And they cheered as the blade fell: A disturbing response to the death penalty

As some of you may know, last night was the first chance for the current group of GOP candidates to place their views in front of a national audience. According to Google's aggregated news feed, there are 3,739 stories on the events of last night. To my surprise, the story that doesn't seem to be getting much coverage from the major news sources is this one:

While moderator Brian Williams is referencing the amount of people legally murdered in the state of Texas, the crowd apparently finds the record-setting number of 234 worthy of a round of applause, followed by more applause after Mr. Perry's worn platitude about "Ultimate Justice." Now, I would expect the Governor of a state that executes mentally retarded individuals to be proud of that figure, but apparently I have underestimated the bloodthirsty attitude that permeates the culture of the right.

In the interest of fairness, let's say that the crowd believed that there was some sort of drastic drop in the violent crime rate of "the great state of Texas" to justify those executions. The death penalty is a deterrent against those crimes, as the pro-death camp has pointed out quite a few times, so of course that's what the applause was for. The only problem with that theory is the fact that the number of murders in Texas has risen since Rick Perry was sworn in as Governor in 2000.

Even if we are to believe that is the case, it still makes me wonder who in their right mind cheers for the death of 234 people? I understand that these are criminals who, in most cases, are guilty of what they've been accused of. However, I also understand that when you convict someone of a crime it is almost impossible to be one hundred percent sure that you have the right individual. Knowing there is a chance that some of these inmates could have been innocent of the crimes they were executed for should make anyone pause for reflection, not rush to applaud as if something wondrous has happened.

In my opinion, these individuals were not clapping for some idea that they have about the death penalty affecting crime rates. They are simply clapping for the death of human beings. They were clapping because, within the context of what they believe, murder is acceptable as long as it isn't an unregulated murder. I don't claim to understand this, if murder is illegal for the people, it should be illegal for the government as well.

Simply put, events like these always remind me that the world that I want to live in, a world of sense and logic where people care about each other, is not the world that a large portion of this country wants. The want a return to the so called "traditional values" of sexism, racism, and "old time religion." They desire a theocracy based on a drastic misinterpretation of the christian religion. This coming election they will be doing their best to make this nightmare a reality for all of us. They hope to run roughshod over the freedoms  and rights that have taken us centuries to obtain. The bottom line is that this is a war for the future of America. A war against a belief system of death and oppression, of money over people, of religion over science. At its basest level it is a war against you.


So stand up and fight back.

Step Backwards Into The Future: Why Detroit's Large Scale Urban Farming Plans Should Make You Uncomfortable

Slavery. 

It's something that most don't wish to discuss, and even more would like to pretend never happened. From the civil rights movement to affirmative action and beyond, few things in American history have infected every aspect of social interaction quite like slavery and the legacy it left behind. One would think that in this modern time, with the exception of lunatic fringe groups, no one would believe that slavery in any form is a good idea. Certainly you wouldn't expect to see a revival of post-slavery control methods being trumpeted as a solution for Detroit's woes, right?  Neither would I, but that's exactly why the current plans of the urban farming faction should make you more than a little apprehensive.

It is important to point out that I'm not discussing small neighborhood farms or co-op's here. Those kinds of gardens have been traditionally important in this country and area, and self-sustainability is never a bad thing. The "farms" that I'm referencing are these proposed factory level operations such as Gary Wozniak's Recovery Park project. For those who don't know, Mr. Wozniak and his non-profit SHAR Foundation wish to create a 600 acre large-scale farming operation, split into small farms of around 30 acres each throughout a project area of 2,400 acres. It is an ambitious plan that would most likely face little opposition  except for two major issues. The first is that the area in which his foundation would like to implement this plan is directly in the midst of occupied neighborhoods. The second is that the residents of this area see this plan as sharecropping under the guise of social benefit.  In an article published in the Detroit News one resident went so far as to call it a "plantation." The question is, are they wrong? 

It's obvious that some might question the good faith involved in a cadre of wealthy white individuals purchasing large swaths of land throughout the city with the intention of having poor black citizens farm said land. Personally, I find the fact that someone would propose this idea in a public arena to be absolutely insane, especially in a city that has struggled with segregation and racial tensions as long as Detroit has. Combine a project like this with Mayor Dave Bing's "downsizing" of neighborhoods that don't appeal to rich suburbanites, and it's almost impossible to not wonder what the final goal of all of this is.

While it is a fact that Detroit needs employment for people unqualified to work at Compuware or any of the other corporations in the area, I feel that the solution is to rebuild our education system, not create jobs tailored to promoting a culture of manual labor performed by the economically underprivileged. The idea that we should work within the confines of a racist system to improve ourselves is terrifying to me. Wouldn't the people be better served by changing a false way of life that has, throughout the years, destroyed everything that we've built? How does any person with any sort of social conscious look at an idea like this and not see, or worse, ignore the racial implications of this as nonexistent? Regardless of how these ideas are phrased when talking to the citizens it's almost impossible to not have the specter of racial inequality hanging over the discussion. 

It's certain that some individuals will point to these concerns as an example of "this is why things don't get done in Detroit," but these are the same people who fail to understand that these issues have always been a factor in Detroit for good reason. This city is in need a full overhaul if it is to survive, that is for certain, but moving our city and its people back to the 1800's is far from the desired goal. We have to look at this area for what it really is, the concerns it actually faces, and then fix those issues from the top levels if we are to survive. We cannot paste a new face on an abhorrent concept and call it a plan for change. We cannot expect people who have been lied to over and over again to simply trust what is said. Old ideas are not what this city needs.

Especially when those ideas were abolished in 1865. 

A Drug Is A Drug: The U.S. Addiction To Reality Avoidance

The addict cannot tolerate reality and its vicissitudes. Neither internal reality nor external reality. They find reality repugnant, uncomfortable, overwhelming, and prefer, like the psychotic, withdrawal into fantasy, bliss or oblivion over reality. They seek constantly to alter subjective and objective reality to their own liking.

                      Avoidance, Sobriety and Reality: The Psychology of Addiction, 2010

We have all seen children playing "cops and robbers" or some similar game. When one child claims that they "got" another child, the most common reaction is an automatic denial of this followed by a convoluted reason as to why. This behavior normally causes no undue concern, simply because it is a child's way of dealing with an unpleasant experience. It is much less common to hear an adult resort to this behavior, as most stop using this mechanism as they grow more mature and realize that it isn't a realistic option. The one group of adults who do use such rationalizations on a regular basis are addicts and people who are generally unable to deal with reality. It is truly disturbing to see the American government resorting to such behaviors.

Following Standard and Poor's lowering of the United States credit rating from an AAA to an AA+, the White House's reaction was to state that S&P's "analysis was deeply flawed." The Treasury Department followed this by accusing S&P of making a "major mistake in it's calculations," with a spokesperson stating "a judgment flawed by a $2-trillion error speaks for itself." This response illuminates the comprehensive failure of our elected officials to understand the effects of the political system that we have operated under since the beginning of the Bush administration. This country shows the classic signs of addiction behavior, and the disconnection from reality those behaviors cause. The official backlash to the downgrade is reminiscent of an addict trying to get drugs without money, saying "come on man, I've always been good for it! Trust me." The problem is that the American way of life, the fallacy that we have become reliant on, is just that. We operate under an umbrella of credit at all economic levels. We want want we can't afford, what we can't sustain, and we become petulant children when we are denied. The economic depression that this country is in the midst of has far-reaching effects upon the global market, but that fact is lost upon the American people, for who other countries need to simply fall in line or get out of the way.

America has many addictions, and like a person addicted to anything, we fail to see how deeply we affect others or ourselves. The ideas and concepts that we have sewn into the fabric of our existence are dangerously approaching what can only be called a “rock-bottom.” We are, for example, dangerously addicted to wishful thinking. So severe is our addiction to always looking at the “bright side” that we will ignore anything that doesn’t fall into our limited national view of self. We seem unable to rationally see that our “way of life” is destroying our actual way of life. The news media refuses to report anything that has a bearing on the lives of actual people, preferring to invent illogical fears, interview celebrities, and broadcast so-called “human interest” stories masquerading as relevant news. Government actions that will affect the lives of huge numbers of people are swept under the rug to make sure that the fourth episode this week of America's Got Talent can be voted on by the masses.

The blame for this state of affairs does not fall solely on the shoulders of the media by any means, as the people demand this escapism. I personally feel that a large percentage of people are only angry with their officials over the debt ceiling because it forced them to actually engage in the real world, if only for a moment. These individuals cannot deal with the empire burning down around them, and so they retreat into a world of trivial unimportance, becoming enraged if anything should shake them from their reverie.

Another aspect that America shares with addicts of other stripes is the tendency to attack others who may be telling them the truth or attempting to place things in perspective. The rumblings from the Capitol have been mostly immature, centering around a misguided concept of “who the hell is Standard and Poor to tell us how to act?” These people are the same ones who were trumpeting our golden AAA status as a reason to fix the budget just weeks ago. This is remarkably similar to an alcoholic getting furious at someone close who suggests that they might have a drinking problem. In place of what should be a moment of self-reflection, we instead resort to anger because we know that the other party is correct in their judgment. It is simply ridiculous to claim that we never really cared about what the main credit rating agencies had to say now that we are no longer the favorite.

This is not to say that Standard & Poor, or any other rating agency, is infallible. The choices made by S&P during the sub-prime mortgage crisis will attest to that. The politicians responsible for the debt ceiling “solution” seem to think that everyone should believe everything is fine now. They are insulted that the rest of the world is pointing out that nothing was accomplished and our actions will take a toll on everyone involved in global trade. True to the form of addiction, none of that matters to us. We will do anything to continue what is killing us, regardless of consequences, regardless of how much we destroy.

If someone has a drug or alcohol problem, there are many avenues of help. They can enter rehabilitation, or join a twelve step program. Many people have gotten some much needed perspective in just this way, and most would say that they're better for it. There is not, however, a support group for post-industrial nations. There isn't a rehabilitation program for delusional nation-states addicted to an system of capitalism that in unsustainable. There is no methadone treatment for mainlining crude oil. This is a wake-up call for America. We have overdosed and woken up in the emergency room. The doctors and counselors are standing near asking us if this is enough, if we finally want to get sober. The options are treatment or death. America is going to have to take a long hard look in the mirror and really ask itself, “is this who I want to be?” Maybe with this scolding on the international level, America can have what is known as a “moment of clarity.” Maybe we will not end up the beggar on the street corner of international politics, claiming we need money for food while plotting to spend it on drugs. Maybe America has the strength to go cold turkey and clean itself up.

I wish I could believe it does.

Shop Til You Drop or: How I Learned Stop Worrying And Love The Mall

During a late night conversation about two Facebook pages that were created over the last few days, Whole Foods Isnt Worth 4.2 Million in Incentives and I am Happy Whole Foods is coming to Detroit because I am not insane, I said something that happened to stick with me. What was this realization?

People don't want to live in a city, they want to live in a shopping mall.

"Where Detroit needs to go" has been framed by the question of what corporately-owned companies should be opening branches inside city limits, as if the main problem that the city faces is where the brave suburban pioneers will shop for goods. You see, people aren't interested in whether there's schools, firefighters, or police. They don't want to think about the social and racial ramifications of the choices that are being made. What they do want is what has become the "American Dream," easy access to shiny baubles of status. If you look at modern city planning, whether in a suburban or urban area, the goal of designing around a public use space like a park or town square has been forsaken to focus the area on a major shopping center or strip mall. When you ask people about the area they live in, more often than not, the first facts they will give you are what stores are nearby, not a rundown of the neighborhood itself.  The problem with this kind of mindset is that it divorces the human aspect from our area of residence. We go about believing that if there are stores, there will be jobs for everyone, and the general standard of living will gradually become higher. In the past this was true, but this country is a very different place now. Corporately-owned businesses, having no stake in the community they operate in, don't provide anything but sub-standard wages and the destruction of the locally-owned businesses.

When we look at how Detroit got into the situation it now faces, our reliance on the continued good fortune of three major corporations plays a large part in our fall. Yet, knowing what we know about the fallibility of our corporate sponsors, the choices we are making revolve around what multi-national we shall pledge loyalty  to instead. At its deepest level, the future of Detroit revolves around the people who live here and have lived here. The assumption that bringing elitist retail locations to the Midtown area is the beginning of a revival ignores the fact that without a complete overhaul of the services that people rely on, we are just continuing full speed down the same path we have been on for years. The discussion on Whole Foods, City Lofts, and what else should move here reminds me of the hype that surrounded the building of the Compuware building years ago. The same things were said then are being said now, but it doesn't seem like people remember that a Hard Rock Cafe and Ben And Jerry's Ice Cream were the saviors of the moment then. Obviously, people aren't looking deep enough into this problem to really find a fix. Throwing stores that people can't afford to shop in at this city clearly sends the message, "You had your chance, now it's our turn." It reeks of neo-colonial racism, as if an area without high-end retail is somehow uncivilized and unlivable for the masses, as well as the racist sentiment, "obviously they can't handle responsibility or it wouldn't be like that, so they need us."

What bothers me is the large number of people who are willing to stand behind that.

Misdirection And The Irrationality Of Trust.

"I think I can confidently say this debt ceiling increase will avoid default, which is important for everybody in America to know: We are not going to have a default for the first time, and we're not going to have job- killing tax increases in it, and we will deal with the problem, and that's that the government has been spending too much,"

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Read that very closely and see if you notice what I did.

If you're anything like me, the part that sticks out is the unspeak term “job killing tax increases.” Now I'm not sure at what point a free ride for the wealthiest 2% to 3% of American citizens became an integral part of the economy, but I'm pretty sure that the reported 9.2% unemployment rate as of June 2011 and the fact that there is a debate about whether the United States will be able to pay it's bills might say something different. The government has been spending too much? I'm personally not sure that spending too much is really the issue here. The government isn't making enough money seems closer to reality, but as has been shown repeatedly in American politics over the last decade, “reality” is just a minor inconvenience to be stepped over. The fact that any rational individual can honestly believe that trickle down economics is viable at this point honestly blows my mind.

We have placed a financial burden on every member of the lower tax brackets, watched the country fall to this point as a result, and are now debating whether or not to continue on this path. It seems that certain people in positions of power believe that the Bush-era tax cuts just haven't had enough time to really show what they can do, and if we all just cross our fingers and hope really, really hard, everything will be just fine. We'll be able to have $1 gas at the pumps again, manufacturing will rebound, and we will forever be the number one superpower in the world. This is nothing short of insane, and I use such a strong term because this theory is so far removed from the reality as to be beyond irrational. These laissez-faire economics are not working. Using the term “job creating tax cuts” when it's obvious to anyone unsuccessfully seeking employment, is misdirection at its worst. The safety net that is supposed to be in place for these types of situations resembles nothing more than a thimble full of water at the bottom of a high dive. Yet, the rhetoric being tossed about recklessly by the main players in the debate ignores these facts and continues to sell the American people a dialogue that more closely resembles a script for a wrestling match than a serious debate about the financial responsibilities of a nation in crisis.

News reports on the subject of the debt ceiling's eventual agreement point to a toothless bill that will, in the long run, do nothing for anyone who actually needs assistance. It will cut costs on our most important programs we have in a time when they're needed more than anything while still not producing any sort of revenue. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about economics, but it seems like common sense that in order to exit a financial slump you need income. If you spend less money, that doesn't mean you have more money. It means that you spend less money that you don't have. That means that nothing changes, you're still in the same predicament you were in the first place. This is a self-evident concept to anyone who has ever had financial responsibilities. Maybe the issue here is that the people who are making decisions about our future don't understand how the rest of the people in the country live. Opinion polls, while sometime notoriously unreliable, in this case tell the simple truth that the majority of people want the Bush tax cuts repealed. They don't understand why they are shouldering the burden of carrying a country that seems intent of destroying them. Their voices are being ignored. It's a disturbing occurrence indeed, but what makes it truly sick is that no one is surprised in the least. We all know that expecting our current government to have our best interests in mind is delusional, at best. Even as we are bled dry by the corporate oligarchy and it's control of Washington, they lie to our faces about how they are concerned for no one but us. They continue to take, while giving nothing back. The worst part? When they reach a thirteenth hour deal to miraculously save us from the disaster that they themselves are responsible for, we will all applaud our elected officials as heroes and go back to watching Dancing With The Stars like nothing happened.

And that's just wrong.






Update: Seems like I hit the nail on the head with this one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/unemployed-debt-ceiling-deal_n_914801.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Whole Foods, Somerset Collection, And The Future Of Detroit.

Having spent the better part of two days debating on the Facebook wall of WDET's The Craig Fahle Show the fact that Detroit seems to be more concerned with assisting the "young professional" demographic then doing the things necessary to make this city viable in the future, I've come to certain realizations. It seems that the way the "Future of Detroit" debate is going to be handled is that opinions that don't fall lock-step in the line with the newest "hip" idea are instantly marginalized and called "negative." Now, I understand that people are desperate to see some sort of change or revival in this city. What I don't understand is that no one seems to be able to look beyond Midtown or Downtown, as if the city doesn't extend beyond those limited borders. Yesterday, in a sort of double pronged public relations move, the opening of a Whole Foods store in 2013 was announced on the same day of the opening of City Lofts. City Lofts, an Extension of the Troy, MI based Somerset Collection, is apparently some sort of attempt to bring the "exclusive" shopping experience of Oakland County's premiere retail destination to the heart of the city. Surprisingly enough, At it's original location in Troy there is a Whole Foods store a mile away. Setting aside my issues with a corporation that makes it's money by pretending to be "green" and "socially conscious", It doesn't seem to me that anyone has considered the ramifications of catering only to a small subset of the population without taking the rest of the people into account. I'm not going to say that the opening of a grocery store within the city limits is a bad idea, but at it's core is Whole Foods really a benefit to the city? I've heard the argument that they source locally grown food, which will benefit the growers who currently have few options other than the local farmers market and a few storefronts. In theory this is great, but what's the reality? As you can see in this article from the Portland, Maine based, The Bollard by author Stacy Mitchell, what a corporation says may, shockingly, not be one hundred percent true.

"Local food is “the foundation of [Whole Foods’] image, but it’s this lip service. They get the local products in, but they have no motivation to try to sell them,” said one vendor, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity given her ongoing business relationship with Whole Foods.

Her product adds to the store’s “local” image, but very little of it actually sells. The problem? Whole Foods has priced it almost 50 percent higher than other area retailers do. Customers are more inclined to choose the Whole Foods store-brand version, which has more prominent shelf space and a significantly lower price. 

"They put much more effort into promoting their own products," the vendor said. "It's not an account we see a big future with." 

Whole Foods Markup, 2007.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that a business is more concerned about it's own profits above the profits of others, that's how a business works. What's troubling is that Whole Foods sells itself not as a competitor, but as a beneficial part of the local economy. To me, this is the equivalent of smiling while you knife someone in the back. Most companies have figured out that the pseudo-socially conscious will flock to them if they offer the illusion of a zero personal impact way to "make a difference" by giving them your money, and Whole Foods is one of the best at it.  And speaking of money, I'll assume that most have you have been to a Whole Foods. Do you see a lot of items that are reasonably priced? I've heard so many arguments about the "food desert"status of Detroit and how we desperately need affordable fresh produce and other essentials, as have most people. Yesterday, during the discussion that was raging on Facebook it was stated  

"If we didn't have any stores around here, and were choosing which food store to bring in, then yes, Whole Foods wouldn't be the best option. Not by a long shot. But it's not the only option. Not even close" 

At what point did we all of the sudden have these innumerable options of where to shop? Last week people were unable to purchase food easily, this week everybody is doing just great? Whole Foods supporters can't have it both ways.  You can't say "We need Whole Foods because there's no affordable grocery stores" and "There are plenty of affordable grocery stores so why does a Whole Foods matter?" 


What this really comes down to is the people of Detroit. The people whose backs this city was built upon are suffering and the "young professionals" aren't concerned about them, simply because they seem to feel that this city is rightly theirs. Like the issue of there being people who already live here isn't something they should stop to think about as they bring their  failing suburbs into the heart of a city they abandoned years ago. There is a large population here that needs services, schools, healthcare, and numerous other things. All of those things are more important then tax breaks for Texas based corporate grocery stores, or High end stores that aren't realistic options for a large portion of the people that live here.


Maybe we should be having more conversations about that.