I finally had a chance to watch Flow, an incredible (and incredibly disturbing) documentary about the privatization of the world's water supply. More than just an anti-corporate diatribe, the film speaks to the inevitability of the looming water crisis, and what that might look like based on where the battles are being fought now. And they are battles.
Water is a $400 billion industry—the third largest behind electricity and oil. My mind kind of explodes at that statistic. We're talking about water. The slow commodification of the natural resources most fundamental to human existence should raise alarm bells in every human being. And yet, one in five Americans refuse to drink anything but purchased bottled water; even though a four-year study by the NRDC found over a third of the tested bottle brands were contaminated with synthetic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic.
This isn't just an "over there" issue impacting the lives of underdeveloped or developing countries: as of May 2009, over 30% of America was experiencing "abnormally dry or drought" conditions. Public water supplies are being handed over to private corporations, who are then denying entire populations access to clean water supplies—and frequently contaminating the remainder.
We can each participate in the change
One of the strengths of Flow is the movie's focus on solutions. There is a growing movement of ordinary citizens across the globe who are banding together to demand safe access to clean water. Here are just a few easy things you can do to help:
Watch Flow, and talk about it with people you know. Information needs to spread, and you're how it happens.
Sign the petition to add "the right to clean and accessible water, adequate for the health and well-being of the individual and family" to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This simple act will enable those struggling for safe water a powerful tool in the struggle for access.
Delve deeper by exploring the various resources and groups working on this issue.
With America's first black president-elect comes a wave of optimism, it seems: things will be okay. But even as the public breathes this collective sigh of relief, it turns a wary eye to Barack Obama and wonders, if quietly, will things really be okay? Because the Bush administration has done real damage to America's democratic structure by limiting civil liberties, creating undemocratic "justice" systems, and otherwise desecrating our constitution. This damage is frightenly cataloged by Naomi Wolf in her 2007 book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.
Wolf's basic premise is simple and hard to dispute: when studying dictators throughout the world's history, there are ten patterns of behavior that emerge that contribute to their rise to power, and George W. Bush and his administration has pursued each of these steps. While never outright calling Bush and his posse a fascist dictatorship, Wolf certainly connects many dots and sounds a clear warning. Paper coups are still coups.
The Ten Steps Towards Fascist Dictatorship
Invoke an external and internal threat. Example: Terrorism
Establish secret prisons. Example: Guantánamo
Develop a paramilitary force. Example: Blackwater
Surveil ordinary citizens. Example: USA Patriot Act and TIPS
Infiltrate citizen's groups. Example: Talon and multiple state-level incidents
Arbitrarily detain and release citizens. Example: The TSA no-fly list, specific individual arrests
Target key individuals. Example: Direct Congressional pressure on academia, attorney firings
Restrict the press. Example: The outing of Valerie Plame, detainment of reporters, deliberate withholding of information
Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason." Example: Revived use of the Espionage Act
Subvert the rule of law. Example: Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the suspension of habeous corpus), Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (the gutting of posse comitatus law)
Wolf's arguments and examples in most cases are incredibly strong and well documented (including 14 pages of reference notes and a full bibliography). Unfortunately, there are stretches that undermine her message. She too often conflates the media (particularly the right-leaning outlets and blogosphere) with the administration itself, as when she hammers Ann Coulter for her book Treason. But these leaps become a little easier to swallow when we remember that much of Hitler's power lay in his use of ordinary citizens, as well as organized media, to further his message. Just because one's finger is not on the trigger doesn't mean they aren't responsible for the death.
That said, the book is by no means a simple comparison of Bush and Hitler. That would be too simplistic, and could be easily brushed off as left-wing rhetoric. Wolf's arguments transcend this, referencing more than just the obvious Nazi regime (who, after all, were simply better at such tactics than anyone else). Mussolini, Pinochet, Stalin and others all appear frequently to bolster her points. In fact, there are suprisingly few histrionics; Wolf spends much of her writing merely cataloging events and listing actions from different regimes side by side for the reader to compare.
While the book's premise is strongly supported by facts, it's the epistolary format and sheer number of wrongdoings that makes the book a little heavy-handed. Of course, this is the author's intention, but it would have been nice to see a few practical suggestions other than be aware, be vigilant offered to the reader. I suspect this omission is deliberate, though. Wolf's aim is to awaken, not necessarily to direct. She is asking her reader to consider the true meaning of patriot, someone who actively participates in and engages with one's civic society. And to do so, one must first pay attention.
And with chilling examples, Wolf demands our attention. In the end, it's extremely difficult to write off such examples as merely rhetoric, or such warnings as unlikely to occur. Small events become significant when placed against the backdrop of government, as when she describes a TSA agent forcing a mother to prove the substance in her baby's bottle is really breastmilk by drinking it herself: "In Benito Mussolini's era, one intimidation tactic was to force citizens to drink emetics and other liquids...Of course, baby formula is not an emetic. But a state agent—some agents are armed—forcing a citizen to ingest a liquid is a new scene in America."
When the scenes play out, and the layers are peeled back, and the dots begin to connect, what remains are nagging questions: how far does the administration have to go it before its citizens refuse to cooperate? How many democratic protections must be suspended before the public demands its rights back? How many secret armies, Blackwaters, must be formed? How many innocent citizens must be harrassed, jailed, persecuted before their peers step up in their defense? On Tuesday, we heard one answer to these questions.
So, perhaps the recent election signalled The End of America over before it began. What sense is there in rehashing the last eight years, after all, when we all want to move forward? The truth is, it would be dangerous to sit back and rest easy. The Bush administration did a lot of damage; it took an extended series of measured, deliberate steps to maintain and grow its power at the expense of the U.S. Constitution. Those changes will still be operable under the new presidency—we need to know them, to study them, to be able to roll them back.
Wolf's book is, if no longer a warning of imminent danger, at the very least a guide to serious legal issues that need to be addressed by the still-forming Obama administration. So much of the Bush administration's activities were carried out in the shadows of a disinterested, and therefore uninformed, electorate, that one can only hope that Tuesday's engagement was the mark of an extended era, and not merely an emotional hiccup. The end of America may have been delayed, but this book remains a damning documentation of how close we were, and are.
---
Whether you read the book or not, I highly recommend watching the following presentation, in which Wolf outlines her premise and presents incredible evidence to support it. A more polished version (with commercials) is also available from SnagFilms.
You probably (hopefully) know all about Skull-a-Day by now. My buddy Noah Scalin, of Another Limited Rebellion, spent a full year creating a...wait for it...skull a day out of every conceivable material under the sun. The dedication paid off, because he's now released Skulls, a collection of some of his favorite examples.
On first glance, the book is what it is: a simple collection of one skull after another. But as you start to flip through the pages, each work of art reveals something new about its subject, each material presenting a completely different face. The food skulls are somehow particularly revealing, the skins and flesh of squashes and pepper (and in one case, an entire salad) giving an odd life to such static matter.
It's hard to pick favorites from this book, because there are so many incredibly revealing pieces. I'm particularly drawn to the seemingly simplest ones, like the hotel bed sheet skull, stapled leaf skull, and caution tape skull.
One facet of this project that doesn't get mentioned nearly often enough in all the press Noah's received is the artistry that threads its way through this collection. He clearly takes his cue from his materials, but still manages to give each skull its own personality, shape and even expression. As Martha herself noted when he crashed gracefully appeared on the Martha Stewart Show, knuckle tats and all, that's a good thing.*
*I don't actually remember if Martha said this to Noah during the show; she was probably too busy interrupting him. But nevertheless, he was on the frigging Martha Stewart Show making skulls with her.
Twice a year, the Art Explosion Studios in San Francisco open their doors for a mass art show featuring their tenants' work. You get the opportunity to take in a huge variety of art in one place, and to talk to the artists themselves about their work and process. This is a quick recap of just a few of the artists that really stuck with me this weekend.
By far my favorite of the show, but I'm a sucker for black and white photography. And shot with a Holga, no less. Keith was showing a wall full of this work, which focused entirely of natural landscapes. Not only does the circular framing amplify the organic shapes within the frame, it combines with the black and white medium to create an almost scientific specimen-like effect. It's beautiful work, almost breathtaking.
Definitely explore his website, as he has several sets of images that are stylistically very different from each other. His sweeping horizons and transparent collection are worth a look-see.
I am not typically drawn to work like this, but something about it stopped me in my tracks. This little red house kept making an appearance, often in multiplicities, throughout Ken's work, only to end up in flames in his recent drawings. The meticulous geometry of his pencil lines frame a weird sort of chaos. All in a folk arty, colorful vernacular that normally turns me off but this time around pulled me in.
Artists without Websites
Sophia Antipas: A great eye for outside space, architectural and organic details, color. Don Ross: Not a lot on display, but my favorite was a large-size drugstore diptych of a young boy (kid) and woman. Beth Schuenemann: The woman I came to see. Really graphic, colorful paintings of San Francisco buildings. I'll get my hands on some of her work and post it soon. Britt's Baby: Yes, it's wicked corny, but Beth's coworker Britt had her baby with her and the kid was a work of art. Four weeks old, tiny, and very, very serious. Honestly, she looked a little intense. Like, don't mess with me tense. But in a sweet, new baby way.
After I spent two hours reading the full text of Congress' draft economic bailout plan, also known as "The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," the bill failed to pass on a vote of 229-205. This is a big deal, of course. The stock market dipped, but it remains to be seen just how much of a crisis this will become over the long term. After reading through the bill, I'm relieved at Congress' vote. The plan was sweeping in nature, giving Henry Paulson control over $700 billion dollars of our money. There was plenty of "so-and-so must report to so-and-so" scattered throughout the bill, but very little actual definition of how the bailout would work. Advocates of the bill are going to try again to get it passed later this week.
In case you're interested, here are just a few tidbits that stood out for me on my read-through:
Administrating the Plan
Henry Paulson will head up a new office responsible for executing the plan he created. This office will be monitored by an oversight board consisting of: Henry Paulson himself, Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve), James Lockhart (regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), William Donaldson (Chairman of the SEC), and Steve Preston (Secretary of the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development). Given the previous lack of oversight we're now dealing with, I'm not sure whether these men can be trusted to know what they're doing (or, at least, to do anything truly in the public interest).
The plan does not outline how he will: define "troubled assets" for purchase, purchase said assets, price and value them, or select the managers assigned to manage them. He will, however, have to submit these guidelines either two days after purchasing the first batch of assets, or 45 days after Congress passes this plan, whichever is sooner. It's kind of like the authority they gave to Bush on the eve of invading Iraq.
There are some decent reporting requirements, but we know the current administration's track record for disclosing information to Congress, even when required by law. They tend not to do it.
Limiting Corporate Profits
The plan requires Paulson to "take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset." The very next sentence, however, excludes what may amount to every bank in question: "This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings..." I'd be interested to know exactly how many institutions this excludes.
The plan does allow for certain mortgage loans to be renegotiated via the HOPE for Homeowners Program, which means some people facing foreclosure may be able to negotiate new interest rates and/or take tax credits. This also means some lenders will be forced to take a loss on their loans in exchange for the likelihood of partial repayment (a good thing). None of this is guaranteed, of course; it's simply allowed.
The so-called "golden parachute ban" is a little misleading. While there is a ban on golden parachute payments (in which an executive is paid for being fired or entering bankruptcy), senior executives can still receive compensation "based on statements of earnings, gains, or other criteria," as long as the financial statements are accurate. In addition, golden parachute payments are allowed for banks who sell assets worth $300,000,000 or less at auction. The golden parachute limitations are in effect only while the feds are managing these purchased assets; they don't apply to corporations not involved in this bailout. So, there is no real long-term reform of this aspect of corporate law. There are several pages at the end of the 110-page document that discuss additional golden parachute definitions—my small mind couldn't wrap itself around these clauses well enough. Feel free to read them yourself and get back to me.
Is There a Plan B?
If the Iraq War taught us anything, it's that every plan needs an exit strategy. This one's strategy seems simple enough, yet I can't see how it's really a feasible option. Essentially, it the plan calls for a 5-year review of how much money is left in the troubled assets fund that we're about to buy/create. If there is a "shortfall" (which I believe means if the assets we buy are worth less in 5 years than they were when we bought them), then the president is to draw up legislation "that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt." A nice idea, but will the financial industry be in any position to pay off the debt five years from now if it can't pay it off now? Perhaps I'm simple-minded, but this doesn't seem feasible.
Identifying the Underlying Cause of the Crisis
The plan also establishes a study of what role leveraging (the practice of putting down a smaller deposit while taking out a larger loan in order to gain more paper equity) played in the onset of this financial crisis. This report will focus mostly on what role the federal government played (wild guess here: complete lack of oversight), and suggestions for future involvement. The report is supposed to be completed by June 1, 2009.
In addition to the leveraging study, the plan calls for a study of the impact of mark-to-market accounting practices on the financial crisis.
The Most Ominous Line in the Draft Plan?
"The statutory limit on the public debt...is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting '$11,315,000,000,000’."
Choose your feed
Subscribe via email
