Since Republicans insist on worshiping both markets and warfare…

Why not make them put their money where their mouth is? If the federal government wants to go to war, it has to set up a publicly traded corporation to execute the whole venture. One separate corporation for each war. The corporations can lease hardware from the military, but whatever means they choose of operating the war, they have to turn a profit. After all, a venture is only worthwhile if it turns a profit, isn’t that right, conservatives?

Funny enough, this is essentially the sort of thing corporations were originally intended to do. Not go to war, necessarily, but consider early corporations like the British East/West India Companies. They were formed under special dispensation from the government to fulfill a specific function.

But that tiny history lesson aside, what of it, Republicans? If the market is supposed to automatically select for beneficial ventures in the form of profit, are you willing to put your precious wars out on the free market? Or when it comes to defense are you suddenly becoming evil socialists?!

Leave It to Vault Boy: Privilege, Nuclear War, and Exploding Heads

Vault Boy

If you follow me on Twitter or Tumblr, you’ll recognize this as my avatar. If you’re a fan of the Fallout games, you’ll recognize it as Vault Boy (not Pip Boy). I use him as my avatar because I, too, am a huge fan of the Fallout games, but also for a more pertinent reason: Vault Boy is basically a symbol of privilege.

The lily white skin and Aryan hair wasn’t chosen lightly. There’s a lot of commentary about classism and mid-20th-century cultural conformity hidden under the surface of the game’s premise. The fact that the game’s designers recognized the connection between those social attitudes and the perpetual warfare state that America was becoming around the same time, which is ultimately what leads to the nuclear annihilation in the game’s universe, is heartwarming.

(A lot of the subtlety and subtext embedded in the Fallout lore was lost with Fallout 3, of course, but that’s what happens when you let Bethesda design your video games.)

The series’ retro-futurist aesthetic wasn’t chosen at random, after all. Retro-futurism in general has gotten a bit trite, in my opinion, and in fact this was true even when Fallout was released in 1997. But the visual design doesn’t stand alone – it’s an important component of the game’s thematic purpose, which is to take American society in the 1950s, with all its gaping ideological contradictions, xenophobia, and normalization of white suburban life, and extrapolate that straight into the 21st century, where it all gets vaporized by a global nuclear exchange.

The biggest tip-off that this is what the series is really about comes from the intro of Fallout 2, which is a tad bit less subtle than its predecessor. In the intro, an orientation video instructs survivors of the nuclear war to use the GECK to render the wasteland habitable again. This is the promise it makes:

Screenshot from Fallout 2It’s an amusing moment the first time you see it in the video; GECK stands for Garden of Eden Creation Kit (the name is goofy because it was originally a joke in the Fallout manual before it became a real thing in Fallout 2), so when it promises to revitalize the wasteland, you’re expecting images of lush vegetation and fertile oases. But as it turns out, in a twist that shouldn’t surprise you as much as it does, what the middle- and upper-class Americans watching the orientation video consider “habitable” is suburbia. The image of a post-nuclear suburbia is a lie, of course, but it’s the image the people want to see.

Fallout 2's GECK

Retro-futurism: Like steampunk, but without the hard-on for Victoriana. (Oh yeah, almost forgot, this is the GECK.)

A lot of post-apocalyptic books and movies portray the apocalypse as a sort of reboot for the human race. The society that gets built on the other side of Armageddon may or may not be ideal, but it’s essentially a tabula rasa. The result could be anything, and there’s no telling if it’ll resemble the consumerist military state of post-WW2 America.

That’s something that would inevitably terrify the privileged classes of pre-apocalypse America. They don’t want a reboot – the status quo is working out just fine for them, thankyouverymuch. And those privileged people are the ones who can afford to go into the Vaults, so when you hand those people a GECK, saying, “This will fertilize the soil so you can farm!” isn’t going to come across as a great sales pitch. The only future they’re going to feel comfortable looking forward to is one where they can still live in their comfortable Leave It to Beaver fantasyland in which they get to pretend that they’re the hard workers of the world and the people outside their neighborhoods, the ones growing, delivering, and preparing their food, among other things, are a bunch of lazy bums.

This class anxiety isn’t confined to the intro videos. In fact, a lot of the violence that occurs in the world of Fallout is part of larger, ideological conflict regarding what kind of society the people of that world are trying to build for themselves. There are those who want to be capitalist overlords, those who want a purely egalitarian society, and a lot of people in between. And the thing that makes all this work in F1 and 2 (and the thing that’s missing from F3′s ridiculous caricatures of class conflict) is that the people involved don’t realize that that’s what they’re doing. They’re fighting one battle at a time, be it against corrupt casino magnates or armies of supermutants, and are largely unaware that they’re engaged in a battle of ideologies that will decide the future shape of society.

The irony, of course, is that the nuclear holocaust everyone was so afraid of during the Cold War would have been caused by our country’s destructive foreign policy, a policy designed specifically to sustain the very middle class that was so afraid of a post-nuclear world without cul-de-sacs and front yards. The military-industrial complex seems to believe that it can remain balanced on the razor’s edge of perpetual warfare. Fallout is a game about what happens when they fail.

Gingrich’s campaign envisions a dystopian sci-fi world of gunfighting sheep and high-stakes cocktails

The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.

That was a statement made by a spokesman for Gingrich’s campaign in response to all the grilling Gingrich has been subjected to in the media lately. An official, on-the-record statement.

Let me see if I can piece together the narrative here. The secret cabal of literature scholars who run our government dispatched their sheep-ninjas to protect the establishment from the threatening forces of Newt Gingrich. The sheep-ninjas waited for a moment of weakness and began firing upon Gingrich’s forces. Sensing a threat to their status as cocktail party invitees, the sheep-ninjas intensified their fire. But Gingrich arose from the smoke like the Terminator towards the end of Terminator.

Do I have that about right? It’s a difficult story to follow.

Some words about suburbs

I came across this excellent comment on Pandagon today. I’m just going to leave it here, as there’s not much I can do to improve upon it.

As a transportation planning professional and a student of environmental science, I can tell you that it is an objective fact that “cities rule, suburbs drool.” Suburbs are a modern anomaly of human geography, born of the brains of hundreds of elite-educated, white, straight, Christian cis men who never even considered the idea that women who stay home with their children might want to move themselves and their children from place to place during the day. These planners eschewed sidewalks and connected streets for car-only cul-de-sacs, on-ramps, and interstates. The physical layout of cul-de-sacs is in itself wasteful of automobile fuel and actively prevents bicyclists and pedestrians from using the street network to move around in space. Every new suburban development requires new installations of waterworks (treated water to, sewage from), electrical and communications infrastructure, and of course lots and lots of road-building. The acres of green lawns are a waste of space, an ecological monoculture that is a nightmare for local wildlife to negotiate. The runoff from the same is a major source of pollution in local waterways. Besides all the environmental impacts, segregating residential areas from business, education, and civic infrastructure is now widely recognized to be a lousy idea in terms of cultural development and cultural enrichment. And don’t forget that the reason that suburbs are so overwhelmingly white most of the time is because the federal government, in partnership with private lenders, conspired to prevent people of color from moving into them.

While I don’t fault people who prefer a quiet, safe environment in which to raise their kids, suburbs are not the only sort of development that can provide this. Plenty of urban areas have lots of green space and low crime rates, as do small town and village centers. Unfortunately, small town and village centers are not the norm in a lot of America, so I can’t really fault people who end up in suburbs by default. But please, let’s not pretend that there’s a smidge of controversy about how utterly toxic suburbs are, both for the environment and for human communities.

Adam Smith, Socialist, Part 0: Introduction

The title of this post is a lie. Or at best, it’s a severe exaggeration. Adam Smith was not a socialist, not least because socialism didn’t yet exist. The ideas that would ultimately coalesce into socialism existed long before Smith, yes, but no unified movement called socialism was around during his lifetime.

But I’ve chosen “Adam Smith, Socialist” as the title of the new series of posts I’m embarking on for one main reason: because my central argument will be that calling Adam Smith a socialist, while inaccurate, is not the least bit more inaccurate than hailing Smith as a free market libertarian. Laissez-faire conservatives and libertarians are entirely comfortable with looking up to Smith as one of their heroes. And why shouldn’t they? There’s no law that says we have to choose heroes who agree with our every tenet, although I would encourage conservatives and libertarians to be more honest with themselves and others about what Smith actually believed and argued.

My point is, why shouldn’t socialists also look up to Adam Smith as one of our heroes? I say this not just in an attempt to appropriate Smith from the libertarians, but to re-appropriate Smith for the sake of Smith himself. Smith is not the anti-Marx. And he was not some libertarian Jesus overturning government bureaucrats’ tables in the temple of the free market. He was an economic philosopher who said some very smart and agreeable things, and it’s time we socialists stop letting the taint of libertarianism stop us from appreciating him and his work.

That association with libertarianism that turns many of us off from Smith is an invention of the libertarians, not one he invites upon himself. If we look at Adam Smith’s work and judge it on its own merits, we’ll find a lot of support for our own ideas inside the pages of his books. And that’s what I’m going to do in this upcoming series.

I’m going to read The Wealth of Nations (short for On the Origin of Species by Means of the Wealth of Nations… actually, that doesn’t sound right; whatever, I’ll get it figured out before I write Part 1). And I’m going to talk about it as I read it. There are 31 chapters in The Wealth of Nations, so I figure I’ll do one post per chapter. I’ll try to do one per day, but no promises. I’m exceptionally lazy, and these chapters look kind of long. I just don’t want to be at this for the next decade like some people I could name (cough, Fred Clark).

So anyway, come on this journey with me and so on and so forth. Look for Part 1 in the next few days.

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

Oh right, that was the title. I don't know where I got that "Origin of Species" stuff. Is it the title of a Yes album?

I don’t know what a “food stamp president” is, but I’m pretty sure it’s racist

Newt Gingrich

Former US Representative for the State of Georgia, Newt "Newt" Gingrich

Ah, Deep South Republicans. They seem to have a special penchant for making completely incoherent points that still manage to be racist and classist. Their rhetorical strategy seems to revolve around devising statements that are utterly devoid of actual meaning, but touch on certain race and class anxieties in their target constituency. Presumably that’s why Newt Gingrich, veteran politician from my own state of Georgia, called Obama “the most successful food stamp president in American history.”

Gingrich is making a bid for president in 2012, and every Republican who does that immediately starts spouting bizarre shit like that 24/7. (Every Republican except Rudolph Guiliani, that is, but that’s why Guiliani managed to make less of a splash in 2008 than Ron Paul.) Of course, Gingrich has been spouting that kind of bizarre shit his entire career, so it probably comes pretty easily to him at this point. But I fully expect to see him turn the crazy up to 11 now that he’s gunning for president. In today’s TV-personality-centric society, after all, it appears that Donald Trump is the one setting the tone for this election cycle. Trump probably won’t even end up on the ballot, of course, but his face is out there on the news networks, and he’s shaping the Republican side of the debate in a way that actual Republican politicians probably aren’t entirely happy about.

Don’t get me wrong, the Republican core probably feels the same way about Obama that Trump does. But Trump is going about this all wrong. He’s making easily disprovable attacks on Obama, stuff that’s either right or wrong. Accuse Obama of not being a citizen? All Obama has to do is bust out the birth certificate.

Trump should leave it to the professionals. Old-school Republicans like Gingrich know how to attack a Democratic politician. Don’t make disprovable claims. Just call him a “food stamp president.” See, it’s got the phrase “food stamp” in it, so it immediately associates Obama with all those smelly poor people that the GOP base isn’t a big fan of. But it means absolutely nothing, so there’s no way to disprove it.

I mean, what the fuck is a food stamp president? How do you respond to that? I suppose the implication is that the Obama Administration has presided over a growing number of food stamp recipients, which is true. But hasn’t Gingrich noticed one or two other factors in the past few years that might have contributed to that? Maybe something going on besides the election of a black guy Democrat as president? You know what, I made a handy graph of federal welfare spending for a prior post. Let’s look at it again:

Line graph depicting welfare spending and defense spending

See that sudden upswing in income security (aka welfare) spending? Why, it spans the entire length of the Obama Administration thus far! That proves it! Except that the upswing begins in 2007 or 2008, back when black US presidents were still confined to mediocre Elijah Wood movies.

So come on, Newt, you can do this. Are you sure you can’t think of any other reasons for an increase in welfare spending like that? Perhaps something to do with one of the highest rates of unemployment since the Great Depression?

Actually Gingrich does tangentially acknowledge this. Immediately after calling Obama a food stamp president, he says, “I would like to be the most successful paycheck president in American history.” Yeah, I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt, if his party had made a single serious attempt since the beginning of this recession to create jobs.

Gingrich’s party is the party that’s opposed to federal spending except on rich people. You don’t create jobs by spending federal money on rich people. You create jobs by spending federal money on public works, construction projects, infrastructure, that kind of thing. Even ignoring the long-term benefits of these kinds of spending, in the short term you’ll have to employ people to build them. This is a pretty blindingly obvious fact that the GOP spends a lot of energy denying.

Meanwhile, those of us in the reality-based camp see the federal government handing out a lot more free money to rich people, defense contractors, oil companies, etc., than to poor people. Newt Gingrich helped make sure of it.

April was the cruelest month

Mother Jones reports:

April 2011 saw a remarkable amount of anti-choice legislation. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 33 laws in 9 states restricted abortion or made it more difficult for women to obtain them.

Some of the measures passed are almost (almost) amusing in their cluelessness and ineffectiveness. Laws requiring women to receive counseling before an abortion is performed presume that women wouldn’t get the abortion if they just stopped to think about it (the reason it’s not, in fact, amusing is that it carries the presumption that women can’t make these kinds of decisions for themselves). More importantly, they ignore the fact that pretty much every abortion clinic already counsels patients extensively before an abortion is performed, and they do this by choice and out of concern for their patients’ well-being, not because they have to. The actual purpose behind the state-mandated counseling (and yet another reason it’s not funny) is to try to get abortion clinics to call women murderers.

Another of the measures that’s becoming popular with anti-choice assholes is the requirement that a woman be shown an ultrasound of her fetus before an abortion is performed, presumably while a Baptist minister stands in the room, pointing at the screen and shouting, “Look at that! God created that and you want to murder that poor child! Harlot!” Again, anti-choicers are operating on the assumption that women who get abortions do so on a whim, without actually thinking about what’s going on inside their bodies. Surely if we just show them the baby inside them, their maternal instinct will kick in and they’ll do what Pasty White Male Jesus wants them to do!

About half of abortions occur in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. Here is what the ultrasound might look like if a pregnant woman chooses to get an abortion during her eighth week:

Ultrasound of fetus at eight weeks of gestation

Let’s cut the sentiment for a second: that could be a kidney bean that accidentally got crammed into her uterus. I’m not denying what’s actually there (a clump of rapidly dividing cells with no significant brain development as yet), but the point is, forcing a pregnant woman to look at this image doesn’t seem incredibly likely to change her opinion about what’s going on inside her own body. I’m sorry, old white male legislators, but you don’t possess some secret understanding of the “miracle of life.”

Of course, an additional 38% of abortions take place between weeks 8 and 12. Let’s look at a 3D ultrasound, since the anti-choicers are going for maximum emotional impact here, rather than any kind of medical necessity. A fetus after 12 weeks of gestation:

3D ultrasound of a fetus at 12 weeks of gestation

Oh my god, it looks like a baby, right?! Of course, it also happens to be about 3 inches long. I have Star Trek action figures bigger than that. About.com informs us: “If your practitioner uses a doppler, you may be able to hear your baby’s heart beat at this prenatal visit. Some say it sounds like horses.” Okay, that’s weird.

If your practitioner uses a doppler, you may be able to hear your baby’s heart beat at this prenatal visit. Some say it sounds like horses.

America – First-world prosperity at third-world distribution levels!

It sort of reads like a commercial for America, directed at millionaires and billionaires of course. Not only is America the wealthiest country on the planet, but the majority of that wealth is in the hands of a few. Which means that those are some rich-ass mofos sitting at the top of the wealth pyramid. Via Pandagon, this graph compiled by ThinkProgress shows where America’s sitting now in terms of income inequality:

So, y’know, basically we’re sitting in the company of a bunch of third-world countries. Nothing wrong with third-world countries, of course, but their high rates of income inequality tend to spring from the fact that their average citizens are making pennies a day. And do you know how many pennies there are in just a single dollar? A hundred!

But America just has no excuse. The last time income inequality was this high, there was a Great Depression. And people back then were not afraid to blame the people at the top of the income pyramid for the Depression. This FDR speech is a good example.

And FDR did his bit to push income inequality down to sane levels. But after a string of presidents – Reagan and the Bushes in particular – who were determined to aid the upper-class in its war on the lower classes, we’ve backpedaled by decades and erased a lot of the progress FDR made. And yet, in a period of record-low taxes on the wealthy and record-high income inequality, the wealthy still piss and moan about being “punished for success” by America’s supposedly oppressive tax code.

One of the commenters in the Pandagon thread linked to this NYT article (written by Ben Stein, oddly enough):

[Warren] Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Thank you, Mr. Buffet. Please join me for tea and a bout of weeping for America sometime.

Time is running out, Jack!

This NYT article raises a useful question. After bin Laden’s death, all the torture apologists are coming back out of the woodwork and declaring that torture was totally helpful in tracking Osama down. But, uh, here’s the thing… one of the Bush Administration’s excuses for using torture was that we had to extract intel quickly so we could immediately follow up on it, because America was in grave danger! So I mean, even if I were to grant that torture was useful in this situation (I don’t, of course), how exactly is it a crucial emergency shortcut, given that it took almost 10 years after 9/11 to find bin Laden?

That’s, like, three thousand seasons of 24.