RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=8706"><span class="small">George Lakoff, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 27 January 2014 12:54

Lakoff writes: "There are enough people guessing what the president will do. This is about what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him to do."

President Barack Obama. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
President Barack Obama. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)


SOTU 2014: The Cognitive Power of the President

By George Lakoff, Reader Supported News

27 January 14

 

here are enough people guessing what the president will do. This is about what he almost certainly won't do, but what I would like him to do.

The president has material power without the Congress, and personally, I would like to see him use it. He could issue an executive order for the government to grant contracts only to companies that pay their workers above some higher minimum wage. Or he could reject the XL pipeline on two national security grounds: its contribution to global warming and the dangers of leaks, explosions; and he could stop the virtual pipeline of dangerous tar sands and fracked oil shipments by train and waterway by insisting immediately on safe puncture-proof tanks. He could direct federal agencies to monitor and control dangerous chemical use and storage to prevent future versions of the Great West Virginia Water Disaster. I would love to see him act in dozens, if not hundreds, of areas for the public good, and give the moral grounds in the SOTU.

Beyond material power, the president has even greater power -- cognitive power -- and he hasn't used it much. Cognitive power is the power to put important ideas in people's minds by shaping public discourse. He has the unique power to change how America thinks simply by discussing crucial ideas over and over.

American democracy is based on empathy -- citizens caring about other citizens and working through their government to provide public resources for all, making both decent lives and flourishing markets possible. He used to speak of empathy as "the most important thing my mother taught me." But he was misinterpreted by conservatives and dropped this most central idea. He started talking, as Elisabeth Warren has so eloquently, about the crucial nature of public resources, but he messed up once ("You didn't build it") and stopped. He needs to take up that theme, get it right, and repeat it in every speech.

We know he's going to talk about economic inequality, as he should. He will probably mention worker salaries, which haven't risen in 30 years. But he needs to state a simple truth: Workers are Profit Creators! Corporate "productivity" -- the profit-per-worker -- has risen, but the profit creators haven't been getting a fair share of the profits.

One of the reasons for low salaries is that out-of-work workers can't bargain for fair wages as individuals. The absence, or weakening, of unions leads to Wage Slavery: take what you are offered or someone else will. The president needs to talk about Wage Slavery and how unions offer freedom from wage slavery. This is a crucial idea missing from public discourse, especially in states where conservatives are trying to legislate wage slavery via so-called "Right to work laws," which are actually exploitation laws. The president should be talking regularly about how unions contribute to freedom -- and getting the unions themselves to talk about it. If the idea isn't mentioned, it won't enter the public mind.

Next, pensions. Pensions are delayed payments for work already done. Say it, Mr. President. When pensions are cut, the wages already earned by workers are being stolen. Pension funds are often taken by companies and local governments and spent on other things. That is theft. There needs to be transparency -- public reporting yearly -- on what is being done with pension funds. The president could issue and executive order that any company, state, or municipality receiving money from the government must adopt the transparency principle for pension funds.

The president has occasionally used the idea of investment where conservatives talk of "spending." Drop "spending," Mr. President. When you spend money, as when you buy a product, the money is gone. But when you invest, the money is still there. Paying for early childhood education is a wise major investment in the brains of our children. Remember that by the time a child is five or six years old, half of his or her neural connections have died off -- the half least used. A child's brain is shaped and developed in those important pre-K years. Funding serious pre-K is one of the most important investments out country could make. The investment isn't gone. It is there in the child. Talk about brain shaping during pre-K, Mr. President. Every one in the country should know about it.

Perhaps the most important cognitive power of the president concerns the global extreme climate crisis. There are important ideas that need to be in public discourse. First, nature is inside of us, not just outside, as the world "environment" suggests. We breathe air, drink water, and eat food. Pollutants and pesticides are in us, not somewhere else. They cause cancer and other illnesses. In a drought, as in California right now, you need water, clean water, to drink and raise food. IN a major hurricane, water is can be deadly and devastating. Nature is in and around us, and supports all life. Don't destroy it, poison it, or turn it into a destroyer.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are immoral fuels, dirty fuels. Say it. Our planet, the only one we have -- nature itself -- is being sacrificed for short-term private profit. Yet, our government is negotiating a trade agreement that could outlaw all environmental laws, since it lets foreign nations sue when state or local environmental laws cut the corporate profits of foreign-owned corporations. It would be devastating to democracy, politically, since it gives up the sovereignty of our own people over their own lives. Don't give in and repeatedly tell us why you are you won't fast-track that treaty.

You can't drink oil! Protect our water supplies from fracking, which both uses a huge amount of water per well, puts vast amounts of poison in that water, endangering water supplies. You can't drink oil. Say it, Mr. President.

Species Are Us! We are part of the continuum of life with all species. Bees matter. Don't let them die off. Songbirds matter. Frogs matter. Salmon matter.

Invite to the SOTU 10 prominent pro-football players who have gotten lifelong brain damage from concussions received in football. Have them stand up in the balcony.

Finally, read labels out loud, Mr. President. Harmful chemicals are not just stored near West Virginia rivers. They are in our food, our cosmetics, and our toiletries. Use the Good Guide App in your SOTU and have Dara O'Rourke stand up and take a bow for inventing it. Introduce to the American people the idea of ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, chemicals that affect hormones. Read the Environmental Working Groups list of the dirty dozen, the 12 most dangerous, and tell everyone where they show up in your refrigerator, larder and medicine cabinet. Make sure Endocrine Disruptors are labeled as such, with a brief note pointing out that they affect hormones. Contribute to the health of our military and their families by an executive order keeping major endocrine disruptors off the shelves of PX's and military hospitals. The cognitive and material powers can sometimes work hand-in-hand.

Cognitive powers may seem small, but used over time they can have major effects.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies Print
Monday, 27 January 2014 11:33

Hedges writes: "All calls for prudence, for halting the march toward economic, political and environmental catastrophe, for sane limits on carbon emissions, are ignored or ridiculed."

Excerpt: 'Our financial system - like our participatory democracy - is a mirage.' (photo: Politico)
Excerpt: 'Our financial system - like our participatory democracy - is a mirage.' (photo: Politico)


The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig

27 January 14

 

he most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick.” Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage. He is our foremost oracle. He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.

Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies. The ship’s 30-man crew—there were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novel—is a mixture of races and creeds. The object of the hunt is a massive white whale, Moby Dick, which in a previous encounter maimed the ship’s captain, Ahab, by dismembering one of his legs. The self-destructive fury of the quest, much like that of the one we are on, assures the Pequod’s destruction. And those on the ship, on some level, know they are doomed—just as many of us know that a consumer culture based on corporate profit, limitless exploitation and the continued extraction of fossil fuels is doomed.

“If I had been downright honest with myself,” Ishmael admits, “I would have seen very plainly in my heart that I did but half fancy being committed this way to so long a voyage, without once laying my eyes on the man who was to be the absolute dictator of it, so soon as the ship sailed out upon the open sea. But when a man suspects any wrong, it sometimes happens that if he be already involved in the matter, he insensibly strives to cover up his suspicions even from himself. And much this way it was with me. I said nothing, and tried to think nothing.”

READ MORE: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Crime Doesn't Pay? JPMorgan Chase Begs to Differ Print
Sunday, 26 January 2014 14:20

Eskow writes: "The Captain and Tennile are getting divorced. But when it comes to the Board and Jamie, love will keep them together."

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. (photo: Getty Images)
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. (photo: Getty Images)


Crime Doesn't Pay? JPMorgan Chase Begs to Differ

By Richard Eskow, Campaign for America's Future

26 January 14

 

hat do you give a Wall Street CEO who has presided over a decade of fraud and criminality, who directly supervised a unit which lost $6 billion through incompetent and illegal trading, and whose reign of crime and mismanagement has cost his institution $20 billion in the last year alone – a figure which undoubtedly would’ve been much larger in a less morally compromised regulatory environment?

If you are the Board of Directors of JPMorgan Chase, you give him a raise.

Let’s not mince words: Jamie Dimon’s bank is, as we said last May, the scandal of our time. The crimes committed during Dimon’s time in senior management include bribery, mortgage fraud, investor fraud, consumer fraud, credit card fraud, forgery, perjury, violation of sanctions against Iran and Syria, violation of laws prohibiting the bilking of active-duty service members … shall we continue?

The Captain and Tennile are getting divorced. But when it comes to the Board and Jamie, love will keep them together.

It’s true that Dimon is no longer publicly described as “the President’s favorite banker,” presumably as a result of these scandals.  Nevertheless, the Chase capo continues to be flattered and defended by a number of embarrassingly sycophantic journalists in the major media. The New York Times is a particular hotbed of Dimon-submissiveness; see, for example, Andrew Ross Sorkin’s acquiescent, tummy-revealing and altogether kitten-like desperation to please the higher-order alpha mammal Dimon in this piece.

Regulator William K. Black Jr. played an integral role in the prosecution and conviction of more than 1,000 bankers over the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s. Black, who is now a top economics professor, is understandably disturbed by the fact that there has not been a single prosecution of the major Wall Street executive over the much larger scandals which led to the 2008 financial crisis.

Black observed this week that the bank’s fraud proceeds “went largely to the senior officers and directors of JPM, Bear, and WaMu in the form of bonuses.” The Board’s behavior can therefore be seen as a divvying up of criminal booty, whatever the personal involvement of the Board members themselves.

Black also pithily notes that “the greater JPM’s frauds under Dimon’s leadership … the greater Dimon’s value as a negotiator in getting the government to settle cheap.” The directors confirmed that, if unwittingly, by noting that JPMorgan Chase’s stock price has risen over the last 12 months.

Stock prices are based on expectation. As Dimon made it clear he could negotiate cheaper settlements with the government than expected – that is, settlements that were less fair toward the banks victims – the stock market rewarded him for his ability to manipulate the political and regulatory system on behalf of his own fraudulent bank.

Fraud isn’t the sum total of JPMorgan Chase’s business plan. But with this move, the bank’s directors have made it clear that fraud is inseparable from its business plan.

Bank executives haven’t been held liable for Wall Street crime. They haven’t been prosecuted, which means they haven’t been held criminally liable. They haven’t been personally fined, which means they haven’t been held financially liable. They’ve all been allowed to keep criminally-obtained wealth. And, outside of grassroots outrage like the Occupy movement, they haven’t even been held morally or socially responsible for their misdeeds. Public rebukes or shaming have been rare.

To be sure, Dimon is one of those executives who is hyper-sensitive to even the slightest criticism.  Like the Jimmy Cagney character in some old mobster movie, he is both rapacious and vain. That’s why we described him as the “emo executive” more than three years ago. It’s also why he has invested large sums of his shareholders’ money, and large chunks of his own time, to a relentless PR campaign designed to make him look like the victim of unfair criticism.

Unfair? The most generous interpretation of Dimon’s tenure – one which becomes harder and harder to defend as time passes – is that he is an incompetent manager who is incapable of ending the crime spree within his own organization, no matter how much he may yearn to do so.

He’s also apparently incapable of returning the money that crime spree deposited in his bank accounts.

“After losing billions,” reads the headline in TIME, “JPMorgan Chase Gives CEO Jamie Dimon a Raise.”

Well, of course. The billions that the bank lost through Dimon’s blunders pale beside the billions it collected from his … what shall we call it? His oversight. The law has not asked Jamie Dimon or any other bank CEO to return his personal share of the loot. Despite the principles of governance which are supposed to drive public corporations in this country, is now clear that their boards will not ask them to do it either.

We’ve always been told that “crime doesn’t pay.” Jamie Dimon and the Board of Directors of JPMorgan Chase beg to differ.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Snowden Effect, Continued Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 January 2014 13:13

Pierce writes: "Ignorance is no longer an acceptable alibi. We know what's going on."

Edward Snowden. (photo: Guardian UK)
Edward Snowden. (photo: Guardian UK)


The Snowden Effect, Continued

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

26 January 14

 

ne of the more dishonorable ways to discuss the what our all-too-human, but curiously error-prone, heroes of the NSA have been up to since we all decided to hide under the bed in 2001 is to make it all about Edward Snowden, International Man Of Luggage, and what he did, and about Glenn Greenwald, and what he did. But the fact is that the available evidence is that the NSA was at the very least barbering its own regulations, and at the very most breaking the law. And it's not just Snowden saying this. The New York Times is not edited by fanbois, and there is no better reporter on this stuff anywhere in the world than Charlie Savage, who is not a wild-eyed lefty, or an "anarchist" devoted to bringing down the surveillance apparatus because he hates "the modern liberal state" or whatever it is that Sean Wilentz is so worried about as he slides steadily into his new career as the Scoop Jackson of the cyber-age. In fact, I give Charlie credit for being as puckish as Mother Times likely would allow.

The report is likely to inject a significant new voice into the debate over surveillance, underscoring that the issue was not settled by a high-profile speech President Obama gave last week.

You think?

The Obama administration has portrayed the bulk collection program as useful and lawful while at the same time acknowledging concerns about privacy and potential abuse. But in its report, the board lays out what may be the most detailed critique of the government's once-secret legal theory behind the program: that a law known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed "relevant" to an investigation, can be legitimately interpreted as authorizing the N.S.A. to collect all calling records in the country. The program "lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value," the report said. "As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program."

If an activity "lacks a viable legal foundation" under the law that's supposed to make that thing legal, this appears to the untrained observer as though said activity is "illegal."

These aren't wacky liberals on the Intertoobz, or members of what my buddy Gene Lyons calls "the anti-gravity Left." These are serious lawyers whose job it is to look at the surveillance apparatus with a critical eye and say, yes or no, whether the surveillance apparatus is conforming with American law and American principles. And it has said, with one clear voice, that the NSA has not been doing that.

The report also sheds light on the history of the once-secret bulk collection program. It contains the first official acknowledgment that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court produced no judicial opinion detailing its legal rationale for the program until last August, even though it had been issuing orders to phone companies for the records and to the N.S.A. for how it could handle them since May 2006.

That's the court that defenders of the administration assure us will safeguard our rights against the increasing power of the surveillance state. Oversight! And here to present the opposing case on behalf of our unknown heroes are two people who cut their teeth on this issue within that model of probity and constitutional nuance -- the C-Plus Augustus Justice Department. I am reassured.

But the other two members - Rachel L. Brand and Elisebeth Collins Cook, both of whom were Justice Department lawyers in the George W. Bush administration - rejected the finding that the program was illegal. They wrote in separate dissents that the board should have focused exclusively on policy and left legal analysis to the courts. Last month, two Federal District Court judges reached opposite legal conclusions in separate lawsuits challenging the program.

By this time, all defenses based on the principle of "They'd never do that," are moot. The NSA pretty clearly will do whatever it wants to do, whenever it wants to do it, and, if it gets caught later on, it will stand the gaff and move along to do whatever it wants to do next. This is not a rogue thing. This is what the NSA believes its mandate to be. This is what it has decided that its job is. If the country agrees with that, or decides to get distracted by what Edward Snowden says, or what is said in return about him, then the country has decided that it agrees. Ignorance is no longer an acceptable alibi. We know what's going on.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Now You See Me - A Glimpse into the Zapatista Movement, Two Decades Later Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26945"><span class="small">Laura Gottesdiener, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 January 2014 09:14

Gottesdiener writes: "Thousands are clustered in this muddy field to mark the 20-year anniversary of January 1, 1994, when an army of impoverished farmers surged out of the jungle and launched the first post-modern revolution."

Zapatista commander Hortensia addresses fellow Zapatistas and followers of the movement during 20th anniversary celebrations of the armed indigenous insurgency in Oventic December 31, 2013. (photo: Reuters/E Pindado)
Zapatista commander Hortensia addresses fellow Zapatistas and followers of the movement during 20th anniversary celebrations of the armed indigenous insurgency in Oventic December 31, 2013. (photo: Reuters/E Pindado)


Now You See Me - A Glimpse into the Zapatista Movement, Two Decades Later

By Laura Gottesdiener, TomDispatch

26 January 14

 

rowing up in a well-heeled suburban community, I absorbed our society's distaste for dissent long before I was old enough to grasp just what was being dismissed. My understanding of so many people and concepts was tainted by this environment and the education that went with it: Che Guevara and the Black Panthers and Oscar Wilde and Noam Chomsky and Venezuela and Malcolm X and the Service Employees International Union and so, so many more. All of this is why, until recently, I knew almost nothing about the Mexican Zapatista movement except that the excessive number of "a"s looked vaguely suspicious to me. It's also why I felt compelled to travel thousands of miles to a Zapatista "organizing school" in the heart of the Lacandon jungle in southeastern Mexico to try to sort out just what I'd been missing all these years.

Hurtling South

The fog is so thick that the revelers arrive like ghosts. Out of the mist they appear: men sporting wide-brimmed Zapata hats, women encased in the shaggy sheepskin skirts that are still common in the remote villages of Mexico. And then there are the outsiders like myself with our North Face jackets and camera bags, eyes wide with adventure. ("It's like the Mexican Woodstock!" exclaims a student from the northern city of Tijuana.) The hill is lined with little restaurants selling tamales and arroz con leche and pozol, a ground-corn drink that can rip a foreigner's stomach to shreds. There is no alcohol in sight. Sipping coffee as sugary as Alabama sweet tea, I realize that tonight will be my first sober New Year's Eve since December 31, 1999, when I climbed into bed with my parents to await the Y2K Millennium bug and mourned that the whole world was going to end before I had even kissed a boy.

Thousands are clustered in this muddy field to mark the 20-year anniversary of January 1, 1994, when an army of impoverished farmers surged out of the jungle and launched the first post-modern revolution. Those forces, known as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, were the armed wing of a much larger movement of indigenous peoples in the southeastern Mexican state of Chiapas, who were demanding full autonomy from their government and global liberation for all people.

As the news swept across that emerging communication system known as the Internet, the world momentarily held its breath. A popular uprising against government-backed globalization led by an all but forgotten people: it was an event that seemed unthinkable. The Berlin Wall had fallen. The market had triumphed. The treaties had been signed. And yet surging out of the jungles came a movement of people with no market value and the audacity to refuse to disappear.

Now, 20 years later, villagers and sympathetic outsiders are pouring into one of the Zapatistas' political centers, known as Oventic, to celebrate the fact that their rebellion has not been wiped out by the wind and exiled from the memory of men.

The plane tickets from New York City to southern Mexico were so expensive that we traveled by land. We E-ZPassed down the eastern seaboard, ate catfish sandwiches in Louisiana, barreled past the refineries of Texas, and then crossed the border. We pulled into Mexico City during the pre-Christmas festivities. The streets were clogged with parents eating tamales and children swinging at piñatas. By daybreak the next morning, we were heading south again. Speed bumps scraped the bottom of our Volvo the entire way from Mexico City to Chiapas, where the Zapatistas control wide swathes of territory. The road skinned the car alive. Later I realized that those speed bumps were, in a way, the consequences of dissent -- tiny traffic-controlling monuments to a culture far less resigned to following the rules.

"Up north," I'd later tell Mexican friends, "we don't have as many speed bumps, but neither do we have as much social resistance."

After five days of driving, we reached La Universidad de la Tierra, a free Zapatista-run school in the touristy town of San Cristóbal de Las Casas in Chiapas. Most of the year, people from surrounding rural communities arrive here to learn trades like electrical wiring, artisanal crafts, and farming practices. This week, thousands of foreigners had traveled to the town to learn about something much more basic: autonomy.

Our first "class" was in the back of a covered pickup truck careening through the Lacandon jungle with orange trees in full bloom. As we passed, men and women raised peace signs in salute. Spray-painted road signs read (in translation):

"You are now entering Zapatista territory. Here the people order and the government obeys."

I grew nauseous from the exhaust and the dizzying mountain views, and after six hours in that pickup on this, my sixth day of travel, two things occurred to me: first, I realized that I had traveled "across" Chiapas in what was actually a giant circle; second, I began to suspect that there was no Zapatista organizing school at all, that the lesson I was supposed to absorb was simply that life is a matter of perpetual, cyclical motion. The movement's main symbol, after all, is a snail's shell.

Finally, though, we arrived in a village where the houses had thatched roofs and the children spoke only the pre-Hispanic language Ch'ol.

¡Ya Basta!

Over the centuries, the indigenous communities of Chiapas survived Spanish conquistadors, slavery, and plantation-style sugar cane fields; Mexican independence and mestizo landowners; racism, railroads, and neoliberal economic reforms. Each passing year seemed to bring more threats to its way of life. As the father of my host family explained to me, the community began to organize itself in the early 1990s because people felt that the government was slowly but surely exterminating them.

The government was chingando, he said, which translates roughly as deceiving, cheating, and otherwise screwing someone over. It was, he said, stealing their lands. It was extracting the region's natural resources, forcing people from the countryside into the cities. It was disappearing the indigenous languages through its version of public education. It was signing free trade agreements that threatened to devastate the region's corn market and the community's main subsistence crop.

So on January 1, 1994, the day the North America Free Trade Agreement went into effect, some residents of this village -- along with those from hundreds of other villages -- seized control of major cities across the state and declared war on the Mexican government. Under the name of the Zapatista Army for National Liberation, they burned the army's barracks and liberated the inmates in the prison at San Cristóbal de Las Casas.

In response, the Mexican army descended on Chiapas with such violence that the students of Mexico City rioted in the streets. In the end, the two sides sat down for peace talks that, to this day, have never been resolved.

The uprising itself lasted only 12 days; the response was a punishing decade of repression. First came the great betrayal. Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, who, in the wake of the uprising, had promised to enact greater protections for indigenous peoples, instead sent thousands of troops into the Zapatistas' territory in search of Subcomandante Marcos, the world-renowned spokesperson for the movement. They didn't find him. But the operation marked the beginning of a hush-hush war against the communities that supported the Zapatistas. The army, police, and hired thugs burned homes and fields and wrecked small, communally owned businesses. Some local leaders disappeared. Others were imprisoned. In one region of Chiapas, the entire population was displaced for so long that the Red Cross set up a refugee camp for them. (In the end, the community rejected the Red Cross aid, in the same way that it also rejects all government aid.)

Since 1994, the movement has largely worked without arms. Villagers resisted government attacks and encroachments with road blockades, silent marches, and even, in one famous case, an aerial attack comprised entirely of paper airplanes.

The Boy Who Is Free

Fifteen years after the uprising, a child named Diego was born in Zapatista territory. He was the youngest member of the household where I was staying, and during my week with the family, he was always up to something. He agitated the chickens, peeked his head through the window to surprise his father at the breakfast table, and amused the family by telling me long stories in Ch'ol that I couldn't possibly understand.

He also, unknowingly, defied the government's claim that he does not exist.

Diego is part of the first generation of Zapatista children whose births are registered by one of the organization's own civil judges. In the eyes of his father, he is one of the first fully independent human beings. He was born in Zapatista territory, attends a Zapatista school, lives on unregistered land, and his body is free of pesticides and genetically modified organisms. Adding to his autonomy is the fact that nothing about him -- not his name, weight, eye color, or birth date -- is officially registered with the Mexican government. His family does not receive a peso of government aid, nor does it pay a peso worth of taxes. Not even the name of Diego's town appears on any official map.

By first-world standards, this autonomy comes at a steep price: some serious poverty. Diego's home has electricity but no running water or indoor plumbing. The outhouse is a hole in the ground concealed by waist-high tarp walls. The bathtub is the small stream in the backyard. Their chickens often free-range it right through their one-room, dirt-floor house. Eating them is considered a luxury.

The population of the town is split between Zapatistas and government loyalists, whom the Zapatistas call "priistas" in reference to Mexico's ruling political party, the PRI. To discern who is who, all you have to do is check whether or not a family's roof sports a satellite dish.

Then again, the Zapatistas aren't focused on accumulating wealth, but on living with dignity. Most of the movement's work over the last two decades has involved patiently building autonomous structures for Diego and his generation. Today, children like him grow up in a community with its own Zapatista schools; communal businesses; banks; hospitals; clinics; judicial processes; birth, death, and marriage certificates; annual censuses; transportation systems; sports teams; musical bands; art collectives; and a three-tiered system of government. There are no prisons. Students learn both Spanish and their own indigenous language in school. An operation in the autonomous hospital can cost one-tenth that in an official hospital. Members of the Zapatista government, elected through town assemblies, serve without receiving any monetary compensation.

Economic independence is considered the cornerstone of autonomy -- especially for a movement that opposes the dominant global model of neoliberal capitalism. In Diego's town, the Zapatista families have organized a handful of small collectives: a pig-raising operation, a bakery, a shared field for farming, and a chicken coop. The 20-odd chickens had all been sold just before Christmas, so the coop was empty when we visited. The three women who ran the collective explained, somewhat bashfully, that they would soon purchase more chicks to raise.

As they spoke in the outdoor chicken coop, there were squealing noises beneath a nearby table. A tangled cluster of four newly born puppies, eyes still crusted shut against the light, were squirming to stay warm. Their mother was nowhere in sight, and the whole world was new and cold, and everything was unknown. I watched them for a moment and thought about how, although it seemed impossible, they would undoubtedly survive and grow.

Unlike Diego, the majority of young children on the planet today are born into densely packed cities without access to land, animals, crops, or almost any of the natural resources that are required to sustain human life. Instead, we city dwellers often need a ridiculous amount of money simply to meet our basic needs. My first apartment in New York City, a studio smaller than my host family's thatched-roof house, cost more per month than the family has likely spent in Diego's entire lifetime.

As a result, many wonder if the example of the Zapatistas has anything to offer an urbanized planet in search of change. Then again, this movement resisted defeat by the military of a modern state and built its own school, medical, and governmental systems for the next generation without even having the convenience of running water. So perhaps a more appropriate question is: What's the rest of the world waiting for?

Celebrating Dissent

Around six o'clock, when night falls in Oventic, the music for the celebration begins. On stage, a band of guitar-strumming men wear hats that look like lampshades with brightly colored tassels. Younger boys perform Spanish rap. Women, probably from the nearby state of Veracruz, play son jarocho, a type of folk music featuring miniature guitar-like instruments.

It's raining gently in the open field. The mist clings to shawls and skirts and pasamontañas, the face-covering ski masks that have become iconic imagery for the Zapatistas. "We cover our faces so that you can see us" is a famous Zapatista saying. And it's true: For a group of people often erased by politicians and exploited by global economies, the ski-masks have the curious effect of making previously invisible faces visible.

Still, there are many strategies to make dissent disappear, of which the least effective may be violence. The most ingenious is undoubtedly to make the rest of the world -- and even the dissenter herself -- dismissive of what's being accomplished. Since curtailing its military offensive, the government has waged a propaganda war focused on convincing the rest of Mexico, the world, and even Zapatista communities themselves that the movement and its vision no longer exists.

But there are just as many strategies for keeping dissent and dissenters going. One way is certainly to invite thousands of outsiders to visit your communities and see firsthand that they are real, that in every way that matters they are thriving, and that they have something to teach the rest of us. As Diego's father said in an uncharacteristic moment of boastfulness, "I think by now that the whole world has heard of our organization."

Writing is another way to prevent an idea and a movement from disappearing, especially when one is hurtling down the highway in Texas headed back to New York City, already surrounded by a reality so different as to instantly make the Zapatistas hard to remember.

The most joyous way to assert one's existence, however, is through celebration.

The New Year arrived early in Oventic. One of the subcomandantes had just read a communique issued by the organization's leadership, first in Spanish, then in the indigenous languages Tzotzil and Tzeltal. The latter translations took her nearly twice as long to deliver, as if to remind us of all the knowledge that was lost with the imposition of a colonial language centuries ago. Then, a low hiss like a cracked soda can, and two fireworks exploded into the air.

"Long live the insurgents!" a masked man on stage cried.

"Viva!" we shouted. The band burst into song, and two more fireworks shot into the sky, their explosions well timed drumbeats of color and sound. The coordination was impeccable. As the chants continued, the air grew so smoky that we could barely see the fireworks exploding, but in that moment, I could still feel their brilliance and the illumination, 20 years old, of the movement releasing them.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 Next > End >>

Page 2980 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN