If you’ve been following my conversation with Corey W. deVos (or, even if not) you might find this one interesting, I sure did.

In a somewhat surprising, but welcome development, the American Medical Association has officially adopted a policy which calls for a review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule 1 drug (along with LSC, PCP, and heroin), aka a drug with no known medicinal purpose.

“This shift, coming from what has historically been America’s most cautious and conservative major medical organization, is historic,” said Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, who attended the AMA meeting. “Marijuana’s Schedule I status is not just scientifically untenable, given the wealth of recent data showing it to be both safe and effective for chronic pain and other conditions, but it’s been a major obstacle to needed research.”

The health care bill passed by the House is complete bull shit.  For exactly not the reason my grandpa insists.

Only a brief list of why:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/09-10

I know, it’s been less than a week of my (thus far) quasi-triumphant return to blogging.  But I’m leaving you.  Well, sorta.  The fact is that tomorrow I head down to Connecticut (as we used to say in a play on CT’s lame motto “the constitution state”: “the institution state”) to see old friends, go to a wedding, and give my mom some much deserved ‘grandma time’ with Mira; and between now and next Monday, you should expect about zero from me by way of posts.  Sorry.  I do feel great about finally getting back to writing, and getting back to thinking about more than pregnancy, babies, and work, which is quite literally 9798% of my life over these past 11 months.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with a few things to chew on:

• A really cool new site, found via commondreams.org, tracking the financial backing behind the new conservative “grassroots” (i.e., “tea party” protests, etc) movement.  I read recently that Noam Chomsky had warned a gathering at an Amnesty International event of the dangers that a right-wing populist movement could pose- which I think is a fair point, despite how tempted we may be to simply laugh them off.  The truth of the matter, of course, is that much of what such protesters are instinctually reacting against is, well, worth being against or at least questioning.  The problem, most of the time, is the angle from which the right arrives at their points.  ”Government run” health care? no, of course, shitty.  But they take a “populist” stand for private health care, rather than for real, populist, socialized medicine.  Etc.  My new favorite saying- from the French- that the American right people really needs to meditate on (and move towards): in the United States the people are afraid of the government, in France, the government is afraid of the people.  Think about that one.
• Well, before I’ve gotten a chance to go there, seems we’ve fucked up the beautiful Mount Kilimanjaro.  The UK Times points out that it’s a dramatic show of global climate change’s effects, which it is, but all I keep thinking is “fuck, what wondrous beauty will be left for my kids? really? only historical footage of Kilimanjaro?
• My partner’s best friend, an old political comrade of mine, and my daughter’s godfather gave me this bottle of Glenmorandie Scotch which I’ve managed to keep on hand for a year, and let me tell you, sipping it right now at 11 pm is grand.
• I don’t know what happened in the past few weeks, but the tone over at my friend Mioke’s blog is noticeably different.  Not all the time.  But in general, I’ve found his latest posts to be reflective to a degree that is markedly different from his usual iconoclastism, as well as patient and, good lord what word am I gonna use here- digestive of the small town Vermont (American? I don’t know) experience.  There’s something very zen going on over there, worth keeping an eye on.
• The big national-hype of NY’s 23rd Congressional District (“the fighting 23rd”)  is worth a mention.  If you don’t know, there was a Dem, a Republican, and an independent (a “Conservative Party” candidate, right of the GOP candidate).  This particular district has been represented by a Republican for longer than anyone is able to remember.  The GOP candidate in this case also happens to be a moderate by American political terms (she’s relatively pro-union, her husband being a local AFL-CIO president, as well as being pro-choice).  The Conservative Party candidate hit the ground attacking her as “not a true conservative” and, well, did pretty good damage to her.  Recently she dropped out of the race (polls were showing here a distant third, as well as she had a hard time raising money).  Upon dropping out, she endorsed the Dem, as did a number of national Republicans.  All of which has been a rallying-cry for the Conservative Party candidate who’s claiming to be fighting for the soul of the conservative movement.  Some national Republicans, however, can see the strategic writings on the wall and are calling for “conservatives” to open up their Party to a wider ‘tent’, lest they be left in the political dust.  Well, it just may be too late for that.  This race is a great example of the huge schism in the American Right- between moderates and hard rightists- which is going to be a huge problem for the GOP in elections over the near future.  Not to worry for them, because the Dems have the same problem on their hands, as progressives continue to wake-up to the B.S. that is president Obama and moderates in that party continue to champion him (or, somehow, despise him for being a “socialist” when in fact he’s as socialist as, I dunno, Regean).  Should be interesting, to say the least.
• Interesting note on the state of political protests.  Don’t know entirely what I think, but worth a read.

OK, I’ll be back next week.  Thanks for being here.  Cheers.

Ah yes, now I remember writing, and thinking, and pondering (and throwing my various opinions out at the world)… sorry ’bout that 8-month or so interruption.  Life tends to get in the way of one’s best laid plans, I guess.

And when I left off, I was thinking a lot about- in fact, even working in my spare time on a book- the importance of integral theory to the political providence.  Conversely, I was also thinking a lot about the many ways in which integral thinkers get politics all wrong.  For instance, I just came across a new (to me) site by integral heavy-weight Corey W. deVos, a guy who I generally like (OK, I’ve never met him).  This despite the fact that I have some serious disagreements with his take on “integral politics”.  But it’s nothing personal against him, since the mistakes he makes are rampant throughout the integral community.

In particular, my attention was drawn to a post up on Mr. deVos’ site which is more or less a mini-manifesto on the wonders- the integral nature even- of green capitalism.  As I’ve said before, I’ve found that in general the integral community is liberal (in the American popular sense, liberal to social democratic in the European political sense) and very, very defensive of capitalism.  They like it.  A lot.  At the very best they’d like to see it look more like the capitalist-socialist hybrid that is popular through much of Europe.  But the integral community is, from what I’ve seen, more or less 98% upper-middle class or better.  Even those “without money” come from privilaged backgrounds (not surprisingly, there’s a high concentration of ‘whiteness’ too, since economic standing and racial make-up are so often related, though, again just from what I’ve seen, the racial mix of the integral community is a bit more diverse than the socio-economic mix).

And while I’m on this tangent (I will get to Mr DeVos’ post and my opinions of what’s wrong with it), a word about the integral community’s general economic background (and connected political leanings): it’s no coincidence at all that the integral community is by-and-large made up of individuals whose economic lot have enabled them to have a higher degree of education, and have afforded them the leisure time to ponder the sorts of bigger picture questions that might lead one to come to an integral vantage point of the world (Kosmos, whatever you’d like to call it).  There are, in fact, little if any people (let alone currents) involved with integral theory (or practice or interests) from Harlem, East St Louis, or South Central LA.  There are, however, hotbeds of integral activity in Boulder, Ashville, Burlington.  Speaking in strictly political terms, people who benefit from a political (economic) system are going to be loath to embrace the destruction of that system, even if the destruction of that system were to bring about a net gain for the majority, or even the planet.  Instinctually, we want security and safety, and if we have it, well, it becomes quite a thing to root for something else to take its place, no matter the pros or cons.

So then there’s this article I found on Mr DeVos’ site, Making The Case For Sustainable Business.  Ugh.  OK, OK, wait.  I can be fair about this.  In fact, there is a certain degree to which the article is right.  It notes that huge corporations are “turning green” for, well, profit-related reasons, and that in the short term that’s good, considering the impending ecological disaster that is known as our planet circa 2009.  And sure, I’ll buy that.  I will note, however, that there’s an entirely good point to be made against green capitalism which goes something like “we feel better about the state of things when we partake in ‘green capitalism’ (i.e., buy and champion businesses for their relatively environmentally-friendly products over that which is environmentally un-conscious), which leads only to our complacency in the face of bigger or deeper environmental issues; thus, green capitalism is in fact worse than the in-your-face destructiveness of good ol’ fashioned industrialism, because at least with the latter, we can so easily identify it as so abhorrent that we know we must get rid of it or die”.  To take an example right from the article at hand, DuPont has initiated a plan to cut their carbon emissions by 65% by 2010, which maybe we say “great! huge!” and want to buy DuPont products whenever possible and if we’re able.  We feel good about buying “green” and they reap the profits.  Yet, they’ve done a ‘green act’ by one factor, and we’ve looked past the fact that DuPont is the maker of many fine products that are not only incredibly carcinogenic and/or toxic to people and the environment, but tested on animals.  As well, for just one of what could be untold numbers of examples (just with DuPont), as a leading holder of timber lands, DuPont was (about 85 years ago) instrumental in getting hemp and cannabis outlawed.  Why?  because hemp is far superior- most notably, in an environmentally sustainable way- then timber but the ensuing outlawing of hemp meant that we all had to turn to paper pulp which meant their timber stands increased in value exponentially from what they would have been if we were making our paper out of the far more sustainable hemp plant.  So, sure, they’ve cut their carbon emissions by 65% and that is good.  But to claim that as an environmental- let alone social or political victory, is not only a stretch, but a lie.  If we believe DuPont (or Wal-Mart, another company mentioned in DeVos’ article as voluntarily making great strides to ‘green-up’) are “green” or environmentally sustainable or even sound company’s, well, we’ve merely been fooled (or are fooling ourselves).

Which brings us right back to that article.  Another point I’ll accept is that we humans don’t do very good when it comes to long-term change, but the short-term stuff we can often handle.  And in the short-term, green capitalism (and the ‘greening’ of corporate giants like Wal-Mart) is positive.  Like I said, I’ll ignore the contradicting argument that I just put forth above and agree, in the short term it is good.  I also think, in the short term, it’s good that Wal-Mart is now the U.S.’ number one seller of organic foods.  In the big picture, and the long term (and in this case by “long term” I mean, like, my patience will run out in about two weeks) I’d say it’s like you need a home run to win and the guy squares up for a bunt.

The fact of the matter is that capitalism- green or not- is an exploitive, cohesive, greedy economic system.  The article at hand alleges that it is the very greed of capitalism that is driving more and more businesses to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices.  But greed, as science even know is beginning to affirm, is not the natural human inclination.  Cooperation is.  We are, as I’m fond of saying, a social species.  We cooperate socially to maximize our security, survival, and our lives.  Greed is an exploitation of our survival instincts, it is how we behave in the face of want, scarcity, and insecurity.  Capitalism (and the State which upholds it) keeps up in a constant-state of either being in or perceiving to be in that place, in order to force us to act our part in the grand game of mine, mine, mine.  Capitalism has us hoard while our neighbors (in this day and age a notion expanded to the entire globe) live in want and suffering.  Capitalism has us engage in almost constant relationships of domination (dominator hierarchies) in order to continually ensure our own individual safety and security at the direct expense of our family, friends, community members, and the planet.

Contrary to popular belief, capitalism does not hold the patent on commerce, on trade, on innovation, on production of  goods and services.  I’m not talking about doing away with all that.  I’m talking about social and political (economic) human relationships.  Green is good, yes.  But it is not the answer, not the entirety of it anyway.  The Honda Prius is made in city-sized factory town’s in Japan which hold tens of thousands of illegal migrants like slaves under the the harshest of conditions for bellow minimum wages in sub-standard living conditions… but hey, my car is “green”

No, that’s not enough.  Capitalism is not our future, and it’s certainly not “enlightened” nor “liberated”.  It is economic slavery, exploitation, and domination of man over man.

… is, surprisingly, every once in a while, a great day to be a Miami Dolphins fan.  Especially if some of your regular blog readers are Jets fans.  Ha.

Dolphins should end the year no worse than 10-6; Jets should be close to that mark- the season sweep may be useful come tie-breaker time.  My biggest (and, in fact, only) concern now is the Patriots.  In fact, welcome to the cross-over between this sports post and political life, because there, too, my only concern are the patriots as well.

Every once in a while I find some bit of news that’s not only good, but genuinely exciting; that’s really positive and makes me, well, hopeful.  Today I stumbled on just such news.  It came to me in the form of Tuesday’s announced partnership between the United Steelworkers (USW) and Mondragon Internacional.  USW, of course, is the largest industrial union in the United States, representing over 1.2 million current and retired workers from a variety of sectors.  But you might not have heard of Mondragon: they’re a behemoth corporation with over 260 separate entities under their purview- and every single aspect of Mondragon, from top to bottom, is collectively owned and run by their over 100,000 members.  Mondragon originated in 1956 in the rural Basque region of Spain, and is actually Spain’s 7th largest corporation.  Those 260 separate entities I mentioned operate in over 40 different countries around the world in an almost bizzarly diverse array of sectors, from industrial manufacturing to retail to financial services to construction and, seemingly, almost everything in between.  And, yes, all of it collectively owned and managed by the workers themselves.

The partnership between USW and Mandragon is not only promising, but has the potential to completely re-shape economic recovery in the U.S..  From their joint statement about the collaboration:

“We see today’s agreement as a historic first step towards making union co-ops a viable business model that can create good jobs, empower workers, and support communities in the United States and Canada,” said USW International President Leo W. Gerard. “Too often we have seen Wall Street hollow out companies by draining their cash and assets and hollowing out communities by shedding jobs and shuttering plants. We need a new business model that invests in workers and invests in communities.”

Josu Ugarte, President of MONDGRAGON Internacional added: “What we are announcing today represents a historic first—combining the world’s largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world’s most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complimentary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America.”

Highlighting the differences between Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and union co-ops, Gerard said, “We have lots of experience with ESOPs, but have found that it doesn’t take long for the Wall Street types to push workers aside and take back control. We see Mondragon’s cooperative model with ‘one worker, one vote’ ownership as a means to re-empower workers and make business accountable to Main Street instead of Wall Street.”

And in there is exactly the point: when businesses (be they manufacturing plants, construction companies, retail operations, financial services, whatever) are firmly rooted and invested in the people and places where they exist- not out of some abstract idea or feel-good community relations ploy, but because the “business” itself is the very people who are the community- then there is no question of moving jobs oversees, of outsourcing, of benefit cuts for the bottom and pay increases for the top.  Businesses which are in fact the community, and not a bottom-line promoter for Wall Street, or a handful of profit-driven CEO’s are good employers, good neighbors, and good stewards of of the environment; because it’s themselves and their friends and family that they’re employing, it’s their actual neighbors, and their own environment which is all to be not only protected, but even enhanced by their actions.  Win, win, win (for everyone except, well, Wall Street).

So cheers to this welcome development.  I’ll be keeping a close eye on how they progress.

Following from that title, let me be clear:  for every Dem I despise, there’s a Republican to match him (or her).  Likewise, for every motion made by a Dem that I like, there’s an equal one done by some GOP operative.  But lets take a quick look at what the Dems, on the national stage, are up to:

• Max Bacus (D-Montana):  We ‘can’t afford the unmitigated effects of fighting climate change’.  Yes, that’s right, it’s too expensive to have an energy/transportation/industrial system that doesn’t rape and pillage the planet.  Score one for Nineteenth Century thinking.
• Patrick Leahy (D- Vermont):  Talks a dam tough game, and quite honestly, has come through solid on a few things for us Vermonters… but when it comes to the USA PATRIOT ACT, or holding the Bush Administration accountable for any number of their crimes (domestic or international), well, let’s just say score one for Orwell’s 1984.
• Harry Reid (D-Nevada):  While so many out in liberal la-la land are excited that Reid has decided to force through “a public option”, the fact of the matter is that, no matter what any polls show or what the public opinion is, nothing that’s going to hit the Senate floor will be good enough and health care (and the cost of health insurance) (hell, the very idea of having health “insurance”) will continue to cripple working people, be they lower or middle class.  Listen, this is just the issue of the moment- health care ties into so many important things right now.  It’s time to take a page from the Revolutionary playbook: it’s estimated that, at best, 25-33% of the public supported becoming independent from England at the time of the American Revolution; but those guys went forward with it anyway… and you know what? no one questions their wisdom now- no one, ever, anywhere, suggests it was a bad idea because it wasn’t supported by a majority of the people at the time.  Once Americans have full-blown, never see a bill, maybe your taxes go up a little (if you make a decent living or better to begin with), health care, I’d give ‘em 10 months at best to forget entirely what their original opinion on socialized medicine was.  When it comes to health care in America, score one for Eighteenth Century England.
• Barack Obama (D- United States):  October has been the deadliest month for American troops in Afghanistan- ever.  Score one for electing a “socialist”.

I could go on of course- there are thousands of elected Democrats all over the country.  But that would be exhausting, and I’m tired as it is.  Plus, I may feel obligated to do the same for Republicans (just to be fair) which just well might take a lifetime.  But my point is simple: don’t rely on politicians (liberal, conservative, “independent”, whatever) to make the world right.  We’ve got to do it ourselves.  It’s always been that way, for all of human history.  My favorite bumper sticker is still an axiom that I adhere to every waking moment: “comfort the disturbed, and disturb the comfortable”.

As I try-out my writing wheels (haven’t done this for a while) forgive me if I ease myself in.  So for your consideration, a few things around the interwebs that have caught my eye:

• For starters, a really great piece contemplating- and naming- the manner in which class (or, better yet, “class war”) determines who is going to fight U.S. wars and who, well, doesn’t have to even think about it.  Even better: the author reminds us of the Helots, a class of people in ancient Sparta who were more or less owned “by the public” and used as warriors and soldiers to fight and conquest and pillage on behalf of the elite of their day; and then the author goes on to suggest that today’s “all-volunteer military” represent a sort-of class-based version of the Helots.
• Somewhere back in time there I had come across, read, and meant to post here about a pretty good piece written from the libertarian left to the libertarian right (as embodied by the “Tea Party” protests).  Of course, I never got that up, as my postings this past summer have been mostly limited to occasional youtube video’s and endless “geez, sorry I haven’t written anything lately” diaries.  But now that same piece has been made available as a pdf for printing out the pamphlet yourself, which was an excellent reminder to me to direct your attention to the thing.  I won’t say I’m with it 100%, but I think it’s well done, and definitely in a better direction than 97% of what “anarchists” put out, either on the web or in print.
• But speaking of the dribble anarchists put out there: another exception to that 97% I just mentioned in this piece, noting that the Nobel Prize in Economics not only was just awarded to a woman for the first time, but that her work largely validates and confirms what anarchists have been saying all along.  Specifically, Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel in Economics for her work challenging the notion that common property (“the commons”) is poorly managed and should either be regulated by central authorities or privatized.  Ostrom’s findings- again, which just won her a Nobel prize in Economics- have been that when certain common sense principles are applied (for one, that everyone involved knows the parameters of usage) collective management of resources is much more efficient and beneficial to the population- and planet- as a whole.
• And speaking of collective ownership, it seems the beleaguered Fairpoint (owner of most- all?- the land-lines in Vermont) has finally filed for Chapter 11.  Fairpoint’s take-over of the phone and internet infrastructure of the State (and New Hampshire and Maine) has been one of the biggest public utility disasters in quite some time.  How to fix it?  Either a user-owned or employee-owned model.  Anything short will keep this headache spinning.  Now if only the suits in the Statehouse had the balls for that move….
• Hello, VT Indy Media?  Are you there?  Content (and use) of that potentially great public resource has made my output on this site the past few months look like a comparison between the New York Times and the Montpelier Bridge.  Please, someone, please take the helm there and get that site up and useful!
• Finally, some housekeeping.  For starters, I’d just like to wonder out loud what the fuck was up with the unknown person who- on October 16- posted this comment on one of my pieces about the Republic Windows & Doors occupation- “how long is it going to take to get them workers back in”?  My advice to that person: when scouring the web or the blogosphere, check the date of the piece you’re reading (in this case, it was dated February 28) before commenting.  Come to think of it: the piece that comment was posted on was the piece noting that the plant was re-opening and all the former RW&D workers were being re-hired!!! My new advice to that commentator: don’t comment here anymore!

Also, one of the quickie posts I put up at some point recently was a blurb mentioning that VT Senator Bernie Sanders had done some kinda Q & A       after a Burlington showing of Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story, and I had merely mentioned that, hell, at least Bernie’s better than the             rest of the Washington slime.  I didn’t even go close to saying “Bernie’s great” or even “Bernie’s good”- let alone that I support the B.S. system that sends someone thousands of miles away to “represent” me and my interests- just that he’s better than the rest.  Apparently, the high-priestom of radicalism didn’t like that, and I got a little wave of comments about how I’d gone astray and lecturing me about how well Bernie’s done off capitalism bla bla bla…. good grief guys, save it for your in-laws.

And lastly, at some point back there this little site got a ping-back from someone who I don’t know, but who apparently reads my musings every once in a while.  Hey, they even called me “a fascinating guy”.  Cool.  Well, not necessarily, since that remark was at my identity as a libertarian-socialist, who this person says seems contradictory.  So, to Carson, here, here, and this interesting nugget I just came across.  Hope you enjoy.

But actually, that wasn’t what I wanted to bring-up about Carson’s post re:me.  Carson does make a good point, concerning the flawed logic of “if you don’t support more funding for x, don’t complain if x doesn’t work perfect.”  Where were the Dems regarding the War in Iraq on that one?  But I think Carson likes rejecting the flaws of that argument too much, enough even to not be particularly clear.  It’s true that something (in this case, a train) isn’t well or poorly run based solely on funding; however, the funding is nonetheless a significant factor.  Period.  You even say so yourself.  I wasn’t quoting the commondreams piece as an example of exemplary reasoning and thorough analysis: just a sorta amusing tidbit (legislator who voted against DC Metro funding gets angry with DC Metro when trains don’t run on time), and it is a fine example of just what the piece called it: cognitive dissonance.

As per this final question that Carson poses:  shouldn’t supposedly intelligent people be ashamed to habitually use immature smear terms to deride large groups of people (such as “teabagger”)? The answer to that question is NO.  ”Supposedly intelligent people” are just as likely, I’d assume, as supposedly un-intelligent people to make use of the structure (inherent as well as popular) of the language at hand.  Groups of people who largely classify together are, more times than not, going to be associated with a term or name.  ”Immature smear terms” is a purely relativistic individual notion (many people use “anarchist” or “anarchy” as a smear term, I self-identify proudly as such).  Generally, if one identifies or supports or is even sympathetic to a particular movement, idea, cause, notion, (etc) they’re going to pick and stick with a more positive generality (or “smear term”) while if not, well, then a more negative one.  One of my favorite things about being human is that I’m endowed with both reasoned thought and emotional inclination.  I don’t find any need- or use, come to think of it- of treating all of life with a lab-coat on and assigning academically neutral descriptors to everything I encounter or think about.  I find even the people who think they do don’t do a very good job (for instance, trying getting such a supposedly neutral and rational and “fair” person to talk about something like religion or being in love- they can quite often be pretty dismissive or condescending).  My point is immature smear terms are for all of us.  I guess it’s just the degree with which they’re launched that tells us if  we’re in a serious debate or not.

Dear god, I’m so sorry.   I’ve been the worst blogger.  It happens, I guess.  What I don’t understand, though, so who keeps coming here, as my site visits are not only holding steady (albeit lower than the average of when I was writing consistently) but today, somehow, I have a record number of visits.  ?

But I’m ready, now, to start writing again.  Beginning this weekend, I’ll be posting on a somewhat regular basis.  I promise.