011-11-06T12:38:00.000-08:00

There are well over a hundred keywords listed below from among the many more terms we have taken up and deployed over the course of our readings and conversations this term.

For your Final you are to create three categories (conceptual, practical, figurative, whatever) entirely of your own choosing and design, and then include under each of these categories a number of keywords from the list below which seem to you to be related to one another in a significant or useful way through each of your chosen categories and in respect to your sense of the overall subject of our course together.

"Green" is not a Keyword in the list -- but your own idiosyncratic inhabitation of Greenness, your own sense of what Greenness most importantly consists will likely emerge in the Final taken as a whole.

For each keyword you choose, provide a clear and concise definition of the term (nothing more than a sentence, at most two) in your own words, and then follow that definition with a quotation from one of the assigned texts from our syllabus. The quotation should be one that is especially illuminating for the definition you have made in some way: the quotation can be a definition that yours is a variation of, the quotation can be an example or illustration that supports your definition, the quotation can provide an analogy or figure or frame that inspired your definition, the quotation can even be something that seemed so wrongheaded to you that it provoked your definition as a kind of protest or intervention.

Your final must provide definitions and quotations for at least thirty-six keywords but no more than forty. None of your categories can contain fewer than seven keywords and none can contain more than sixteen keywords.

Each of your categories should have a title and a general explanatory paragraph (and I do mean a paragraph, not an essay) indicating what you take the category to delineate.

You can hand the final in to me personally at any time from now to the end of term, but I ask that you send it to me as a Word-readable attachment in an e-mail if you cannot place a hard copy directly into my hands. The last possible deadline for submitting the final is via e-mail, noon, Tuesday, December 15, 2009. Think about when your other finals are scheduled and when your other papers are due and fit this final Keyword Project into your schedule in a way that best suits your own situation. If you have time to get this done early rather than last minute, by all means do so. You should give yourself a good few days to do this work, since scouting through passages and notes across the whole term often yields unexpected syntheses that lead to revisions of your initial categorizations and keyword groupings. I hope this exercise is an enlightening and enjoyable one for you all rather than a drudgery. Be experimental, exploratory, earnest about it and you are almost sure to get incomparably more benefit from it.

If you have questions, always feel free to post them in Comments, e-mail them to me, raise them in class, or talk with me about them in office hours.

Here are the Keywords I'm having you choose from:

Access-to-Knowledge (a2k)
Agriculture
Agroforestry
Alienation
Anthropocene
Appropriate Technology
Atmosphere
Biodegradable
Biodiversity
Biomimicry
Biopiracy
Biosphere
Biosphere 2
Cap and Trade
Climate Change
Climate Refugees
Climax Ecosystem
Co-evolution
Commons
Common Sense
Commonwealth
Consensus Science
Consent
Conservation
Consumer
Cradle-to-Cradle
Creative Commons
Custom
Deep Ecology
Democracy
Denial
Depletion
Design
Development
Downcycling
Ecology
Ecofeminism
Ecosocialism
Ecosystem
Ecosystemic Services
Eco-Village
Edible Landscaping
Enclosure
Endangered Species
Energy Descent
Environmental Justice Movement
Environmental Racism
Exoticism
Externality
Farmers Market
Feral
Finitude
Footprint
Futurism
Gaia
Genome
Geo-engineering
Globalization
Greenwashing
Hierarchy
Immateralism
Indigeneity
Industrial Agriculture
Industrialism
Input Intensive
Instrumental Rationality
Integrated Pest Management
Intentional Community
Intellectual Property
Investment
Irrigation
Leapfrogging
Limit
Local
Localvore
Luddism
Militarism
Monoculture
Native
Nature
Natural Capital
Need
Niche
One Size Fits All
Organic
Pandemic
Parks
Patriarchy
Peak Oil
Peer-to-Peer (p2p)
Permaculture
Planetary
Poison
Political Ecology
Pollution
Polyculture
Post-Scarcity
Precautionary Principle
Predator
Primitivism
Public Good
Recycling
Renewable
Resilience
Resource Descent
Salination
Scientificity
Seed Saving
Seed Sharing
Slow Food
Slum
Small Is Beautiful
Smart Grid
Social Ecology
Sublimity
Sustainability
Symbiosis
Technofix
Terminator Seed
Toxicity
Triple Bottom Line
Urban Agriculture
Vegetarianism
Viridian
Wilderness

My Anti-Futurological Ranting

2011-11-06T08:34:00.001-08:00

I mentioned last week that futurology is a topic I write about quite a lot myself. If you want to look at some of that stuff, here is a link to an anthologization of some of that writing, "Futurology Against Ecology," especially connected to environmental issues. You might find the geo-engineering critique most relevant to our readings, Geo-Engineering As Futurological Greenwashing and Geo-Engineering Is A Declaration of War That Doesn't Care About Democracy. I am not assigning these pieces, you should read the actually assigned pieces on the syllabus before you dip into these, if you do at all, I am just drawing your attention to them because I said I would and because it is only fair that you have a chance to throw darts my way since I am always analyzing your perspectives, too. Also, fear not, the Keyword Final "Exam" will appear momentarily.

Oh no! Mr. Rhino

2011-11-05T18:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15571678

Is It Art?

2011-11-05T11:46:00.001-07:00

tar sands action in washington this weekend.

2011-11-04T14:28:00.000-07:00

http://www.nationofchange.org/white-house-be-encircled-tar-sands-activists-sunday-1320421374

2011-11-02T08:30:00.000-07:00

A beautiful photo essay about the epidemic of Indian farmer suicides

http://www.burnmagazine.org/works-in-progress/2010/12/laura-el-tantawy-–-i’ll-die-for-you/

2011-11-01T23:50:00.000-07:00

The Day Before the Day of Action

What makes a strike “general” has little to do with surpassing some quantitative threshold of participants. What is implied in the adjective is not strictly about size—how “big” the strike is—but rather designates a political action that is qualitatively different from the typical labor strike.......

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/the-day-before-the-day-of-action/

2011-11-01T17:00:00.001-07:00

Anatomy of a Greenwash from Paul Scheer

Greenwashing- Con or conversation

2011-11-01T05:52:00.000-07:00

Shell Oil says, "Yeah were evil but we can't help it - it's what our customers ( and shareholders) demand".

Is greenwashing better than just directly opposing? Greenwashing opens the door to some discourse with corporations about the effects on the environ but it also provides corporations the chance to spin these destructive acts allowing them an opportunity to fake a good face for themselves as well.

I've literally heard a representative from an oil company say once, " We have an obligation to our shareholders" (this was in response to being asked about the extreme price jump in gas prices a few years back). This meant they were comfortable with gouging the public for every penny and running the economy and people's lives into the ground. His response was, "We're paid to screw people."

At least with Greenwasing they say they are trying to work within a "sustainable" framework. This could at least set up a dialogue that could lead to actual change. Maybe those record profits could buy them a conscience or at least remind them that they need an inhabitable planet to spend their money.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Brian McHugh wrote:

Finally our government is going to take control and do something about these guys!

BP and partners face $45m in fines over Gulf oil spill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/13/bp-fines-gulf-oil-spill

Wait- nevermind.
BP “spirit coming back” as profits jump, record drilling planned for Gulf *updates*

Hey- Their spirit of destruction is coming back!

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/10/25/q3-profits-jump-for-bp-more-assets-on-the-block/

7 Billion on halloween

2011-11-01T02:47:00.000-07:00

We just officially reached 7 billion people. Scary!!

All these people

2011-10-31T21:13:00.000-07:00

A little follow up to Brian’s post-

As a person with “radically disempowered crotch droppings” living in my house I found this article to add to the conversation from last class.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/06/11/why-i-hate-i-hate-children/

I want to add that this is not an attack on our beloved teacher, who’s statement of children came, I felt, momentarily channeled that of the great W.C. Fields:

“Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another piece of chocolate.”
― W.C. Fields

followed by

“I like children. If they're properly cooked.”

and

“Children should neither be seen nor heard from – ever again. ”
― W.C. Fields

A little discourse on adoption vs. IVF vs. natural birth:

Adoption is wonderful given the right circumstances.

http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/adoption-vs-ivf-vs-natural

The Planned Parenthood website states: “Family planning is deciding whether or not to have children, when to have them, and how many to have. Only you know what's best for you!” (note the exclamation mark) http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppscny/family-planning-education-service-30070.htm

I would not want anyone to parent who blindly goes into the endeavor but I will welcome those who proceed with raising individuals that make an effort in finding a thoughtful approach their life and the lives of others. Just remember that this group of underdeveloped humans is being exposed to a new world and they will be the ones who determine how we live when we can no longer make the big decisions.

occupy protest protest How to really annoy the banks and finance compani...

2011-10-29T15:56:00.000-07:00

Any more suggestions?

2011-10-28T22:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959

i'm innocent!

2011-10-28T21:43:00.000-07:00

i thought this was... entertaining.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15503638

He hate chocolate! I don't hate me!

2011-10-25T11:38:00.000-07:00

http://www1.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm

Cane Toads

2011-10-23T19:20:00.000-07:00

Humanity...true fuck ups!
Pick your poison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mvV8OT-mmE

2011-10-23T18:47:00.000-07:00

After reading John Zerzan's

"Agriculture" It reminds me of:

Why is agriculture vital to me? Sustained agriculture made a stable and secure life. Neolithic farmers developed the primary economic activity of the ancient world that is vital today. This settled routine developed into towns and cities. Neolithic usually raised more food than they could consume. These surpluses permitted larger healthier populations.The greater population created an even greater reliance on settled farming. Agricultural SURPLUSES made possible the division of labor. It freed some people to become craftsmen and, most importantly, ARTISANS. I obtained this information from the book titled "A History of Western Society".

2011-10-22T16:00:00.000-07:00

So Dale wants us to post questions after doing the readings. Here's my take---In agriculture by Zerzan it is stated " because of intellect {we} can no longer re-cross a certain threshold of civilization and once again become part of a natural habitat". No one said go back to the extreme stone age but couldn't we try to live a bit locally again. In previous readings the concern was and still is that food is grown and consumed in different places that upsets the balance of nature. land is tilled and in doing so erosion occurs and extinction looms closer. Why can't we group together as communities to try to begin the long process of undoing what we have done? It was stated that hunter-gatherers did far better that farmers.

What to do? In "The destructive Nature of Our Bountiful Harvests" there is a passage that states "A one does a mental survey of the agricultural problem, . . . one is forced to acknowledge the double bind with which we are confronted: without agriculture there will be an immediate mass starvation, but with agriculture there will be a continual eroding away of the productive basis of human livelihood." We may need to bring it down to local communities instead of thinking globally. I would like to see more writings/thoughts NOT on what is wrong but what can be done. yeah and that 50 year Farm Bill does not shed any results in many ways it is more of what is wrong.

Why can't we just leave well enough alone? Why tamper with seeds---Why do we have to have genetically modify crops------it's a guy thing. The testosterone mentality wants to put his seed everywhere and if he can't, he'll patent it or genetically alter it so then he can. Why do we still want GM crops when the yield is lower and the cost to produce is higher? Because it is the testosterone mentality that must conquer. (oh yeah, it's capitalism and world domination among that too)-------this essay "Breadbasket of Democracy was an awesome piece where the seed came into play again-----how does a corporation go about patenting a seed? Send in Vandana Shiva to set them straight on the perils of that route.

Well I think I wrote enough----because I just realized that no one is going to read this except Dale-----hey Dale!----and just for your knowledge and I am going to try another go at it---the third reading Why Primitivism? I don't know, I went one way the essay went another, you might have to translate it for me. But Dale you are good at that.

Dubai sanitation(wikipedia)

2011-10-18T00:14:00.000-07:00

i know it's not the most trustworthy source, but i found this interesting-

Sanitation issues

Currently, human waste is collected daily from thousands of septic tanks across the city and driven by tankers to the city's only sewage treatment plant at Al-Awir. Dubai's rapid growth means that it is stretching its limited sewage treatment infrastructure to its limits. Because of the long queues and delays, some tanker drivers resort to illegally dumping the effluent into storm drains or behind dunes in the desert. Sewage dumped into storm drains flows directly into the Persian Gulf, near the city's prime swimming beaches. Doctors have warned that tourists using the beaches run the risk of contracting serious illnesses like typhoid and hepatitis.^[100] Dubai municipality says that it is committed to catching the culprits and has imposed fines of up to $25,000 and threatened to confiscate tankers if dumping persists. The municipality maintains that test results show samples of the water are "within the standard".

^yikes!

from the architecture for humanity site

2011-10-17T23:50:00.000-07:00

SKATEISTAN: TO LIVE AND SKATE KABUL from Diesel New Voices on Vimeo.

Africa's agriculture

2011-10-16T16:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11890702

plant a tree.

2011-10-16T16:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15305271

I participated in two tree plantings in the Mission this year. I am just getting started. I like trees. There I said it.

this is really well done - from Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-12T21:30:00.000-07:00

From a Former Student

2011-10-10T18:20:00.001-07:00

Daniel Pelt here. SFAI class of '08. We could use your help. Could you please link to our FB, Twitter, and Website? We're just getting started here (9 days in) and have hunched down to get a lot of work done. So please excuse our disorganization for now.

WEB: www.occupylosangeles.org
Twitter: @occupyla
FB: http://www.facebook.com/occupyLA
(also, if you're on FB, add me under my real name!)

Listed below is a link to a forum I've created on www.occupylosangeles.org, our official website. It's called "Language in and around Occupy Los Angeles" and I've posted a very, very brief reading list. If you have the time I would LOVE to see you expand it and to hear your voice engaged there. I'm nervous about some of the rhetoric being casually tossed around down here and in the Wall Street faction and I agree with your comments on Obama's Job's Act competing for attention with OWS. While OWS is decidely not associated with any political party, it is important to congratulate and support them when they do, somehow and against all odds, attempt to do something the right way.

Language in and around Occupy Los Angeles: http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/456#comment-1284

Also, I would love to propose some classes to the OLA General Assembly around the issues of language, rhetoric and critical thinking skills. I do not feel I'm anywhere near qualified to teach but recognize the need for it now before it grows as it eventually will. Do you have any contact in Los Angeles that might voice solidarity with this movement and be able to lead discussions around any/all of the topics mentioned above (or any topic you might think important in this context)? I would love to make contact with them if so!

2011-10-10T15:57:00.000-07:00

Check out this 20 min. video: "The Story Of Stuff".

I think it goes well with what we are learning in this class.

http://www.storyofstuff.com

www.youtube.com

search: the story of stuff

Sign of the Times...

2011-10-09T13:32:00.002-07:00

Amish gang-banging!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15231033

Sign of the Times...

2011-10-09T13:32:00.001-07:00

Amish gang-banging!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15231033

Sign of the Times...

2011-10-09T13:32:00.000-07:00

Amish gang-banging!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15231033

Strong women

2011-10-09T13:20:00.000-07:00

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/08/world/meast/saudi-women-artists/index.html

I am a big fan of female artists. I thought this article is cool.
Check this site too:

http://www.guerrillagirls.com/

2011-10-09T13:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/us/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I thought this is interesting.

New Environmental Justice Links Up on the Syllabus

2011-10-07T22:05:00.000-07:00

I've put up some new stuff, jettisoned a few titles, give it a look. Should be a good conversation.

Anybody doing show and tell next week? Step up, the term will be over before you know it...

"Paris launches electric car-sharing scheme"

2011-10-04T10:28:00.000-07:00

Kind of interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15134136

unifem link that is down on the syllabus

2011-10-02T14:00:00.000-07:00

heres a working one

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unifem.org.au%2F_literature_43275%2FWomen%2C_Climate_Change_and_Refugees&rct=j&q=Women%2C%20Climate%20Change%2C%20and%20Refugees&ei=79CITvyTNq7YiAL4zozNDA&usg=AFQjCNHPij4D6IH2BOvFaecN1ahldsK05Q

Dan Phillips-Houses/Construction from reclaimed materials

2011-09-29T14:20:00.000-07:00

Here is a Ted Talk with builder Dan Phillips. He makes some incredible places from unconventional and, found, things. He also has some interesting things to say about the US housing market. Check it out if you're interested, you can kind of jump around to see examples of his work if you don't want to watch the whole video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_phillips_creative_houses_from_reclaimed_stuff.html

SF Council on Climate Change looking for a photographer

2011-09-28T16:19:00.000-07:00

About the Opportunity

Event/presentation on climate change initiatives with San Francisco Mayer, Edwin Lee, as Keynote speaker.

BC3 uses images to communicate our mission of fostering collaboration between a diversity of nonprofit, for-profit, and government stakeholders. We use images to convey active collaboration and dialogue.

More info here http://www.photophilanthropy.org/nonprofit-posts/the-business-council-on-climate-change/

'Garbage Warrior' documentary on a self-sustainable housing project

2011-09-27T11:24:00.001-07:00

Hopefully we can find time to watch this in class! It's very interesting :)
Here's a couple of the links to check out-

http://www.garbagewarrior.com/
http://life.gaiam.com/article/garbage-warrior-turns-trash-green-built-houses

Enjoy!

Speaking of discourses on Nature

2011-09-26T15:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V112pTo--Js&feature=fvwp&NR=1

2011-09-26T15:32:00.000-07:00

An inconvenient truth: coding nature

The film begins with images of “nature;” a stream flowing, leaves swaying in the breeze, tranquility, nothingness. A barren land untouched by the hand of man, to flourish and cultivate a cyclical pattern secured from exterior influences not inherent to the natural sequencing of the environment. This aspect of the film poses a critical schism in the efficacy of Gore’s message. There are several characteristics of the film that caused it to be successful on a commercial level, but unsuccessful at manifesting a substantial alteration to the trajectory of climate change.

Gore’s inability, in the film, to propose applications for a more prosperous future, was coupled with a central point of discourse that made the argument less effective. Nature and the environment are positioned in the film as a utopian ideal, pure and filtered from manufactured landscapes. Each shot of nature excludes humanity. My question here is, how is the built environment not an element of the environment?

Humans have been altering their environment and generating technology to benefit themselves since our knowledge of humanity. What has changed is the scale. The paradigm that needs to be shifted is the separation of “man from nature.” In popular discourse nature is depicted as an exclusive system, consisting of earth, wind, water, fire, ether ect. When, in this juncture of time and space, nature is an arrangement and process that is largely influenced by humans. Essentially, my argument is to create a discourse on nature that incorporates humanity rather than a rigid dichotomy.

This dogma is not the complete answer to global warming. In addition, acutely radical processes need to ensue. Nonetheless, the media’s approach of engaging the public with the current discourse of nature is an essential source in need of transformation from severance to unification.

2011-09-24T13:28:00.001-07:00

lol fox business news trying really hard to equate "solyndragate" with the gulf oil spill...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1179976745001/no-answers-no-more-green-loans/?playlist_id=87485

wow the free market libertarian goon is the most reasonable guy on the show

Proxemics

2011-09-20T12:20:00.000-07:00

The Shallow and The Deep sparked a peculiar point of question as to the disconnect between bodies of research going on between scientific disciplines. In point #2 of characterizing a "deep ecology practice" Arne Naess states that "Ecological egalitarianism implies the reinterpretation of the future-research variable, 'level of crowding'" implying that the research in such a field has not yet taken place. Despite this, the field of Proxemics introduced 7 years prior seems to have already covered some significant ground on the subject.

Have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics

and here (for a bit of a contemporary deviation):

http://skchoi.org/tag/proxemic-behavior/

Reaction to ‘An Inconvenient Truth'

2011-09-20T09:03:00.000-07:00

After watching ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ I felt that although the information was presented as an ultimately accurate truth, there may have been an ulterior motive for the production and distribution of the film. A good portion of the movie concerned itself with Gore’s personal life and the hurdles he’s had to overcome. Was this a necessary part of the film itself? If it were to be a legitimate documentary it would not be a necessity, although given the nature of the film and it’s ability to relate to the average citizen perhaps it was beneficial in it’s ability to communicate. Additionally, the legitimization of a documentary may not entirely be dependent upon whether the documentary is filmed in a purist fashion. So it includes parts of Gore’s life in conjunction with environmental awareness – so what? Were the film to be strictly facts it would likely be harder to relate to and ultimately harder to come to terms with. With the addition of a personal narrative woven throughout the movie it appears that the information is ‘friendlier’ and more ‘down to earth’. (Excuse the pun). The ulterior motive expressed earlier is the idea that the film itself was one big advertisement for a future presidential election. Regardless of whether environmental awareness for your average Joe was the end goal, or there was an additional presidential play at hand, the film was successful in it’s message.

At the very least Gore did an excellent job communicating the dangers of global warming in a way that any average person would have no difficulty understanding. Were the animations and cartoons involved in the slideshow a little hokey? Pretty sure that goes without saying. However, if that’s what it takes to educate our society on the basics of a very real and very pressing danger that is self created, then fine – it seems that this movie has been one of the few successful educational tools in spurring our society to action. (Or at least lessening our state of hyper-apathy to one of moderate apathy).

Artistically speaking the film was shot in an interesting manner. There is another type of television show that uses this style of editing in it’s favor: Reality television. And if there’s one thing we know about reality T.V. it’s that it is one hundred percent accurate. (Enter sarcasm). Thus by logical deduction it would not be far fetched to assume that in shooting ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in this ‘realistic’ manner, the audience is meant to bond on an emotional level with Gore. We see him walking down hallways, shaking hands with the people, riding in cars and wistfully glancing out windows with the weight of the world on his shoulders. (Pun intended indeed). It all goes back to establishing a relationship with the viewer in an attempt to get your point across. As a viewer we are meant to see Gore as just another guy who’s trying to make a difference. Perhaps he is, but claiming to once be the future president of the United States in the introduction makes this play on emotion somewhat ironic.

The documentary itself is filled with irony and at times leaves the audience with more questions than answers, but at the same time if a small percentage of individuals are made aware of environmental injustice then perhaps this movie has been relatively successful.

if anyone knows about the ELF...

2011-09-20T08:14:00.000-07:00

this just came out through PBS. watch it even if you have no idea what the Earth Liberation Front is. similar to the ALF.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2122024902/

"A.I.T." afterthoughts

2011-09-20T08:10:00.000-07:00

During the screening of “An Inconvenient Truth”, I noticed that narrator and writer Al Gore says certain facts in a subtle way that, in my opinion, alienate him from the general public and weaken the relationship between his audience. I think it’s crucial that he is simply making this issue aware even after his political history. The only politician that I can think of who was as environmentally friendly and aware as Gore was Jimmy Carter when he decided to put solar panels on the White House in the late 1970s, which were subsequently taken down by Ronald Reagan in the ‘80s.

The fact that he opens his presentation with, “I used to be the 43^rd president of the United States” shows that there are most likely going to be more comedic moments and personal beefs within the documentary. He later attempts to create a bond between him and the “average American” by bringing his family into the issue and speaking of his time growing up and harvesting tobacco. He resorts back to his more “simple, serene, sublime” childhood as a way for the audience to relate to him, but he makes it difficult to build that connection when certain sections of the movie are primarily about him and his struggles. Also, I don't think most people can relate to flying around in private jets and cars to make speeches about saving to world. The film is about a worldwide struggle. It’s not a time to talk about your sister dying from cancer because of tobacco or your rough presidential run.

I feel like there are certain moments where the film isn’t taken as seriously as it should. I understand that humor can help get a message through, but when the subject is this dire; I think the environmental and political comedy should be saved for George Carlin wherever he may be now. The cartoon clips are a prime example. They do nothing but distract and throw off the rhythm of the real subject. The scenes where he walks into some part of Japan I believe, and people and paparazzi rush him like it’s the return of Freddie Mercury are pointless. It’s poor editing and makes the documentary seem like it is about Al Gore; the rock star.

The silhouetting clips of him backstage or in between presentations are redundant and slightly pretentious. In my opinion, it doesn’t make him anonymous or more relatable; it gives off an arrogant vibe that is hard to look past. It makes him seem mysterious and mighty. I feel like I saw similar camera techniques and lighting in certain scenes of “Rock Star” with Mark Whalberg. It’s all extraneous and superficial. It does nothing, but make me care less and less about Al Gore.

thought this was interesting...

2011-09-20T07:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html

article talking about how 50,000 free DVDS of "An Inconvenient Truth" weren't accepted by the National Science Teachers Association.

Thoughts on An Inconvenient Truth

2011-09-19T23:29:00.001-07:00

My thoughts on An Inconvenient Truth, some of which were discussed earlier in class. I found myself most interested in a number of recurring themes, namely:

A. The "silence" of nature. Gore seems to be whispering over every idealistic, sappy shot of the environment. Who is telling him to quiet down? Is the implication that we should be listening more to nature, or is it something more than that. And if that is the case, then why not just shut up entirely and let us listen to the river running? It seems there is more at play, whether trying to lull us into a state of relaxation and receptability or simply to reinforce the standard of nature as a quiet and idyllic place.

B. The violence of man's interruption of nature. Shortly after Gore's breathless introduction in the wilderness, we are bombarded with images of glaciers powerfully ripping apart and smashing into the ocean; in fact this motif reoccurs throughout the film. Gore is clearly trying to emphasize the violence of our destruction, and when viewed in contrast with the tranquility of the river, this violence only intensifies, and also points to the separation (in Gores eyes) of peaceful, non-invaded nature vs. human destroyed.

C. Jabs at George W. Bush and his administration. At first I found these humorous, even well placed ("I was the next President"). But I eventually found myself confused. Following Gore's talk of the role of leaders in the "fight for the environment" the film cuts directly to footage of the 2000 election, seeming to say that if Gore had been ("officially") elected things would be different. He also makes reference to the need to fight the real terrorists, another insinuation of what would have been different if he had been named the President. However, Gore never ran for President again, and that just leaves me wondering why he included those arguments at all? Is he just trying to say that new leadership needs to do things differently than Bush? Or is it all an ego trip? Which brings me to my next point.

D. The role of Al Gore. Gore seems to play a lot of different parts throughout the film, from friend to teacher to demi-god to leader. He is repeatedly referring to his "friends" that are in scientific community, as if to say that we can trust them and what they are saying because they are his friends. He also seems to take the role of teacher, constantly showing himself working on his slideshow and working on his laptop and calling people etc. It is as if he really wants to make sure that we as viewers see this as his project, and his knowledge that he is imparting to us, and not that he is just a figure head. On top of that he includes relatively extensive biographical information, humanizing himself I guess. He includes shots of himself going through airport security etc again as a way to make himself seem less like a politician. But then he goes and reverses all that by including the countless shots of himself from behind, backlit, walking out onto a stage or similar, seeming to put himself right back up on that pedestal. I found myself very confused as to the image that Gore wanted himself to have in the film.

-Caleb

An Inconviently Long Essayette

2011-09-19T23:24:00.000-07:00

The point that stuck with me the most after watching 'An Inconvenient Truth' was that the Alaskan pipeline was suffering damage, and the transport for the oil was being restricted due to melting permafrost. It seems to me that the entire issue is laid out within this problem: oil dependence and the devices therefrom contribute greatly to global warming, however just within the United States, we would never be completely able to cut down our oil consumption enough to become independent from our foreign oil sources (and cut our carbon emissions drastically) because we wont be able to access our own oil resources... because of global warming. I would think that when someone would even try to make the argument that global warming doesn't exist or that we don't have to worry about it, they could be completely shut down if you simply brought up that Alaska's pipeline and its delivery systems could be rendered useless if melting continues at the current rate.

This is the quote that got me thinking from an unofficial transcript of 'An Inconvenient Truth'

"The pipeline is suffering a great deal of structural damage. Incidentally, the oil that they want to produce in that protected area in northern Alaska, which I hope they don't. They have to depend on trucks to go in and out of there and the trucks go over the frozen ground. This shows the number of days that the tundra in Alaska is frozen enough to drive on it. 35 years ago it was 225 days a year. Now it's below 75 days a year because the spring comes earlier and the fall comes later and the temperatures just keep on going up."

"Thawing permafrost has caused the ground to subside more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) in parts of Alaska."

source: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/#page=1

Fifteen feet is an absurd amount, and any structure built upon ground that is receding that much isn't going to last. On the subject of transport, obviously any areas that have receded in excess of ten feet aren't going to be suitable to drive on.

"Winter roads are built from compacted snow and ice across frozen ground, lakes, rivers and swampy areas across large areas of the north in Canada, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S. ...However, winter temperatures are expected to rise four to six degrees Celsius by 2050, and the researchers predict that will reduce winter road access in Canada's Arctic by 13 per cent.

Many of the communities connected by the roads are small and remote, so it isn't economically viable to replace the ice roads with all-weather roads. In Trout Lake, N.W.T., home to less than 100 people, an ice road allows diesel trucks to carry several seasons' worth of food and supplies into the community each winter. Trout Lake resident Dennis Deneron said the road is already less dependable. Members of the community built a snow bridges over creeks where the water was still running.

"And it got too warm, so it gave out, and I've got trucks stuck on both sides," he told CBC News.

The researchers noted that the Tibbitt-Contwoyto winter road, the longest winter road in the Northwest Territories, is projected to lose 17 per cent of its operating season between 2008 and 2020. The road connects four diamond mines in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

The study also predicted that by 2050, it will take 6.5 days to travel from Yellowknife, N.W.T., to Bathurst Inlet, Nunavut, compared to 3.8 days now, due to the deterioration of the winter roads."

source: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/landlocked-melting-arctic-means-fewer-ice-roads

Clearly, not good news. Much like those who are profoundly affected by the reduced accessibility of their communities, here are excerpts from a good article that gives examples of personal accounts of what all this melting is doing to people in Alaska, their towns and their communities. (please note that this article was published in 2002)

"...Among the consequences (of global warming in Alaska), Senator Stevens says, are sagging roads, crumbling villages, dead forests, catastrophic fires and possible disruption of marine wildlife....

Kivalina, a town battered by sea storms that erode the ground beneath houses, will have to move soon, residents say. Senator Stevens said it would cost $102 million, or $250,000 for each of the 400 residents.

The communities of Shishmaref, Point Hope and Barrow face a similar fate. Scientists say the melting ice brings more wave action, which gnaws away at ground that used to be frozen for most of the year.

Shishmaref, on a barrier island near the Bering Strait, is fast losing the battle to rising seas and crumbling ground. As the July 19 vote on whether to move approaches, residents say they have no choice.

''I'm pretty sure the vote is going to be to move,'' Lucy Eningowuk of Shishmaref said. ''There's hardly any land left here anymore.''

Barrow, the biggest of the far northern native villages with 4,600 people, has not only had beach erosion, but early ice breakup. Hunters have been stranded at sea, and others have been forced to go far beyond the usual hunting grounds to find seals, walruses and other animals.

''To us living on the Arctic coastline, sea ice is our lifeline,'' Caleb Pungowigi testified recently before a Senate committee. ''The long-term trend is very scary.''

A 20-year resident of Barrow, Glenn Sheehan, says it seems to be on a fast-forward course of climate change.

''Mosquitoes, erosion, breakup of the sea ice, and our sewage and clean-water system, which is threatened by erosion as well,'' he said. ''We could be going from a $28 million dollar sewage system that was considered an engineering model to honey buckets -- your basic portable outhouses.''

The people who manage the state's largest piece of infrastructure -- the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline -- have also had to adjust to rising temperatures. Engineers responsible for the pipeline, which carries about a million barrels of oil a day and generates 17 percent of the nation's oil production, have grown increasingly concerned that melting permafrost could make unstable the 400 or so miles of pipeline above ground. As a result, new supports have been put in, some moored more than 70-feet underground.

''We're not going to let global warming sneak up on us,'' said Curtis Thomas, a spokesman for the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, which runs the pipeline. ''If we see leaning and sagging, we move on it.''

North of Fairbanks, roads have buckled, telephone poles have started to tilt, and homeowners have learned to live in houses that are more than a few bubbles off plumb. Everyone, it seems, has a story.

''We've had so many strange events, things are so different than they used to be, that I think most Alaskans now believe something profound is going on,'' said Dr. Glenn Juday, an authority on climate change at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. ''We're experiencing indisputable climate warming. The positive changes from this take a long time, but the negative changes are happening real fast.'' "

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/us/alaska-no-longer-so-frigid-starts-to-crack-burn-and-sag.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

If the melting permafrost is supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, I'm pretty sure the canary lost his voice from screaming for ten years.

2011-09-19T22:52:00.000-07:00

The Earth Breaths

In the documentary “The Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore attempts to debunk the misconceptions that have been formed around the facts about global warming. Al Gore uses many tactics to connect with his intended audience. He uses pictures of beautiful nature to remind us what nature is like and what it could be like in the future if we take care of it. He uses cartoons to simplify ideas. He uses graphs to show scientific proof. He also uses his own life story. I think it is great that a former presidential candidate is traveling the country and the globe to spread the word and to learn about global warming. It is effective to see someone who is not a scientist putting the information out to the public. Al Gore speaks to multiple audiences including politicians and people who depend on the government to map out the future of this country and in this case the world. I wish more politicians were doing what Al Gore is doing and adding more to the conversation of global warming bringing the issue to the surface of everyone’s daily agenda.

Al Gore says that being in nature makes him take a deep breath, which reminds him that he has forgotten about all the beauty and quiet on the earth. He tells us that the earth also takes a deep breath every year as the season changes. It is time that we all take a deep breath and make the changes that need to be made to assure the future of the earth. Al Gore lays out a very solid argument throughout his documentary in order to convince us that if we continue on the road we are on, there will not be land and/or eventually a planet to live on. He begins his documentary interweaving shots of nature, pollution and natural disasters. He then goes on to explain how all of these things are connected because of their common denominator: human’s carbon footprint on the earth. The United States is the highest by far of all the countries for its carbon emissions per person. The carbon is thickening the atmosphere, which then traps more heat than it should, which causes the globe to heat up. The heating of the planet causes many things to change including weather, oceanic currents, extinction of animal species, increase in devastating diseases, etc… Al Gore is trying to clearly point out that it is inevitable that the earth will change because of humans if we continue to pollute it. He is asking everyone to change their minds, take a deep breath, accept the facts about global warming and to change.

Al Gore’s arguments are simple. He is clear in his presentation of the facts. He also talks about how the misconceptions came about, which caused doubt in the public’s mind about global warming. He debunks these misconceptions by showing proof that there is not one scientist in 900+ journal articles that has any doubt that global warning is happening and caused by humans. He clearly shows that CO2 emissions are causing the temperature to rise which causes the polar ice to melt, parts of the world are experiencing extreme weather they have never seen before, and animals are suffering and dying. He is asking for all of us to listen to the warnings the scientists and the earth are showing us.

I thought Al Gore’s documentary was well done. He showed how our advanced technology along with an old way of thinking is leading us towards the destruction of our planet at warp speed. He was clear and his examples were well presented. I hope that this documentary will reach its intended audience and they will change their way of thinking and start preserving the earth for the future. I hope more people like Al Gore strive to encourage people to take a deep breath, to create a sustainable future for the earth, and to build an eco-economy that increases green jobs and balance.

About the "Shallow and Deep" Can I be both?

2011-09-18T19:50:00.000-07:00

Written by Arne Naess, "The Shallow and the Deep" is an essay about the emergence ecologists originally published in 1973.
Naess states that the messages of the ecologists is twisted and misused. He states that there are two types of ecology movements and Naess makes the effort to characterize these movements. These movements are:

a)The Shallow Ecology Movement
b)The Deep Ecology Movement

It appears to me that Naess is warning and informing the scientific community and the general audience about the dangers of misinterpreting the ecology message. Naess has gained my attention because I was unaware of the two movements. This reading got my gears turning. then it hit me... this is from the 1st season of the Super Friends (circa 1973):

PLEASE WATCH THE ENTIRE THING! THERE IS A POINT! I PROMISE!
IT'S ABOUT 9:00MINUTES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUymfHySfYE&feature=related

The environment is important to the Super Friends, therefore, the environment is important to me.

Is it a Deep Ecology Movement?
OR
Is it a Shallow Ecology Movement?

Please Note: This is one of those RARE times that AQUAMAN is actually useful. Sort of... "I CAN TALK TO SEA CREATURES AND BREATH UNDERWATER" Ooooooooooooooooo...you can talk to dolphins. Aquaman... I hate YOU!

nature 1 : humans 0

2011-09-17T11:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/17/wounded-grizzly-kills-hunter-in-remote-montana/?test=latestnews

not really cause the guy killed the bear after it killed his friend.

do you guys think he should he be charged for killing an endangered species?

2011-09-16T14:57:00.000-07:00

I honestly am not sure what my opinion on an inconvenient truth really is regarding its efficacy as a tool of environmental evangelism. When i saw it when it was in theaters it was a bit of a shock and got me freaked out about the future of the planet and - wherupon i proceeded to get depressed etc. - i suppose it inspired me, although in a superficial way, to flip off men in hummers and stuff and feel good about riding a bike. It definitely worked. for me. what i’m interested in is this mounting pervasive wave of denialism that has somehow become a supposedly decisive issue in the 2012 race. I suppose the abstract concept of global warming was a part of my reality from a young age and had already seen some of the projections and studies the film is based on from having good science teachers, maybe that has to do with my acceptance of his message. Regardless, its difficult for me, no matter how hard i try to think about it in the most objective terms i can, to weigh the merit of dissenting opinions to AGW by seemingly insignificant numbers of scientists, (maybe this is my folly haha like rick perry's galileo allegory). It is this curiosity of right wing logic that leads me to compulsivly check foxnews.com, when i open a new tab in chrome its the number one most visited; my favorite part is wading through the reader comments, i have never seen more racist, sexist, homophobic, militiristic, etc shit it my life, and have been hoping for a venue to share them. So on monday when they ran a story about gores plans to broadcast 24 hours of an inconvenient truth 2.0, i mined the comments, below are some good ones.

albert should be advocating for lower taxes to save the planet There is no scientific basis to the notion that changing tax policy can change the climate. But if these non scientific morons want to try and alter the climate of the Earth using taxes, then they are going about it the wrong way. If taxes are reduced, then we need to spend less effort to earn a decent living. Higher taxes require we use more energy to earn a living. If taxes are reduced, then we can have an expanding economy with less energy use in North America. where pollution is much lower for a given amount of energy, so we lower fuel use and the amount of pollution for a given amount of energy by reducing the American tax rates. By arguing for a vast new energy tax albert gore proposes to require increased energy usage to produce a decent after tax income, and force industry to locate in high pollution areas like China and India. Again, the idea that tax policy can alter the climate of the Earth is patently stupid anti scientific political gibberish. But if it were true that taxes could alter planetary climate, then the most logical course of action would be an effort to reduce taxes on American energy, business and income. Instead. against all logic. without a shred of science. morons like albert gore want to use changes in planetary- climate to grab more of your hard earned wages. albert gore junior doesn't give a tinkers damm about the climate and he does not know jack about climate science. All he wants is more of your paycheck. Which is all any fascist pig has ever wanted at the end of the day. You work, they want the paycheck. this is the essence of fascism and the central character of al gore barack obama natzi pelosi harry reid and the whole natzi pig political movement we call the -democrat party.

-Moscow mike

EPA has to go

-maximal1946

I'm 53 years old, and 'going green' has never interested me. I started driving during the first Arab oil embargo. when 60's muscle cars could be had for a song, and I have never lost my enthusiasm for Detroit iron. To this day, I run an 850 HP, 54501 big-block Ford engine in my Jet boat. I have found that powerplant to be, by far, the most time-efficient way to waste 35 gallons of high-octane fossil fuel. Blow me. Al Gore.

-fkobama

The snake charmer needs to come to Montana to view the smoke from all the fires burning because the environmentalists have prevented logging for 30 years and disease has taken over.....more smoke than all the people in the world could create in several lifetimes and then some....get real Gore...your climate garbage is your bank account accumulation and the garbage you spread in 24 hours will cause more global warming than all other sources combined including the sun!!!

-splinter1408

The Dark Side of Protocols

2011-09-16T13:24:00.000-07:00

In the documentary The Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore refers to but does not explain the Kyoto Protocol. I knew of the phrase only in relation to some of the class readings. I wanted to know more about the Kyoto Protocol. What does it mean, who is participating in this and is the Protocol effective; these are the items that come to mind when this Protocol is referred to.

The Kyoto Protocol is a set of rules and requirements set forth by the United Nations to regulate and decrease the greenhouse gas emissions crisis that is a factor in the harmful even the destructive altering of the climate.

In this format of an essaayette let’s see if sense can be made from what is being presented. When Al Gore was Vice President he was instrumental in putting this Protocol together. The chief, then President Bill Clinton signed it in 1997, but the Senate refused to give formal approval. The reasons cited by the Senate were that the Protocol would harm the economic stability of the United States and also that this agreement did not include India and China, the two biggest developing countries which are also believed to be big polluters.

Those who signed the Kyoto Protocol would pledge to reduce the four greenhouse gases “(GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) (Wikipedia-Kyoto Protocol)” within their countries/territories. As of 2005 the top emitters of the gases were China @17%, the United States @16%, European Union @11%, Indonesia @5% and India @5%, with the percent representing its part of the global whole. So let’s see, China and the United States with a combined total of 33% of the world’s greenhouse gas emmisions and neither country is officially a signee of the Protocol.

The two biggest polluter bullies in the world and both, I am speculating, just want to be on the top of the economic heap. But the U.S. has already fallen off that one. China is roaring ahead and outgrowing all others. The U.S. did not sign the Protocol, and again I am speculating, because it does not want to lose its perceived superpower standing but destroying the world is okay because that’s going to be the outcome in a lot of people’s opinion.

Are these politicians for real? Can they not see past their own campaign fund er, own bank account I mean, pea brain, no I mean, can’t they try to do something good for a change, for once in their so called careers? Does it always have to do with money? When does any nation or any individual say I have enough to live quite well and that is enough? Just because resources are there does that mean we have to consume them all right now in this generation or the next?

The dark side of the Protocol is this international trade fudges the numbers on carbon foot printing so the lower numbers that are claimed by countries can be viewed as incorrect if readily known how the numbers are derived. There is some form of the agreement that allows a claim of reduction of greenhouse gases if products are not made in their country. The emissions is attributed to the country that manufacturers the goods but not the country that consumes.

For an example of this environmental shell game let’s look at the U.S.’s numbers and claims. The United States (even though it did not ratify the agreement) originally promised a 7% reduction but we failed, by increasing our emissions “17% between 1990 and 2008 (Guardian.co.uk) and then when we factor in imports and exports that number goes up to 25%. The U.S. has not in actuality reduced anything, instead has steadily increased its carbon footprint and we all thought that we still lived in the greatest nation in the world. I would still rather live in this country than most other countries but I can do without the lies and all this shell game trickery. We can change our fate. Change does happen slowly, but we can (yes it sounds cheesy) save the world.

The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. Most likely it will be renewed probably after a restructuring, I don’t know. Something like this Protocol is vital but it does become a game of sorts without a true beneficial ending to a valiant start. Ultimately maybe people do not care about the planet earth and what will happen to it after we have all lived out our lives and left a mess for future generations. We as a people who hopefully carry a real sense of humanity in our beings should innately care for the future reality of what we ourselves will not live.

A little essay on Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

2011-09-14T18:28:00.000-07:00

In The Inconvenient Truth Al Gore presents a brief overview of some of the effects that global warming has played on our fragile earth in an aim to “separate truth from fiction” through providing statistics, charts, equations, pictures, and personal experiences. He begins his presentation by unveiling the beauty of nature—“a deep breath of fresh air,” a serene untouched haven, a place that “we take for granted.” Clips of a peaceful lake at sunset, close ups of swaying plants in still water, whimsical music, and the hum of insects, all paint a picture, or facade for how nature “should” be—quiet, untouched, peaceful, safe, tranquil, untouched by man, vacant of all disaster. Nature becomes turbulant and out of our control when we make mistakes when “dealing with nature.” How then, Al, should we deal with nature? Al Gore aims to demistify the issue of global warming and “separate truth from fictions,” as he rolls up his sleeves and begins to talk about his deep shame about losing the presidential election.

Al Gore quotes Mark Twain before he embarks on his extensive overview of global warming— “what gets us in trouble is not what we know it’s what we know for sure that just aint so”. He precedes to present extensive amount of information and evidence of global warming through providing various forms of documentation. But which footage does Gore choose to focus on? He brushes through a pile of information, presenting past and present images of the earth, before and after footage from numerous natural disasters including tornados, typhoons, hurricanes, melting glaciers, draught and flooding, developing diseases, increasing endangered species, population increase putting more pressure on the earth with a higher demand on food, water, and natural resources, temperature fluctuation and relocation on both land and ocean. But purpose does all of this footage serve?

Presenting statistics can be very misleading according to how the given information is organized, and sometimes exaggerated in order to provide visual support for a claim. In this case, Gore’s use of graphs and charts is extremely beneficial because they provide shocking visual aid to the even more shocking effects of global warming. Nevertheless, after a certain amount of graphs, the viewer fades, so he snaps to quick animations from The Simpsons, showing a sad girl trying to eat her icecream as it melts because of extreme heat, or polar bears suffering because of the melting iceburgs in order to refocus our attention. In addition he personalizes his presentations by sharing with his audience about memories and his nostalgia of growing up on a big beautiful farm with a pony and a dog, swimming in the river, laying in the grass as a kid, living off of the land, and growing tobacco. These stories of his childhood further develop an image of how nature was when he was a child, and how tragic the state of nature has become. Gore wants to inform us of the tragic state of the earth, and ways in which we can change our current habits to potentially revert back to nature as he remembers it to be—“ a deep breath of fresh air” The documentary fades out with the same shot of the lake at sunset with the little plant in the water as the mosquitos hum—peaceful, tranquil, and untouched, just as it should be.

Climate Reality

2011-09-14T17:00:00.001-07:00

Broadcasting Live ...24 hours of climate change http://climaterealityproject.org/

2011-09-13T22:53:00.000-07:00

I was yammering about this documentary today. So I thought I would get my act together and actually attach the link to the beginning of Alone in the Wilderness.

I think it's a must see for anyone that hasn't spent a year building a house by themselves in the wilderness. If you work with your hands at least check out the part where he notches out the logs. Dick Proenneke makes all this look just that easy.

Like Thoreau, Proenneke had a planned a defined time of a year (Thoreau a year and a half) to be in the wilderness, but instead Proenneke stayed on for 30 more years until his death in 2003.

Go here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJKd0rkKss

Pt. 2
Use an axe and make some spoons! "It's always a pleasure to see what you can make instead of buying it readymade" -Dick Proenneke a la Duchamp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3NRdZ8J24Q&feature=related

Natural Oscillation in An Inconvenient Truth Essaylet

2011-09-13T11:00:00.000-07:00

The plethora of trends found in the film An Inconvenient Truth - from atmospheric temperature to carbon dioxide concentration to changes in ocean level – that equate a relationship of natural cycles to an abrupt and sharp sine wave echo many similar closed-system patterns found in nature. It matches those found on many different and easily observable time scales, from annual changes (as in the cycle of of the movement of the moon in the night sky) to those that take place in an instant (charge differentials that drive electrical current). Nature's cycle is often at odds with the static normals that so many human processes to strive for; a certain fixation of of the natural system with a goal of grappling with it and exerting control over it as a tool for progress. This is a point that could have been further emphasized, as it would emphasize the vital relationship that we have to this state of flux.

The particular criticism or perspective the political system receives in the film is of interest, as it mirrors this natural cycle that pervades the data of climate change. The main protagonist and narrator Al Gore is often found to possess a clear and defined leadership role within the traditional spatial and conceptual moments of the political sphere. He is found onstage or at the podium of what could not exactly be considered a public forum event, delivering a politically formatted presentation by virtue of his experience. He is even depicted repeatedly emerging - as if being birthed - down a deep hallway leading into the light and fanfare of his practice, it would seem a repeated visual analogy to a sort of victory over opposition, again an exertion of control. He seems unable to break free of a certain dominance role in these settings, however moments later Gore is found accusing the practices that he developed as “political diddling” and repeatedly shows disinterest in having success with the political system.

This oscillating of opinion would then crack open a look into Gore's own relationship of non-equilibrium with something so integral to what the viewer perceives as production is his life. By annexing and creating more dichotomies within his own practice he then portrays a consciousness of disorder in his political past and present. With Gore at the helm, the conception of “Politics” in An Inconvenient Truth then represents a pattern synchronous with the natural cycles visualized in myriad forms of data sampled and understood as natural in other perceptions of the world and seems a confirmation of the value in never dwelling in an observational stasis one's environment.

Hurricane Katrina+Humankind=Fuck up!

2011-09-13T09:19:00.000-07:00

Gore says Hurricane Katrina, that devastated New Orleans in 2005, was caused by
“global warming.” It was not. It was caused by the failure of Man, in the
administration of New Orleans, to heed 30 years of warnings by the Corps of Engineers.

Gore addresses the frequency not
only of hurricanes but also of typhoons and
tornadoes –
“We have seen in the last couple of
years, a lot of big hurricanes.
Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we
had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for
tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn’t get as much attention in
our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous
record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.”

For the record, however, the number of
Atlantic hurricanes shows no trend
over the past half century; the number
of typhoons has fallen throughout the
past 30 years; the number of tornadoes
has risen only because of better
detection systems for smaller
tornadoes; but the number of larger
tornadoes in the US has fallen.

Here is the site for the history of storms:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml

my "essayette"

2011-09-12T21:40:00.000-07:00

i don't know if this is where i post this, but here is my essayette thingy(more of a rant) on "An Inconvenient Truth." I go off on a bit of a tangent, but check it out if you're interested...

-miles

Personification of “Nature”

There was a moment watching Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” that really stuck with me. As Gore was explaining mass floods and droughts in areas of China, he said that Nature “was going crazy” or “had gone crazy”. It did not stick with me because Gore was projecting human qualities on nature, a normal facet of human reflection, but it got me thinking how we define nature and what he was specifically talking about. Was he speaking about a particular natural phenomenon or Nature as one total observable object? Was it going “crazy” because it facilitated conditions that were no longer supporting human life (conditions which make up most of observable nature in terms of cosmic scale)?

As we look at nature, we notice there is several definitions of it and its meanings are fragmented. When I was growing up, I often thought of nature as a picturesque landscape with mountains, forests and occasional wildlife. Not another human in sight. No violent forces such as fires, landslides, eruptions etc. But I realized that the canyon I was thinking of used to be full of native peoples and structures that have long since disappeared. But that was nature too. So my definition of nature changed and I often look at nature now as a grand cosmic phenomenon, and try to think that the forces of what we call nature are working in a dimension outside of human understanding. Something we were by chance born into, but unable to fully know. No matter how the arena we call our planet or universe is manipulated, it remains to be nature because it is that in which we are actively experiencing.

Don’t get me wrong, when I see a video of a flood sweeping away homes or tornados destroying everything in its wake, I tend to say something like “holy shit that thing is nuts” as if the tornado is acting consciously on its own accord like some hell-bent tyrant. Yet that classification is a projection emitting from my internal point of view and the feeling I get seeing people in distress. If that same tornado were occurring in a dessert far away from people and causing no damage, I would find it serene and beautiful because the negative aspects that crop up when I think of tornados would not exist.

off topic

2011-09-11T20:12:00.000-07:00

Emerson's Eye/I

2011-09-11T19:24:00.001-07:00

2011-09-11T16:46:00.000-07:00

For show an tell. For my classmates.

Sooo...
This is my report discussing the fragile ecosystem.
I found this article exceptionally interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14803840

I will be more than happy to "DEAL" with this serious and delicious threat to that fragile ecosystem. I only need a garlic butter sauce and a bib. However, I have pasted recipes to help those of you who may be allergic to garlic or may not enjoy fattening butter.
http://welovefish.com/kingcrab.htm
We can all make a difference.
If you are a vegetarian. don't worry, it's seafood.

2011-09-11T16:44:00.000-07:00

I wasn't sure if I posted this correctly. So...

I get my veggies and fruit from:
http://www.farmfreshtoyou.com/index.php
Check it out!
or not. I don't care. Ok. I do care. But this isn't a sign of weakness! I wrestle bear! I wrestle BEAR! Don't worry. No one gets hurt. I lied. The bear's feelings are hurt because I confessed to knowing a guy who owns a bear skin rug. The bear did feel better when I told him I own authentic sheepskins from a German sheep farm. True story. Furthermore, sheep understand German and I beat my bear friend 10 out of 10 times in scrabble. He sucks at word games but is a decent wrestler. I call this bear a friend because it makes me look cool and rugged. My bear buddy doesn't speak German. But he has cousin from Russia who is fluent in Japanese. Crazy right!

2011-09-11T16:37:00.000-07:00

Thoreau is educated. THEREFORE, HE IS BETTER THAN ALEX THEREIN. Am I right? Who's with me? Alex is a wood chopper in touch with his animal side.

2011-09-10T12:08:00.000-07:00

Wolves and Deforestation

Thinking Like A Mountain

By Aldo Leopold

Was it Connor who got in a “discussion” with a guy heading out on his ATV to bag a wolf in Idaho? Well- for Thanksgiving Break grab your gun and head for the beautiful state of Montana. Home of celebrities and wolf killing!

Advertisement from Wolf Hunting Expedition:

MONTANA WOLF HUNTS

The legalities are finalized and there is officially a wolf season scheduled for the State of Montana.

2011 WOLF HUNTS
Harvest a wolf Call us today: 406 782-9532

Stockton Outfitters’ proven predator calling technique has recorded multiple record book black bears through out the years. During these calling sessions, our guides have also called in wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, foxes and more. This hunt package uses the Stockton Technique to maximize your predator experience. Hunt for wolves this Fall. Add a fall black bear to your wolf hunt.

We hunt Wolf Management Unit 210 and the state has set a quota of 36 wolves in this region. If you are interested in a wolf tag for a fall hunt please visit:

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/wolf/default.html

Licenses are sold over the counter. Please contact us directly regarding availability at 406-DED-WOLF.

Be the first at Art school to collaborate with deer and draw a maze of trails on a wolfless mountain. Watch as the mountain that shakes it’s head in disbelief as God’s new pruning shears are set in action with a swift move of a legislative pen to assist the fun had by those of us who are privileged enough to be made in His image.

I’m always a little concerned about a preachy tone but I guess a jokey cynicism is okay. I’m also concerned about pieces that are written to make an appeal for an issue. Especially when it concerns issues that I agree with. Is the piece’s target audience someone who agrees with the cause and will be propelled into action? Or is the intended audience in opposition to the action? Obviously it would be ideal to encompass both fields of thought. My first concern was that Leopold would ostracize the opposition too much with a pen that might initially appear too flourishy. But by the time the liberal hackles on my neck started to activate, the nervous concern of the thought of losing the clichéd gun toting chew spitting bear hunter, Leopold delivers action. His voice changes from poet to action star. “In those days we never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping iron into the pack” Aldo is there to reach us all.

Leopold is there at first as a hunter but sees the need to be more. He offers himself as a guide for awareness. He has connected with that which has preceded us all: The Mountain. To deface the mountain is to disfigure that which gives us our foundation for life. This is not an us or them, it is a mandate for us all.

Leopold starts with those who receive the poetic song of the wolf’s howl: the deer, coyote, cowman, the hunter and finally the mountain. Then he tells us, “Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of the wolf.” He continues on to speak of the majestic quality that is present in wolf country and finalizes the paragraph by saying, “mountains have a secret opinion about (wolves).”

After Leopold’s personal account of killing a wolf he notes the dying of its “fierce green fire.” He bemoans the mountains plight at the death of the wolf realizing later that by killing wolves the population of deer explodes. The explosion of deer decimates the mountains vegetation and killing the wolves and not managing the deer leave us with, “dustbowls and rivers washing the future into the sea.” The hunter has, “not learned to think like a mountain.”

I worked as a commercial fisherman in Alaska for a season. Almost everyone hunts and fishes up there. Arguments based on the basic premise of, “you don’t kill what you can’t eat” seem to present the most sound logic. But I don’t imagine there’s logic for killing wolves for food. The idea of eating an animal so closely related to a common household pet, I imagine, would not seem that appealing to the average American.

At the end of the Thinking Like A Mountain there are some links to sites that are not found, out of date or not directly related to the issue of hunting and deforestation so I am attaching some other info here.

Tag a wolf and get a free pitcher of beer!

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/12/broken-windows.html

First line says it clearly:

“The resumption of wolf-hunts in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming illustrates why citizens must continue to oppose such unnecessary and senseless slaughters.”

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2011/09/01/wolf-hunts-morally-corrupt/

I’m not so sure the pro hunting crowd found the best spokesperson here:

"Why are we allowing these guys to do lawsuits and run our state?" Kalispell hunter Clarence Grande said, looking at a group of wolf advocates waiting to enter the courthouse. "We're the ones who come up with all the money to manage our wildlife. How about if we send them all the wolves they want and see how they manage them? Why just Montana?"

Yeah dude! Why don’t they get to do what they want to do and maybe do lawsuits and send lawmakers some wolves like Montana! Maybe they’re up to their necks in Spotted Owls and could use some wolves. Maybe it was the manner in which it was phrased but I lost the logic.

Finally TV- 2009

Can’t go wrong with the local news when it comes to bring people what they want. There is something about the term wolf harvesting as a management tool that makes me feel a little uncomfortable. But the state did bring in a whopping $326K! Isn’t that the same price of Ted Turner’s golf cart?

http://www.krtv.com/news/living-with-wolves-wolf-hunting-in-perspective/#!prettyPhoto/0/

Follow up- 2011

U.S. District Judge Don Molloy ruled in August 2010 that the government made a political decision when it removed gray wolf protections from just two of the states where Northern Rocky Mountain wolves roam.

http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2011/03/rift-splits-groups-fighting-to-keep.html

Invitations to the Blog

2011-09-02T18:27:00.000-07:00

If you have received an invitation to the blog, go ahead and accept it (it's not a bad idea to Follow the blog to keep up to date as well). If you're in the class, but have not yet received an invite, e-mail me dcarrico@sfai.edu and I'll re-invite you (probably I typed in the info wrong or something like that). Questions about the blog or anything else -- e-mail me. Have a good weekend -- feel free to post content and play around, this blog is for the whole community of our course, you can shape it according to your interests and values.

Fall 2011 Syllabus -- Critical Theory B -- Technoscience and Environmental Justice

2011-08-29T13:56:00.001-07:00

Tuesdays, 9-11.45 AM, Studio 18 Chestnut
Instructor: Dale Carrico; dcarrico@sfai.edu; ndaleca@gmail.com
Course Site: http://arguere.blogspot.com/

Provisional Grade Breakdown: Att/Part 25%; Co-facilitation/Precis 15%; In-Class Report 15%; Final Exam: 45%

Provisional Schedule of Classes

Week One | August 30 | Introductions

Week Two | September 6 | An Inconvenient Truth

Week Three | September 13 | Green Idols and Precursors

Curtis White, The Idols of Environmentalism
Curtis White, The Ecology of Work
Aldo Leopold, The Land Ethic
Aldo Leopold, Thinking Like a Mountain
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature
Henry David Thoreau Walden

Week Four | September 20 | Deep Ecology and Deep Economy

Arne Naess, The Shallow and the Deep
Arne Naess and George Sessions, Deep Ecology Platform
Bill McKibben, Reversal of Fortune
E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful
Murray Bookchin, Social Ecology Versus Deep Ecology

Week Five | September 27 | Ecosocialism

An Ecosocialist Manifesto by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy
Joel Kovel, Why Ecosocialism Today?
Common Voice, Ecosocialism
Naomi Klein, Climate Rage
James Boyle, Enclosing the Genome

Week Six | October 4 | Eco-feminism

Cathleen McGuire and Colleen McGuire, Ecofeminist Visions
Rosemary Radford Reuther, Ecofeminism
Catherine Keller, Dark Vibrations: Ecofeminism and the Democracy of Creation
Catriona Mortimer-Sandilands, Unnatural Passions: Notes Toward a Queer Ecology
UNIFEM, Women, Climate Change, and Refugees
Interview with Vandana Shiva

Week Seven | October 11 | Environmental Justice Critique

The Rio Declaration
The Johannesburg Declaration
EPA's Environmental Justice Page
Ludovic Blain, Ain't I An Environmentalist?
Robert D. Bullard, Ph.D., Poverty, Pollution, and Environmental Racism
The Daily Beast: Into the Wilds of Oakland
Ella Baker Center: Green Economy and Environmental Justice Page
Lisa Campbell Salazar, National Parks and Environmental Racism

Week Eight | October 18 | Green Urbanity

Mike Davis, Slum Ecology
Mike Davis and Anthony Fontenot Twenty-five Questions about the Murder of the Big Easy
Mike Davis, Sinister Paradise: Does the Road to the Future End at Dubai?
Stewart Brand, How Slums Can Save the Planet
Jamais Cascio, Stewart Brand's Green City Planet
Frank Lloyd Wright, A City for the Future
Frank Lloyd Wright, Broadacre City Project
Paolo Soleri, Arcosanti
LEED
Global Eco Village Network
Architecture for Humanity

Week Nine | October 25 | From Agriculture to Polyculture

John Zerzan, Agriculture
John Zerzan, The Nihilist's Dictionary
John Zerzan, Why Primitivism?
Malcome Scully, The Destructive Nature of Our Bountiful Harvests
Wes Jackson and Wendell Berry, A 50-Year Farm Bill
Lisa Hamilton, Let's Grow a New Crop of Farmers
Ted Nace, Breadbasket of Democracy
Seeds of Resistance
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels
Al Gore, Introduction to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring
Permaculture Design Principles, Online Interactive Presentation
Permaculture Design Course Video
Farming With Nature Video
Introduction to Permaculture: Concepts and Resources, Online Compendium

Week Ten | November 1 | Natural Capitalism and Greenwashing

Paul Hawken: Natural Capitalism
A Roadmap for Natural Capitalism, Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, Paul Hawken
OpenPolitics Critiques of Paul Hawken and Natural Capitalism
The Economist: Triple Bottom Line
Wayne Norman and Chris MacDonald, Getting to the Bottom of the "Triple Bottom Line"
HowStuffWorks: How Greenwashing Works
Greenpeace: Greenwashing
Greenwashing Index
Peter Barnes: Capitalism, 3.0
The Story of Cap and Trade
New Scientist: Carry on Polluting

Week Eleven | November 8 | Futurology Against Ecology

Marc Stiegler, The Gentle Seduction
Bruce Sterling, Viridian Design Speech
Bruce Sterling, Manifesto of January 3, 2000
Bruce Sterling, Viridian Principles
Bruce Sterling, Last Viridian Note
Grist on Worldchanging's Bright Green Principles (read the Comments!)
Worldchanging Geoengineering Retrospective
Time Magazine on Geoengineering
Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, The California Ideology
Jedediah Purdy The God of the Digerati

Week Twelve | November 15 | Green Eats

Jill Richardson, Organic White House Garden Puts Some Conventional Panties in a Twist (Follow the links and read the comments)
Kathy Freston, Vegetarian Is the New Prius
Clara Jeffrey, Michael Pollan Fixes Dinner
Claudia Deutsch, Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change
Cornell University, Factsheet: Consumer Concerns About Pesticides in Food
Jim Hightower, Food Industry Is Now Calling Junk Food Healthy
Marc Abrahams, Food for Thought
Anna Lenzer, Spin the Bottle
Saul Landau, Reagan and Bottled Water

Week Thirteen | November 22 | Thanksgiving Holiday

Week Fourteen | November 29 | Extracting Ourselves From Extraction

Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency
Howard Kunstler, A Five Part Online Video Exploration: The Long Emergency
Scientific American Peak Everything: An Interactive Look At How Much of Everything Is Left.
Chris Vernon, Agriculture Meets Peak Oil
Ronald Bailey Peak Everything
Michael T. Klare, The Coming Resource Wars
BBC: World Water Crisis
The Coming Water Wars: Demography and Water Resources
The Coming Water Wars: Chart
Kate Kelland, Antibiotics Overuse Threatens Medicine
David Korten on Democracy Now From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth

Week Fifteen | December 6 | Toxic World and Green Ethos

2011: World's Top Ten Toxic Pollution Problems
Top Ten Anthropogenic Disasters
Stephanie Rogers: America's 10 Worst Man-Made Disasters
Bhopal What Happened?
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, The Death of Environmentalism
Bruno Latour, "It's Development, Stupid!" Or: How to Modernize Modernization
George Lakoff, How We Talk About the Environment Has Everything to Do With Whether We Will Save It

GENERAL OBJECTIVES:

1. Interrogate the discourses of "nature," as registers of materiality, worldliness, scientificity, wilderness, sublimity, insecurity, grace, and consider the ways in which these different (sometimes outright contradictory) registers function in argument and in identification as supplements, complements, resolutions, dissolutions, contraries, paradoxes, and so on.

2. Survey a host of "green" discourses, from transcendentalism, deep ecology, social ecology, urban gardening and green cities, permaculture, to eco-feminism, eco-socialism, environmental justice critique, natural capitalism, anti-civilizational discourse and anarcho-luddism -- identify both continuities and discontinuities in their assumptions, aspirations, figurations, frames, gestures.

3. Consider "environmentalisms" as more than argumentative claims, but as sites of subculture and style, identification and dis-identification, practices of education, agitation, and organization stratified by race, sex-gender, class, nationality.

4. Treat "greenness" as a site through which to think more generally about relations of theory and practice, political engagement, critical thinking, and art practices, as well as to think about political engagement and efficacy under contemporary conditions.

5. Acquaint students with hundreds of "Keywords" connected to various Green practices, theories, communities, strategies (eg, abrasion, biomimesis, cradle-to-cradle, downcycling, externality, financialization, greenwashing, etc.).

6. Embed these discourses within an STS (science and technology studies) framework, emphasizing publicity/historicity of objects/subjects, actor-network formulations of actant/associate agency, and strong critique (via Arendt, Latour, and Haraway) of triumphalist-emancipatory narratives of technoscientific-sociopolitical progress.

Précis - Reflections on Violence

2011-08-11T16:07:00.000-07:00

Arendt’s Reflections on Violence focuses on the relation between violence and power and its effect on governments.

Arendt claims that technological advances have reduced the relationship between politics/ideology and war to one of violence and power, in which those with the agency to mete out violence actually may not be more powerful. These inventions are also responsible for the shift from nonviolent Marxist/Hegelian ideals to influencing Fanon, Sartre, and the New Left by providing a new set of tools with which to create order. However, these new advocates of violence put forth arguments that contradict each other due to a loyalty to the notion of human progress. This progress may be interrupted by violent action, which destroys the past, or nonviolent action, which creates something new.

Although Arendt establishes earlier that violence and power are distinct, she qualifies this using historical definitions of power. She also provides examples of this power when she claims that “government is essentially organized and institutionalized power.”

Although it is generally accepted that humans tend to refuse to be dominated, this does not necessarily mean that humans also take pleasure in domination. While power and violence may both lead to the same ends, they are distinct. Arendt draws attention to this distinction when she describes:

“To use them as synonyms not only indicates a certain deafness to linguistic meanings, which would be serious enough, but has resulted in a kind of blindness with respect to the realities they correspond to.”

Arendt further develops this distinction by suggesting one definition of power: “Power springs up whenever people get together and act in concert.” On the other hand, she only describes violence as being “by nature instrumental; like all means, it always stands in need of guidance and justification through the end it pursues.” Why does Arendt provide such a gap in defining key terms to her argument?

By examining the course of revolutions, it becomes apparent that the power of the majority use violence to create obedience, which suggests that power is at the heart of government. However, as de Gaulle demonstrated, there is a difference between demanding and asking for power; asking generates support rather than obedience. This initial support is needed to provide legitimate power, whereas violence is justified by its ends.

In contests of violence and power, violence may destroy power, but cannot create it. The use of violence results in the loss of power, which in turn provokes violence. Terror is then created as a state in which all power is absolutely destroyed. Violence and power are opposites; neither can create the other.

Why does Arendt mention technology at the beginning of the piece, but only sparing alludes to it throughout her argument? How do the "cracks in the power structure of all but the small countries" relate to this technology?

Sign Up Sheet for Tomorrow

2011-08-10T19:52:00.001-07:00

For those who want to bring treats to our last meeting, you can use the comments to this post co-ordinate your offerings...

Freedom through the art of hurling objects!

2011-08-10T09:25:00.000-07:00

Fanon's Reflection on Violence Precis

By Alejandro Garcia

Fanon states that only though violence can decolonization occur, since violence caused colonization in the first place. The rest of his reflections dwell on this aspect on why violence is necessary for the bonds of slavery to be broken, for a man to become free from his oppressors. To decolonize he sees violence as what man needs to become a man, which might be why he fittingly uses the piece of Aimé Césaire, Les Armes Miraculeuscs to discuss the decolonization process best, or rather the search for ones manhood. Once the rebel understands that he can overtake the master he becomes the human and the master becomes the vermin, “ the slave, the slave of slaves, and suddenly his eyes were like two cockroaches, frightened in the rainy season…I struck, and the blood spurted; that is the only baptism that I remember today. *” In revolt he has become human and a man, he has freed his child, he has reversed the table and he is no longer the animal that those that colonized him see him has. He has regained his manhood, which is what the mother can’t understand as a women, and Fanon I assume feels that women by nature are submissive, which is a different claim to make, but he constantly refers to males as the main users of violence . She wanted her son to close her eyes since she knows retribution will come but instead, he choose to free his people.

That above paragraph in the center fleshes out his points about violent and the way it humanizes the dehumanized, which to the colonizers are seen as nothing more than vermin. Those animals with beady eyes just looking constantly look to escape. Yet as one realizes that they are equal and they no longer have to fear their colonizer they can regain their freedom. “ At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect. Even if the armed struggle has been symbolic and the nation is demobilized through a rapid movement of decolonization, the people have the time to see that the liberation has been the business of each and all and that the leader has no special merit.”(Fanon) As he continually states his main point of violence being the great equalizer, violence shakes up the world and changes the situation, it greats as he calls it a “point of no return” in which once the action has been enacted it becomes permanent. For the sake of dignity violence is a necessity and takes away the dehumization effect of being colonized.

The audiences are the colonizers, “Europe is literally the creation of the Third World.” The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from the underdeveloped peoples. ….. So when we hear the head of a European state declare with his hand on his heart that he must come to the aid of the poor underdeveloped peoples, we do not tremble with gratitude. Quite the contrary; we say to ourselves: “It’s a just reparation which will be paid to us.” (Fanon) if some might suggest that Europe is already helping out the third world and all this violent rhetoric is unnecessary he reminds the word that the condition of the world and the arisal of the use of violence to decolonized was Europe faults in the first place, and he feels that Europe needs a more active role in aiding the third world recover.

Violence is the equalizer and a necessity for gaining humanity back from the colonization process, to destroy any kind of inequality and inferiority complex. Fanon sees that violence was a natural reaction to the violent colonization and uses the Aime piece to show this, despite that though he sees there is hope for the third world to move forward all Europe has to do is stop being the “sleeping beauty”, and help the third world they helped create.

Reminder!

2011-08-08T18:40:00.001-07:00

We are screening and discussing a film tomorrow, so there is nothing for you to prepare for. This means you need do nothing but finish your rough drafts and make copies to distribute to your peer editing groups. This is our last week together and the pace of revision is highly accelerated -- it is crucial that you remember to bring your drafts to class tomorrow! Hope you've had a productive weekend, it's hard to believe we are so close to the end of this process, d

Continuation of Must Eichmann Hang? discussion

2011-08-04T18:13:00.000-07:00

Reading the text with the question in mind, I believe that Arendt argues that Eichmann must not hang. As already mentioned in class, Arendt mentions the "modern legal systems" and their tendency to"feel no crime has been committed" if there was no intent or if the tried person's ability to distinguish between right and wrong is impaired. Later in the piece, the evidence against Eichmann's claim that he had no motivation could not be "proved beyond reasonable doubt." meaning the evidence is insufficient (it is subject to reasonable doubt) to prove intent. As such, according to the modern legal system, Eichmann should not hang. Arendt also mentions a quotation from Yosai Rogat which essentially states that all great crimes must be punished. She follows the quotation with the statement that the same exact barbaric proposition was used to justify Eichmann's hanging rendering Eichmann's hanging barbaric. Furthermore, the reason the judge gives for hanging also indicates that Eichmann should not be hanged. The reasoning of the judge is exactly the same as the reasoning Eichmann and the Nazis used for their treatment of the Jews, suggesting the act of hanging Eichmann would also be a crime.

There also seems to be a considerable amount of evidence that the piece argues for Eichmann's hanging. The judge emphasizes the "abyss between the actuality of what you did and the potentiality of what others might have done." Because it is a fact that the crime was committed by Eichmann, he should be punished. The judge continues on to assert that "in politics obedience and support are the same." This further characterizes Eichmann as guilty. These instances, however, only prove the guilt. They should not be seen as support for hanging Eichmann and only as acknowledgement of the fact that Eichmann is guilty of the crime. Overall, the argument of the text is that although Eichmann is guilty, he should not be hanged.

There was one thing that bothered me about the discussion. The allusion to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was used as evidence that Eichmann should not hang because it implies the ridiculous necessity of punishing all of the Germans. However, in context, the allusion actually does not support that claim. Instead, it is the judges' rebuttal to Eichmann's attempt to defend himself by saying that anyone in his place would have done the same. It refutes Eichmann's attempt to say that "where all, or most all, are guilty, nobody is." Although at first glance the judge seems to indicate a necessity to punish all Germans, the judge actually sees no need to do so and is even glad that there is no need. The judge says that the story has nothing to do with the concept of collective guilt where people feel guilty "for things done in their name but not by them" and also emphasizes that there is an "abyss between the actuality of what you did and the potentiality of what others might have done." The judge therefore asserts that the guilty that must be punished are neither the ones that feel guilty nor the ones who would have done the same as him. After all, the ones who feel guilty and the ones who would have done the same as Eichmann never actually did the same as Eichmann and so can neither be punished nor convicted for something that they did not do. The judge was glad that the necessity to punish all Germans does not exist as seen in his statement "[l]uckily, we don't have to go that far." Thus, the allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah does not support the position that Eichmann should not hang but rather supports the part of the claim that Eichmann is guilty.

Arendt Precis - Reflections On Violence

2011-08-04T13:59:00.001-07:00

Hannah Arendt's Reflections On Violence addresses the use of violence by governments today as a tool for maintaining power, yet she emphasizes that this proliferation of violence into an all-encompassing culture of warfare that we have come to live in is actually quite detrimental to what governments actually seek. Arendt suggests that it is actually violence that reduces the power of those who employ it and forces governments to actually enforce and invest in more violence in order to struggle to remain superpowers today.

In this piece, Arendt first emphasizes the new world-order that emerged after the Cold War, in which the methods of warfare and the devastations it can produce have actually escalated so much that no political goal can ever be worthy of it. Arendt puts forth that now, the rational goal of warfare is mutual deterrence, not victory, since a victory for any side of nuclear warfare means an end to both. What, then, has encouraged this escalation of the technologies of war and the extent of violence to such an extreme? Arendt suggests that it is actually the use of violence to maintain power—and the diminishing power of central governments, who used only more violence to fall back on as a buffer against a rising resistance—that encouraged an exponential investment in nuclear war, technology, and violence.

By examining violence singularly, rather than in lieu of the political or economic goals for which violence and the destruction of war is a backdrop, Arendt reveals that there is a reversal in the relationship between power and violence. Power is not gained by a superpower through the amount of violence it is capable of, but rather is diminished. This foreshadows another reversal in the future relationship between small and great powers—what have been termed the developing and the developed, the third and the first worlds. This is because the amount of violence nuclear superpowers—such as the United States—are capable of is not a guarantee against devastation by smaller and weaker powers.

Arendt’s audience is assumed to be one that understands the nuclear stand-still that the world came to and the frightening escalation of the technology of warfare. She also assumes her audience to be one that will understand the philosophies proposed by Marx, Fanon, Satre, and Hegel about the nature of violence, society, and man. She supports the detriment of power through the use of further violence by contrasting the ruling class—a labor class—and the state as Marx did. By claiming that the power of the government—which is the power of the gun, warfare, and the violence it is capable of exerting—is secondary to the power of a less violent and more superior ruling labor class. The state, Arendt quotes, is merely an instrument of violence at the command of a ruling class. This is interesting to note when observing the United States’ role as a nuclear superpower and its simultaneous intertwining with the global economy and third world development. If we are to become dependent upon a global labor class, then this superior “ruling class” to which Arendt attributes superiority will become increasingly powerful in the face of a violent first world, whose wielding of violence is gradually diminishing its own power. This is what Arendt means when she relates the reversal of the relationship between power and violence to a reversal in the future relationship between small and great powers.

Why is it, we might ask, that there is this reversal? Why do more violent efforts not yield greater power in the regions it is exerted in? We might take the example of U.S. influence in Latin America or the Middle East, where escalating violence was deemed necessary by the American government. Is it possible that violence is a tool for the weak? An easy instrument to fall back on for those who feel powerless? It is reasonable that the U.S. would not feel it necessary to maintain an army in Latin America or in Afghanistan did it feel that it already held a comfortable amount of power there.

Arendt’s comments on what Fanon and Satre have proposed—that “irrepressible violence is man recreating himself” and that it is only through violence that the wretched of the earth become men—and ardently disagrees with them. She sees violence as a tool for the weak, as something utilized by those who feel their power slipping away, as a proliferator of powerlessness. Through an examination of what “produces men,” Arendt draws from both Hegel and Marx’s philosophies. For Hegel, man produces himself through thought—a psychology of power. Violence seen as a producer of power, to Arendt, is also something psychological that the United States and other governments have wrongly depended on. For Marx, however, man is produced by “the human form of metabolism with nature”—by his labor rather than his perception of himself, his freedom, or his ability to wield violence. Because of this, it seems Marx would look optimistically upon the slave who possesses more power than a central government ever can, while Fanon refuses to see him as a laborer and a person produced through this. Arendt calls the materialistic conception of labor over the idealistic conception of thought true nonviolence. What can this mean when compared to the definitions of nonviolence put forward by Gandhi or King?

It is important to note that Arendt’s use of Marxist philosophy in this argument about violence can be take in two ways, especially since for Marx, a violent revolution would be necessary for a subjugated working class to rise to power. This is contrary to Arendt’s main argument that through attempting to increase power with violence comes a diminishing of that power as the power-holder becomes irrevocably dependent upon violence. She says that power and violence are opposites, and that “violence can destroy power” yet it is “utterly incapable of creating it.” This is seen in the case of the United States’ emergence as a nuclear superpower as well as its involvement in other “threatening” smaller and less powerful countries, which through a booming international economy have the potential of gaining power through other means.

Precis on Arendt's Reflections on Violence

2011-08-04T12:45:00.000-07:00

Hannah Arendt differs in many ways greatly from the works we have recently read in the course. Much of her philosophy, although, is a direct reaction to Fanon's piece, Martin Luther King Jr's practices, and the success of Gandhi's "swaraj". The piece also seems to be a reaction to the threat of Mutual assured destruction, as Arendt discusses at a great length the implications of this fear on society as a whole. "If you ask a member of this generation two simple questions: 'How do you wish the world to be in fifty years?' and 'What do you want your life to be like in five years?' the answers are quite often preceded by a 'Provided that there still is a world,' and 'Provided I am still alive.'" Her illustration of this fear as something that is almost inherent in people's reaction or predictions of the future is extremely interesting. The exploration of this fear ask the question: What does it mean to be in constant question of one's own safety and the safety of the world? Her presentation of this question lends itself well to her discussion of violence as an entity separate from (although still affecting) power, and government.

Arendt makes it quite clear that she does not agree with much of the discussion regarding violence preceding her (namely by Fanon, Sorel) that "violence pays violence". However her discussion of the two philosophers creates a disconnect between readers who are not as familiar with their viewpoints as her. She does little to provide background information for either character, but rather just laments over how ill-advised it would be to find either one's viewpoints apt within this larger discussion. Such obvious disdain for both men, almost create Arendt as a biased and unreliable source.

Yet, her argument continues which is more or less summed up into the misconstrued belief of violence as a means to accumulate power, and the actualities of the relationship between power and violence. She expresses that power and violence in many ways are not synonmous. She defines power as appealing to morality to cause people to obey, but violence rather forces it's victims into obedience. She discusses how violence is often used in power, but it does not maintain power because too much violence would lead to a revolt. Power, she argues, hinges on the support of the people.

All political institutions are manifestations and materializations of power; they petrify and decay as soon as the living power of the people ceases to uphold them. This is what Madison meant when he said, "all governments rest on opinion," a statement that is no less true for the various forms of monarchies than it is for democracies. The strength of opinion, that is, the power of the government, is "in proportion to the number with which it is associated"[27] (and tyranny, as Montesquieu discovered, is therefore the most violent and the least powerful among the forms of government).

Thus, Arendt illustrates that power is dependent on the people not on violence, and furthers her point by discussion how too much violence ends with unfavorable results."Still, the danger of the practice of violence, even if it moves consciously within a nonextremist framework of short-term goals, will always be that the means overwhelm the end." Violence is only used by governments when they feel their power is slipping. She also argues that violence unlike power must be justified and legitimized. Ultimately in her discussion of power and violence, I felt her main point was "it is not correct to say that the opposite of violence is nonviolence: to speak of nonviolent power is actually redundant. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it." She illustrates how violence begets government in discussing how Gandhi was able to utilize non-violent resistance with England, and how such practices would have not worked in Nazi Germany, or Stalin Russia, thus arguing that such governments were overthrown because of their brutalities towards the human race. However Arendt fails to respond to the brutalities of England and America and also several other countries where harsh violence is either celebrated or ignored.

Although much of her argument is fairly easy to follow, and mostly agreeable, I was still a bit distracted by her employment of the metaphor between power and manliness. I found it especially worrisome when she states " to cure man of [natural human emotions] would mean nothing less than to dehumanize or emasculate him". I understand the tiresome employment of emasculation as an indication of loss of power, however the use still is completely worrisome for me. If one is emasculated is he therefore feminine, and if he is therefore feminine and dehumanized does that equate femininity as inhuman?

The Utter Impotence of Violence - Précis for Arendt's Reflections on Violence

2011-08-03T20:34:00.000-07:00

Hannah Arendt’s dense treatise on violence explores the oppositional relationship between violence and power. Arendt’s essay is intended for educated audiences that have had some experience with philosophy beforehand. This is evident as she references various famous philosophers and mobilizes ideas which are not particularly common outside of philosophy without giving the reader much background. Although Arendt deftly establishes her credibility and knowledge through these references, these allusions make the piece somewhat difficult to access. Rhetorically, Arendt principally employs logic both to dismiss and construct arguments.

As an introduction, Arendt motivates her musings by demonstrating that violence is becoming more prevalent and thus more important to discuss directly. She quotes famous philosophers (Marx, Sorel, Sartre, Fanon) who have articulately supported that notion that violence can, and should, be used in a revolutionary way to realize goals. However, Arendt demonstrates that violence is the means to a certain end, and not the end itself, which is power. Power and violence, according to Arendt, have an inverse relationship. A large portion of this essay is dedicated to illuminating the relationship between these two forces. Much like a color gradient, this relationship can be roughly described in terms of extremes: “where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent.”

Naturally, this raises some questions about what violence and power actually mean. Before getting into the heart of her argument, Arendt bemoans the imprecision with which society uses the “key terms [such] as power, strength, force, might, authority, and, finally, violence -- all of which refer to distinct phenomena.” Despite this comment, Arendt never defines violence explicitly. Why does she omit this crucial definition? Are the descriptions of violent behaviors enough to tacitly formulate a precise concept of violence? Additionally, she introduces the concept of power, the other half of the central relationship, through a quote, implying that the notion of power is not her own: “De Jouvenel defines power as an instrument of rule, while rule, we are told owes its existence to the ‘the instinct of domination.’ … To command and to be obeyed: without that, there is no Power.” Is power tantamount to commanding others (meaning that one’s power is dependent on others)?

Arendt briefly delves into human nature so that she may comment on how it relates power and violence. Arendt draws from Nietzsche’s will-to-power concept, which essentially states that the motivation to do anything is fueled by the desire to rule. Thus, as she points out near the end of the essay, power needs no justification, rather it is instinctual, part of what it means to be human. Continuing on this issue of human nature, Arendt explores the possibilities of another equally plausible driving force, the will-to-submission. Quoting from John Stuart Mills, Arendt points out that “the first lesson of civilization [is] that of obedience.” Self-evidently, civilizations exist; thus, at least in the formation of civilization, some primitive motivation to submit and obey has overpowered the proclivity to dominate. After laying the groundwork on human nature, Arendt is prepared to show that violence is predicated on the dynamic of will-to-power and will-to-submission, or what she calls the command-obedience relationship.

One way to comprehend this relationship is through governmental influence and revolution. When a government truly has power, “the means of violence are of no use.” It is only when the government feels power slipping that the “temptation for substituting violence for [power]” is present. Complementarily, citizens of a deficient, weak government may resort to violence in the hope that doing so will push their revolutionary goals forward. Hence, Arendt posits that violence indicates a lack of power. As a consequence to this observation, violence is always needs justification since one only employs violent measures in order to achieve a goal -- it is never the end in and of itself. However, violence’s “justification loses in plausibility the farther away its intended end recedes into the future.” Here, Arendt is saying that the utilization of violence, although often useful for the realization of short-term goals, is difficult to justify for long term goals such as government revolution. This is due to the unpredictability of violence: “all violence harbors within itself an element of arbitrariness.” Government may try to “substitute violence for power [to] bring victory, but [the] price is very high; for it is not only paid by the vanquished, it is paid by the victor in his own power.” In other words, as a means to control people, violence should be the last resort of governments. By using employing violent measures, governments admit that the citizens do not have respect for the government. However, is it not possible to logically conceive a society in which the government uses violence as an enforcer while simultaneously holding the respect, and thus the power, of the people? Could American be viewed in this manner?

Her main claim, most basically, is that violence and power are opposites. One might be tempted to conclude that Arendt’s Reflections on Violence is a persuasive essay against violence as a way to realize goals. However, Arendt’s essay is more exploratory in nature; she is very careful to present both sides to the issues she addresses and not to give an ultimatum on the morality of violence. For instance, in contrast to the many examples where violence seems only to beget more violence, Arendt clearly demonstrates that violence used for self-defense is “not irrational.” By inserting this counterexample to a pacifist position, Arendt suggests that the will to survive outweighs the will-to-power.

Arendt elaborates on this converse relationship between power and violence in the crux of her essay by offering a dichotomous view of these two forces.

“…it is not enough to say that power and violence are not the same. Power and violence are opposites; ... This implies that it is not correct to say that the opposite of violence is nonviolence: to speak of nonviolent power is actually redundant. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it.

This claim, that power and violence are diametrically opposed is surprisingly strong and hence invites intelligent criticism. For example, Arendt admits that violence can be used to realize short-term goals. Is this not a counterexample to the statement that violence is “utterly incapable” of creating power? If violence is lack of power and power is the ability to command others, is rhetoric, by the contrary relationship of violence and power, an inherently nonviolence practice? If so, does rhetoric offer a space in which to explore alternatives to violence? Again, Arendt never clearly defines violence. Her concrete examples in the text seem to indicate that she is writing about physical violence, that which can be seen and felt. But what about the realm of intangible violence?

Hannah Arendt’s Reflections on Violence offers a great amount of insight into the role of violence as it relates to power. A multiplicity of current events directly grapple with the power-violence dynamic explored in this essay. For example, what does it mean that the US has violently intervened in the Middle East? What do these actions reveal about America’s intended scope of power and its success in obtaining it? How does this essay’s enlightenment on violence affect out view on nonviolent campaigns such as those of Martin Luther King and Ghandi?

Swaraj: Cooperative Non-Co-Operation

2011-08-02T03:01:00.000-07:00

Gandhi’s Swaraj is an appeal for self-rule in the face of British colonialism through non-violent and non-co-operative resistance. His piece revolves largely on the cynical reaction to his statement to the Calcutta Congress that “if there was sufficient response to my programme (sic) of non-co-operation, Swaraj would be attained in one year.” He suggests that his proposition is based on a “mathematical calculation” to quickly discredit criticisms that one year is too short a time for such an ideal to be attained and that it is in fact, not such an absurd goal.

Gandhi’s inspiration for Swaraj comes from the abject dependency on the English by India for security and its helplessness to reconcile matters through its own power. By Swaraj, Gandhi means being on equal ground with the English and having complete self-rule. Gandhi affirms that “good government is no substitute for self-government” to illustrate the implausibility of allowing outsiders to rule in one’s stead, even in the best of scenarios. To Gandhi, it is better to live in “freedom” with imperfections than to rely on the English. Gandhi notes that “brute force is the only test the west has hitherto recognised (sic).” Here, Gandhi alludes to the recent aftermath of World War I in which might made right, or victor’s justice, concerning Germany’s fate at the hands of more brutish forces. Gandhi briefly foresees that India must choose between two extremes of “[learning] the art of war” or “[following] her own way of discipline and self-sacrifice through non-co-operation” if it ever wishes to entertain ideas of Swaraj.

Gandhi comments briefly on his perceived evils of British rule. In his simplification of the British cause as one of colonial ambition, Gandhi attempts to convince his audience that India was not lost to the British, but rather given up. The distinction is a difference in process in which there was no struggle, but a ready compliance to benefit from cooperation. Gandhi ridicules the idea that “[the Englishmen] hold India by the sword” and instead explains that “we like their commerce, they please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us.” What the British want, of course, is to “convert the whole world into a vast market for their goods”, or increase their colonial reach to nations like India.

Gandhi confesses to initially being satisfied with a utilitarian calculation of net British good, despite the costs. He takes back his words by saying that blessings such as roads, railways, and education are not justifiable for the degradation to freedom that has occurred. Gandhi emphatically highlights the necessity for a non-co-operation to take on a simultaneously non-violent visage. Gandhi’s uses dichotomies of good and evil and other religious appeals to argue in support of his movement, which is meant to purify through self-imposed suffering.

In flavoring his cause with a religious ethos, Gandhi makes use of some practical strategy. Gandhi is aware of the tension between the Muslims and Hindus and remarks that the British have been exploiting this against the cause of all Indians. By allowing for factional differences to vie for power, the British prevent a united front vital to instigating change. Gandhi implores that his fellow countrymen forget their differences for a cause greater than themselves as individuals. Gandhi knows that his enemy’s enemy is his friend and is keen to request support from this group.

Gandhi seems convinced that change cannot occur through participating in the current system and advocates for boycotting schools and courthouses under British influence. Gandhi believes that “when non-co-operation is effected, this Government must totter to pieces.” In other words, government’s power is manifested through the people it governs – without its people, there is no government. Similarly, if no one buys the goods of a merchant, the merchant will have no choice but to look for business elsewhere or face failure.

Gandhi appears to be embarrassed by the fact that “one hundred-thousand white men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million Indians.” It seems that the actual ratio of 1:3150 is less important than the fact that those people are foreign white men and not fellow Indians. Surely, Gandhi would not be as upset if one hundred-thousand Indians should be able to rule the other three hundred fourteen million nine hundred thousand Indians. In talking about Swaraj, Gandhi only vaguely describes what life may be like after Swaraj is attained. It seems that commenting on the probable benefits of achieving Swaraj would bolster his argument, but this is inexplicably untouched. Another point of interest is Gandhi’s praise for the warm reception to Swaraj by women.

Precis: Swaraj

2011-08-02T00:08:00.000-07:00

Mahatma Gandhi’s Swaraj is a compilation of different texts regarding Gandhi’s ideas about Swaraj, which means Indian independence from British rule. Gandhi explains that this independence equals freedom, and can be achieved in only one year if the Indian people is willing to refuse cooperating with the British government. In the eyes of Gandhi, freedom can only be achieved through this kind of non-violent non-cooperation.

Swaraj consists of several different texts posted in chronological order, which gives the reader the opportunity to follow not only the development of the situation, but also Gandhi’s’ varying arguments and rhetorical approaches. This is interesting to investigate in terms of determining his strategies and if he is persistent in his perspectives throughout the development of the political situation. The different viewpoints are presented in, among others, essays, interviews and paraphrases of speeches and interviews given by Gandhi. The use of more than one kind of medium allows Gandhi to present his perspectives on non-cooperation to a larger and differing audience by using different rhetorical approaches. For example, in essays Gandhi must rebut imagined skeptics and objectors, whereas the interview form demands him to answer and argue immediately upon request.

As mentioned, the audience varies upon change of medium, some texts seem to be answers or reactions to the antagonist, the British or an interviewer, while most of his standpoints seems to be calling out to the people of India; his primary audience. Gandhi appeals to them with the hope that they join his movement and change their country. But he does not call upon all the people of India. He dismisses the idea that the change should rise from the lower classes, and counts on the middle and upper class to make a difference. He states that he has “proposed a limited programme workable within one year, having a special regard to the educated classes” (Swaraj in one year). He manifests himself to be part of this educated enlightened upper class, so that he can project himself to be a strong and wise leader, and build his argumentation upon this appeal: “If we show this in one year among the classes that to-day count, and make public opinion, we certainly gain Swaraj within one year” (Swaraj my ideal).

The biggest concern for Gandhi is to make the Indian people understand that self-sacrifice is crucial to gain freedom and that, “Good government is no substitute for self-government” (Swaraj in one year). The Indian people needs to give up the privileges which was given to them by the British, to gain self-government and independence. Gandhi points out that it is not Britain who is oppressing the Indian people, but in fact the Indians themselves, since they uphold the oppression by relying on and accepting the British system and its rules. He states that: “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them” (Why was India lost?). Gandhi explains how self-respect and self-sacrifice in terms of defying the British is necessary to gain freedom. This claim he supports by giving examples of the governments in Afghanistan and Japan, countries that he envy for their self-government status, even though their government isn’t considered to be good. The reason this works as support is that he as a strong spiritual leader has a strong ethos that compels his audience to rely on his arguments since these are built on his personal opinions and topological knowledge. Gandhi to uses history as evidence, supported by examples of reliance and needs: “History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open arms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a seller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming the seller shall I be able to avoid the habit?” (Why was India lost?). This kind of dependence and reliance gave the British opportunity to uphold and develop their rule over India. Gandhi states that Great Britain is only in India for commerce, so his logical assumption is that if the Indians turn their backs on the commerce, the British will leave since there is nothing else in India they want. Gandhi’s rhetoric is also influenced by the use of logic. He appeals to the logic of his audience by showing the outrageousness of the fact “that less than one hundred-thousand white men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million Indians” (Swaraj in one year). If the support for the British government is no longer there, it is actually possible for the Indians to be self-governing since the British cannot rule by mere force and would be outnumbered.

Gandhi claims that only via the use of non-violent methods can India gain freedom. This is the case since matters of self-respect and respect for others, in the eyes of Gandhi, must be above all even self-government. To support his claim he uses his ethos as a political and spiritual leader, as well as the pathos of his own feelings and observation to affect his audience. The people of India need to stand up against government control, and fund their own society upon their own ideas. This change cannot happen through violence, but through the movement’s morals and ethics. Gandhi says: “The fact is that non-co-operation by reason of its non-violence has become a religious and purifying movement. It is daily bringing strength to the nation, showing it its weak spots and the remedy for removing them” (A movement of purification). Furthermore, Gandhi makes the point that the problems given by the government as before mentioned is self-imposed, and therefore cannot be moved by violent force, but must be a matter of morals and ethics; what Gandhi calls “soul force” (The attainment of Swaraj).

Gandhi wants to persuade his people to take part in his non-cooperating movement so that they can contribute to India being self-governing - but does he succeed? His task is difficult since he must convince them to give up privileges for the reasons of freedom and independence, and not necessarily for improved living conditions or wealth – is this even possible? Gandhi states that freedom is in itself enough. He draws upon history and spiritual and moral ethics to show the necessity of independence and to show that it must be achieved in a non-violent way. When reading the different texts chronologically the reader notices a feeling of hope within Gandhi’s view on Swaraj. This positive development might be a result of his use of a us-versus-them-discourse that among other things features him naming the British Satan and India God – what do you think? Could this function as a kind of rebuttal to objections from his audience? Does it eventually distance him or make his argument stronger?

Précis- Gandhi

2011-08-01T22:12:00.000-07:00

Ghandi’s “Swaraj” touts progressive nonviolent non-cooperation as the most effective tool in India’s fight against British colonialism. He argues first that “until the three conditions mentioned by me are fulfilled, there is no Swaraj”, his three conditions being freedom from” Government-controlled schools, Government law-courts and legislative councils”. This lays the groundwork for his true argument, that his countrymen should use non-cooperation to withdraw from the British-imposed system of government.

Through heavy use of the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘our’, as in “If we are true to our salt, true to our nation, true to the songs we sing, if we are true to the Bhagwad Gita and the Koran, we would finish the programme in the remaining nine months and deliver Islam the Punjab and India”, Gandhi coalesces his audience (contemporary Indian men and women); by creating an us/them dichotomy throughout the text he unites them in with the hope that they will remain united in all their actions thereafter, since his nonviolent modus operandi is only effective when adopted by the majority of a population. His arguments are so geared to immediate action that they are applicable almost exclusively in the particular context to which they refer- though the themes of his statements apply more broadly to any conflict, the opinions themselves do not.

His arguments are of two varieties- just as he must first change the peoples’ minds to see that the system they are engaged in is self-perpetuating and bad, he then must entice them to change the way they interact with it so that it can fall and be replaced with Swaraj (or self-governance). They are, therefore, first arguments of conviction aimed at changing peoples’ mindsets and then arguments of persuasion aimed at changing their conduct.

The stakes of his argument are clear- if he fails to mobilize people to react to the British government’s tight hold on them, they will never be free from it, but if he succeeds, not only will they gain “national self-respect” but also “salvation”. His first argument is an interesting one: that the Indian populace is enabling their continued subjugation. This places the agency and some of the blame on the very people he is trying to convince to join his movement. It is a very risky move, as antagonizing his fellows could make them less open to his ideas, though his use of logic shifts much of the agency to abstract human emotions. He essentially argues that desire is what motivated his countrymen to buy into the British supply and therefore the entire system. Since his second argument depends on his first, the first has higher stakes since if it is unsuccessful the subsequent one is moot. Do you think that the second argument has higher stakes since it incites action (albeit passive action)? Is there one style of argumentation that you think better fits Gandhi’s purposes? Why or why not?

I feel that in the parts of “Swaraj” that were pure prose, Gandhi did not bring up many oppositions or rebuttals to his ideas. Those only occurred in sections not comprising of his speeches, as in “British Rule- an Evil” and the dialogue section entitled “Why was India lost?” in which an opposing viewpoint is explicitly quoted. Do you or do you not agree that these are the points in which intelligent opposition is acknowledged? Do you think that there ought to have been stronger rebuttals? Should they have mentioned stronger oppositions?

Stylistically, the prose is quite clear, without too many flourishes. Why do you think that is? What do you think of his use of different lion metaphors? The first use was to refer to his countrymen: “The problem is no doubt stupendous even as it is for the fabled lion who having been brought up in the company of goats found it impossible to feel that he was a lion.” And the second in an interview, when asked, “Where will the present Government be at the end of the nine months?" Gandhi responded "The lion will then lie with the lamb." Are these metaphors contradictory? To what do the respective lions refer to, and the lambs and goats?

Resistance or War: Arundhati Roy's "War is Peace"

2011-07-28T00:42:00.000-07:00

Arundhati Roy's "War is Peace," written shortly after the beginning of the US war in Afghanistan, raises pertinent and unsettling questions about the war and the US imperial system more generally. The text is largely centered around calling into question the official narratives of the USA's past and present. Roy refers to the fact that in the US "the arms industry, the oil industry, the major media networks, and, indeed, US foreign policy, are all controlled by the same business combines" and therefore the media avoids the truth in favor of propaganda, peddling "inanities about the 'Clash of Civilizations' and the 'Good versus Evil' discourse'" (Roy). The text calls the audience to question what they have been told by the government and media. Roy first upsets the cherished notion that the United States is "a peaceful nation" by matter-of-factly listing the countries America has made war with since World War II. She then moves through the historical background and current reality of the conflict in Afghanistan, informing the reader in order to counter their assumptions. While Roy intersperses many of her conclusions throughout the essay, she also calls upon the reader to find answers within themselves: "Where will it all lead? ... [H]ave we forfeited our right to dream?" (Roy).

Roy's interrogatory focus makes sense: as a strong supporter of resistance to power, she logically supports dissent - intellectual resistance to the dominant narratives of history and society. The essay also promotes resistance in other ways, though these are mostly relegated to the periphery of the text. In the penultimate paragraph, Roy hints at what is needed to right the path of the world - an oblique attempt at persuasion. She asks those who understand the hidden cruelty of the system whether they will go along with the lies, or join together and "say, in one voice, that we have had enough?" (Roy). This call to action, though somewhat buried in the text, takes the piece from a purely intellectual exercise of truth-seeking to a persuasive appeal.

A few stylistic elements are especially notable. Significantly, Arundhati Roy was a writer of fiction before becoming a social activist, and her poetic style can be seen in the creativity and evocative power of her figurative language. She displays this when she states that "Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed," when she compares America's hegemony to a "dangerous and fragile ... monoculture" and even in comparing insufficient food packets to media propaganda, saying that we are "daily consumers of the lies and brutality smeared in peanut butter and strawberry jam being air-dropped into our minds" (Roy).

In addition, the title of the essay is especially notable. Roy's ironic conclusion that "War is Peace" if leaders of the US and the UK can claim to be peaceful is meaningful simply as a contradiction in its own right, but it also evokes 1984 and the propaganda slogans of Orwell's dystopian totalitarian state. The phrase is heavy with suggestion - if we are already at the point where "War is Peace" according to the government, how else may we be like the society of 1984?

The question of audience is also interesting. US Americans are likely part of the target audience, as Roy speaks sympathetically of "civilians [who are] now held hostage to the actions of their own governments," reserving the harsher criticisms she sometimes has for the people of the United States (Roy). The contrast between the historical context of the essay and the political reality today adds another dimension to the question of audience. With all that has changed, are people today still part of the targeted audience of "War is Peace"? So much has changed since 2001, after all: most obviously, the US has entered another war with perhaps even flimsier excuses and more obvious selfish motivations. The game has changed. How can a piece written without any knowledge of the Iraq War give a perspective on the current status of the world? But Roy's arguments about Afghanistan remain as relevant as ever, especially as it is still largely seen as "the good war" even while the conflict in Iraq has become immensely unpopular. While the global situation may have changed, the ignorance and misinformation Roy seeks to challenge are still prevalent.

Precis for "Evidence of Things Not Seen"

2011-07-27T22:22:00.000-07:00

Chris Hedges’s article “Evidence of Things Not Seen” is an interrogation that seeks to dismantle the glorified patriotism associated with war and to expose war’s true brutality and the victims left in its wake. The article is a review for Philip Jones Griffith’s image-compilation book Agent Orange: “Collateral Damage” in Viet Nam, and it is targeted at a broad intellectual audience, including college students, scholars, and other curious persons. The article is imbued with powerful images, metaphors, and references, so much so that one cannot help but lose track of the book Hedges is promoting. Nonetheless, Hedges instills his audience with the essence of what Griffith’s book is about: exposing the consequences and images of warfare to a society sheltered by an idealized concept of war.

Hedges begins his article with a personal reference to his family, specifically his father and uncle who were WWII veterans. When Hedges was growing up, his father especially loathed the war and the emotional and physical effects it had on its victims. He sheltered Hedges and his family from any glamorized concepts of war, and during the Vietnam War drafting, Hedges even recalls “my father told me that if I was drafted for the Vietnam War he would go to prison with me.” This initially comical anecdote sheds light on the serious, underlying sentiments Hedges’s father had regarding war – his father’s firsthand experience made him shun the belief that war was patriotic or noble, and he was willing to do anything to prevent his children from going through such a horrifying experience.

Hedges’s uncle Maurice shared his “father’s anger and feeling of betrayal [about the war],” though he returned from war far more physically and emotionally damaged:

[Maurice] was wounded by a mortar blast . . . he became an acute embarrassment to the family . . . his marriage fell apart . . . he finally drank himself to death in his trailer . . . but not before borrowing and selling the hunting rifle my grandfather had promised me. (Hedges)

Victims of war such as Maurice are ignored by society because they don’t fit in with the heroic “myth of war” and because, as Hedges’s family even felt, their depression and “unruly” behavior made them “embarrassments.” Hedges seems especially affected by Maurice not only because Maurice demonstrated how “those maimed by war are shunted aside,” but also because Maurice sold the promised rifle Hedges looked forward to inheriting as a child – a sour memory that would stick with a child who had been given a promise that was broken by a drunkard uncle. Hedges is able to look back on this situation now with an understanding for why Maurice sold the rifle because he realizes how truly victimized Maurice was by the war and that selling the rifle for alcohol was a means to survive the emotional trauma. One of the reasons Hedges likely wrote this article about exposing war victims to society is because of his upbringing, his father’s wariness about war, and his uncle’s alcoholism, cynicism, and ultimate death – an accumulation of aftereffects of WWII that surely rubbed off on Hedges’s entire childhood. Even so, Hedges’s family was just one of thousands of those victimized by war, and Hedges must feel a duty to bring a voice to the victims so easily silenced by our society.

After the anecdote about his family and childhood, Hedges begins discussing Agent Orange, the herbicide used by the U.S. to destroy Vietcong forests. The book Agent Orange displays the images of the deformities and birth defects resulting from the herbicide, and Hedges produces an eerie metaphor about the book’s disturbing pictures: “The face of war is in this book. It stares out at you from the formaldehyde bottles that entomb dead infants with savage deformities. It stares out at you from the portraits of orphans, crippled and plagued by skin diseases.” Hedges’s description of Griffith’s Agent Orange is gruesome with the purpose of dismantling the “myth of war, the myth of glory, honor, patriotism and heroism . . . abstract words that mask the plague of war.”

Hedges then discusses how war films, books, and images meant to condemn war actually glorify it by “imparting the thrill of violence and power.” Scenes of war are like “war porn” to most viewers, as they have an “intoxicating” draw that allows people to “make real the darkest undercurrents of our fantasy life.” Hedges emphasizes that the only way to truly denounce war is not to show images and scenes of the combat but rather to show the aftereffects, the mutilated bodies, and the immense suffering. Hedges uses yet another metaphor: in the media, “war is made palatable. It is sanitized. We are allowed to taste war’s perverse thrill, but usually spared from seeing its consequences.” Such a comparison likens war to a pleasurable concept consumed, gossiped about, and even used as an exciting “video game” in society. Hedges commends Griffith’s Agent Orange for going against this popular trend by instead showing the maimed that are carefully hidden by the media.

Hedges mentions the war in Iraq as a presentday example of how war continues to victimize soldiers and civilians, and how those victims and their families are joining other war families who carry the burden of abandonment and injury. One cannot help but view Hedges’s article as a means of shaking pro-war sentiment and even an attempt to marshal antiwar sentiment about the Iraq war; though Hedges does not discuss any disagreement he has with the politics of the war in Iraq, the message is clear that he opposes all war that has its basis in violence and that results in victimized persons.

In his concluding remarks, Hedges advises readers to look beyond the “pornography of violence” and to allow Agent Orange to expose them to the plague of war. Hedges’s ending statement forces his readers to consider what it would be like if their families became war victims too: “Look closely at this book. Look at the faces of these children. Look at the faces of your own children.” This statement draws upon the readers’ personal kin relationships, a sensitive matter that thrusts into the readers’ faces the question of whether war is worth the lives and suffering families experience.

Ultimately, Hedges seems to think that war is a terrible thing due to the way it victimizes people. Since Hedges, and the book Agent Orange, eschew the gruesome results of war, the ideal they seem to promote is to eliminate all war in the future. But that leaves a crucial question. If we don’t wage war, if we don’t use violence, how do we combat enemies, terrorists, and rivals? Sure, we can attempt to solve problems through verbal negotiation, but often times that fails. Are there options other than physical force and warfare when battling our adversaries? Or is warfare, the practice so shunned by Hedges, the only alternative?