Last month the California Public Utilities Commission issued a ruling that limited the powers of Pacific Gas and Electric in dictating the kinds of technology customers were required to have in their home. At issue were Smart Meters, a digital monitoring technology that allows the PG&E to more accurately monitor gas and electricity usage and reduce the need for manual meter readings. The utility company has already installed thousands of the meters in Northern California, and plans to roll out thousands more over the next few years. PG&E claims that the meters will be more efficient than traditional meters and will allow for more sensitive pricing which will increase efficiency in energy use. Now because of the ruling, PG&E must offer different metering alternatives for customers who do not want smart meters.
However, critics argue that the meters are a health hazard and violate customer privacy. Opponents of the meters assert that the meters cause headaches, heart problems, insomnia, and nausea because of the communication technology used to transmit data from the home to the power company. Smart meters are wireless devices that emit small amounts of electromagnetic radiation when they transmit. This raises protests from people who consider themselves “electrosensitive.” According to advocacy groups for the electrosensitive, radio and microwaves, even in trace amounts, cause certain people to become ill when exposed to technology like smart meters.
However, the problem with these arguments is that smart meters have been found to be well with in guidelines for safe usage in homes and businesses. While there are legitimate concerns about wireless technology (particularly cell phones), there has been no conclusive evidence that wireless technology is unsafe in any way. The issues found with cell phones are only when the phones are within centimeters of the brain and smart meters are installed on the exterior of buildings, well away from where people keep their brains. Furthermore, there is simply no evidence that electrosensitivity exists at all. While opponents of smart meters provide anecdotal evidence, there is simply no science to back up the claim that radio waves make you sick.
The conflict over smart meters is nothing new. It is the same fear advanced by opponents to radio and cell phone towers, as well as electric power lines. There is no evidence that any of those things make you sick either, but that has not stopped opposition from the public to these forms of technology. The reality is that the concerns of a few misinformed but well-meaning people are stopping the universal adoption of smarter energy policy. These efforts may be crucial in our struggle to make efficient energy policies and reduce the impacts of global climate change, which could kill lots of people through increased skin cancer rates, decreased food production, or geographic displacement. In a desire to stay personally healthy these individuals may not be able to see the technology forests for the trees, and may be missing the long term risks of bad energy practices. While PG&E has no choice to accommodate its customers, this issue underscores the need for a wider public discussion about emerging technologies and about what constitutes good public science and policy.
Sure, the Senate Majority Leader was obviously enjoying milking the Shutdown Showdown for all it was worth. But he did such a good job. He denounced the Republican leadership, saying this wasn’t about spending. Such a dry, boring issue, unfortunately, for the American voter.
This was about cancer! This was about women! This was about his granddaughters, for Chrissake, and he was angry, personally offended, and appalled that Speaker John Boehner wanted all the women in his life to die of breast and cervical cancers, even though we can all be certain the women in Harry Reid’s life don’t have to rely on free clinics for medical care.
Reid was not attempting to persuade the conservative voters he was right. Reid was attempting to lure the swing moderates for 2012 into his corner. At the same time, he appeased hardcore Democrats by — finally — showing some fight.
By the way, did you notice Boenher’s pink tie choices? He loves women! Pink ties!
–Newsbunny has been an alleged journalist for twenty years, largely focusing on political news
Hello and welcome to Crasstalk. Hope all of you are having a great night and are ready for the end of the week. Since most of you are socialist hippie clowns, here’s some damn hippy music. Now get off my lawn and get a hair cut!
I would hate to leave out our few Crasstalk conservatives, so this is for you guys.
Fearing that the Republicans would stop looking for excuses to attack him, and desperately in need of the attention, the President jumped into the 2012 campaign on Monday. With a paltry 19 months to go until the election, Barack Obama released a short video on his website announcing that he and Vice President Biden will seek reelection against ”Koch Brother’s Puppet Candidate TBA.”
In addition to announcing his re-election bid to the world, the Obama campaign machine has already swung into full fundraising mode. Appropriating a version of an old Democratic strategy, it seems like Obama and Co. are asking donors to “give early and give often.”
Given that some estimate that the campaign will need close to $1B (yes, that’s a ‘B’, as in ‘billion’), it is a sensible move. If I want to pay cash for a medium ticket item next year, I’m smarter to put $20 a week away starting now. There’s not exactly a credit card for big media buys that I’m aware of.
So, it was little surprise to me when the package asking for money for the campaign landed in our mailbox this week. After all, Organizing for America (the outfit that the 2008 Obama campaign morphed into) scarcely goes a week without emailing me, hat in hand, for cause ‘x’.
What may surprise Obama/Biden 2012 is this: My wallet is closed to them for the foreseeable future.
Maybe Albert can slip you a few clams for this round
Why? Simply put, he campaigned as a progressive Santa Claus, and gave me a Blue Dog for Christmas the last two years. Sadly, I’m just not excited about a watered down health care bill or milquetoast finance reform, which were two big issues for me in 2008. Add in zero movement on gay marriage and the disinterest in paring back a bloated military, and I question what side the guy is even on sometimes. The Great Tax Cut Capitulation of 2010 made me want to strip the “Yes We Can” sticker off the bumper of my neighbor’s Prius.
Before someone throws the “What the f*ck has Obama done so far” website in the comments: I get it, he’s gotten further on some important issues than Clinton ever did. He also folds like a Walmart tent the face of even token GOP opposition. That’s not the guy I thought I was voting for, or donating to, in 2008.
He’ll undoubtedly get my vote, and that of my spouse. We live in a battle ground state that went all crazy red in 2010, and I’m not dumb enough to risk throwing double-digit electoral votes to Mittchelle Huckawlenty (the GOP-zombie creation who appeals to creepy Evangelicals and big-business) in service of my progressive pouting.
Rather, I’m voicing my displeasure in the same way I do when my favorite sports teams make a series of moves I dislike. Taking money out of their pockets, or rather, refusing to ever put it in there in the first place. It is the only other way I know of to get a politicians’ attention. Watch the way the 2012 campaigns (or any recent campaigns, for that matter) court the big money, and you’ll get evidence of this in abundance.
Do I expect that the loss of whatever relatively paltry sum my family would donate will have much effect on the Obama campaign? Am I suddenly going to get an audience with the big guy to air my grievances? No, of course not.
Yet, between a still-sagging economy and a general malaise among progressives, I sincerely doubt that we’re the only small money donors from 2008 whose checkbook stays on the sidelines in 2012.
Besides, if there’s a GOP victory in 2012, I’ll need to save every cent I can to pay for my privatized Medicare.
Once we got into the comments, however, someone piped up that a tool for evaluating the same in America would be nice to have. Dogs, ever the helpful one, gave us that link, and we had some fun with it in that thread.
We learned that Ethnology Nerd is almost definitely a red, and that at least a few of us think some (probably small number of) folks really do deserve to go to jail for the eternity of their time on this planet.
Not all political views are created equal
In the end, I thought it might be fun for a bunch of us to take the test, (linked above) and see where we fall as a group. The test only takes about 10 minutes, and if everyone posts their results here in the comments, I can round them up in a few days and do a little analysis, and then we can get to work on taking over the world from a more pragmatic perspective. I’m sure certain tendencies will reveal themselves, but I expect to see some interesting results.
If you already did this in the previous post, and have a second to repost your results here, it’ll make life easier for me from a collection standpoint.
Hi gang. Looks like we are getting off to a good start this week.
Since today is the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King I thought I would post this. It is rare that anyone watches it all the way through, but in our own troubled times it is a nice reminder that the human spirit does sometime triumph over adversity. In a world of so much injustice and suffering it it important to remind ourselves that although progress is often slow, sometimes things really do get better.
Currently there is a new book on Gandhi making its rounds on the internet review circuit, Joseph Lelyveld’s Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India. Initially the book generated a number of “controversial” reviews that focused on sexual scandal, bisexuality, and racism allegedly related to this modern Hindu icon. Outrage!
Gandhi on left with friend Hermann Kallenbach and unnamed woman
I will only discuss a couple of examples cited in the reviews and one from Google Book Previews (I am currently still waiting for the book to arrive). While the book is still in the public eye, however, I want to say a few things about what I call the Cycle of Outrage that the book is being subjected to and offer examples of other books about Indian religious icons that have undergone this treatment. What can we expect to happen with Lelyveld’s contribution?
It seems inevitable that when you explore the human and especially the sexual lives of modern Hindu figures, you inevitably run into a shit storm disproportionate to the offering, especially from the religious right (sometimes referred to as Hindutva). The shit storm may amount to very little, like bad Amazon reviews, but it may take a darker turn and include vandalism and/or death threats. We will blame the internet, right-wing politicing, and mob mentality.
So here is some of the dirt on the book Great Soul. The author, Lelyveld, is a former executive editor of the New York Times, had a long career as a journalist and writer, and has lived and traveled throughout Asia and Africa. A 2005 overview of his career can be read here. Lelyveld draws primarily from Gandhi’s autobiography and journals, and from his own journalistic legwork in South Africa stretching back to the 1960s. Lelyveld revisits some of Gandhi’s old haunts as well as explores his enduring reputation there (a monument of Gandhi erected in Durban is contrasted to a McDonald’s restaurant built on top of a vegetarian restaurant he frequented).
Gandhi and Race
Lelyveld is accused of characterizing Gandhi as “racist.” The term is found three times in the book, most emphatically when describing his attitude towards Gandhi’s views of South Africans. He refers, for example, to a well known quote about Gandhi’s strong feelings on the “mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians” (just Google this phrase to see its extensive use). And while he does suggest that Gandhi’s language is racist, the sage’s controversial views on race have long been known, so this charge against Lelyveld seems a little unfair since this view is not unique to him. Outrage!
Gandhi, Vows, and Sex
Early on, Lelyveld hones in on Gandhi’s vow of brahmacharya, basically a Hindu vow of celibacy, and his subsequent struggles with it. Gandhi takes a particular approach to this vow that is inspired from his reading of the Bhagavad Gita – be detached from this world but remain engaged with it (that is, don’t run away to a cave or mountain top). The result is a politically active renunciant. It is the “struggles” as they are portrayed by Lelyveld and as they are (more importantly) filtered through the online reviews, that are primarily the source of the outrage.
Gandhi’s view of sex is presented as follows: “Gandhi held to a traditional Hindu idea that a man is weakened by any loss of semen–a view aspiring boxers and their trainers are sometimes said to share–and so for him his vows from the outset were all about discipline, about strength.” We also learn how he reprimanded his son for having sex with his wife (the son’s that is). Gandhi is quoted saying: “sex leads to a ‘criminal waste of precious energy’ that ought to be transmuted into ‘the highest form of energy for the benefit of society’.” OK!
The Wall Street Journal outlines a few of the juicy controversies in the book. Lelyveld discusses the “nightly cuddles” that 70 year old Gandhi had with his 17 year old niece while leading India’s independence movement. A “test” of his spiritual (brahmacharya) vow. Gandhi says of these experiences: “Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience.” These episodes are also well known (e.g. Sudhir Kakar analyzed Gandhi’s “experiments” with young women in 1989).
I had not previously read about the Vaseline episode discussed in the WSJ. Cotton wool and a jar of petroleum jelly are linked to a portrait of Gandhi’s friend, the Jewish architect and bodybuilder named Hermann Kallenbach. Gandhi kept his photo on the mantle across from his bed. The cotton and Vaseline are a “constant reminder” of his friend. What does that mean? Maybe it is for an enema? Lelyveld asks. The unstated suggestion is that Gandhi might have masturbated to the photo of his friend. It is this passage that has generated the most controversy along with this and this. The reviews take this to mean that Lelyveld says Gandhi is bisexual, although it is mostly suggestive rather than explicit. And then there is the entourage of women who administered Gandhi’s daily massages at his sexy ashram. Now that is some brahmacharya Gandhi! Lelyveld seems to want to lead his readers in a number of possible directions, but never really makes any definitive statements on this “controversial” issue. The reviewers, however, go to town and the religious right follow right behind. This is how controversies are manufactured and people’s lives can get messed up. The book has already been banned in Gujarat and will likely get banned in Maharashtra. Book burnings will follow.
Other Book Controversies
Shivaji: king and icon of 17th century Hindu revival
There are precedents for the current Cycle of Outrage. I want to look briefly at three “controversial” books treating similarly revered Hindu figures. All of these books have been the subject of banning campaigns by the religious right. All the authors have been subjected to death threats and public ridicule. Book burnings and extensive vandalism have also ensued. In most cases the reaction is stirred by one or two controversial lines or footnotes by people with political axes to grind; like this fucker, who is responsible for Lelyveld’s troubles in Gujurat.
The first book was written by James Laine: Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India. He claimed, in a footnote, that Shivaji’s father was an illegitimate child born to a Muslim dancing girl. The library where Laine did his research was ransacked by a mob and workers there were badly injured. The case for banning the book went to the supreme court and only recently thrown out. Prior to this, there were calls to arrest Laine. He also received death threats.
To give you an idea of who Shivaji is to Hindus, especially in Maharashtra, there are currently plans underway to build his statue off the coast of India equivalent to the statue of liberty. Shivaji is a big fuckin’ deal!!
Another book is Paul Courtright’s Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. This author received death threats and had his book banned because he psychoanalyzed a myth about the elephant god’s birth (in 2 out of 300 pages); something about his trunk representing a “flaccid” penis and being no threat to his father (Shiva). Not a stellar analysis to be sure, but reasons for threats, etc.? Maybe not. The book was initially published in the ’80s and circulated unnoticed until an Indian edition was to come out about a decade ago. That edition never got published because of right-wing outrage. Again, let’s blame the internet for this. Here is what went down in the author’s own words.
Finally, there is Jeffery Kripal’s book Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (1995). The book explores and analyzes the “mystical experiences” of the Bengali Saint Ramakrishna against a backdrop of repressed homosexual desire. Here is more than you ever could want to know about this book, its controversy, and the Ramakrishna movement.
The lesson? Write your books in the pre-internet age and/or make the controversial topics secondary to generic topics that few will bother to read. On second thought, that didn’t work well for Paul Courtright. However, keep this in mind: book burnings sell books.
So there you have it. We can expect that Lelyveld’s book will continue to get banned in India and he will likely receive death threats from a subsection of zealous right wing Hindus spurred to action by assholes like Modi who is, in turn, inspired by all the trite shit he reads in the Daily Mail or where ever. It doesn’t matter that Lelyveld may or may not have said the things that the reviews claim he did, in the manner that they claim he did (without nuance or context). It is all part of the Cycle of Outrage!
Stay in school kids. Keep reading and be sure to order your books through the Crass Amazon link!
Mike Huckabee is the former Governor of Arkansas, currently hosts a political commentary show on Fox, and is quite likely our next Republican candidate for president. He has the political chops — he has held elected positions dating back to high school. He’s educated and well-spoken. He’s no stranger to the way the political machine works. He’s also a proud member of the extreme Christian right and believes that you should be, too.
He recently spoke at a Rediscover God in America conference held in Iowa. This series features several speakers expected to run for the nomination; Michele “I *heart* McCarthy” Bachmann, Newt “I just call my current wife by her number” Gingrich, and Haley “The KKK was just a social club” Barbour.
Then there is David Barton, a minister who makes up quotes* and attributes them to the Founding Fathers to support his claim that the US was intended to be a Christian nation. He believes that America should be a Theocracy and that all Americans should be Christians. I don’t think I have to explain why this is a bad thing.
Mike Huckabee is a fan.
After being introduced by Barton, Huckabee’s opening remarks included the statement, “I wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced –forced! – at gunpoint no less, to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it. I wish it would happen.”
I wish I could believe that this is simply McCain-esque pandering to the Christianists, but Huckabee is the real deal. The tagline on Mike Huckabee’s website is “Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness.” He would be happy to add “Except Where Prohibited by Law The Bible”.
The CBC has released a new online tool that allows Canadians (or anyone) to answer some multiple choice questions and be told what party they should belong to. The Vote Compass tool asks how the user feels or how they would change 30 hot button issues. The answers are tabulated and the tool assigns the user to a likely political party and shows their leanings on a graph of social and economic conservatism or liberalism.
As you can see the questions are not exactly nuanced in all cases and lean toward the blunt since they need to suss out a person’s political views in short order. The tool is written in Adobe Flash so don’t bother using your elitist iPad to try to access it.
Once you’ve filled out all the questions in your choice of English or Français you’re told which party you need to start politely telling your friends about.
You can then tell the world where you stand with one click of the Facebook share button.
Update:
Thanks to Deadlist Sin (an actual Canadian, unlike me) we now learn that the liberal bias in the media is a real thing. Even people who consider themselves conservative are being labeled as liberals by the CBC.
Have you heard of reflexology? It’s the fake alternative medical practice where a hippie holistic practitioner rubs the bottoms of your feet and magically heals you…. because you obviously are a moron who never realized that all your vital organs are connected to the soles of your feet. Yes, people actually believe in this.
Well apparently the reflexologists have their own cartel trade organization that wants to prevent the scourge of unlicensed foot rubbers from ever harming the good people of New York.
State Sen. Martin Golden and a handful of other lawmakers got what looked suspiciously like foot massages in the cavernous lobby of the Legislative Office Building.
“They are looking for some of our brains,” Golden (R-Brooklyn) quipped as a member of the New York State Reflexology Association rubbed down his bare feet.
“We are finding out all about reflexology,” Golden added as he sat back in a reclining chair with his feet lifted above his head.
Reflexology, for those who don’t know, is defined as the “systematic application of alternating pressure by the use of the practitioner’s hands, thumbs and fingers to reflex points on an individual’s hands, feet, face or ears.” It is promoted primarily as a stress reduction technique.
The group was in Albany pushing for passage of an Assembly bill that would require licensing of reflexologists and set competence standards
And it would also be nice if legislators would be a little more skeptical when a trade organization wants to require licensing. Sorry, but they don’t want licensing because they’re oh so concerned about public safety. It’s because they want to restrict competition by increasing the barriers to entry. There is simply no logical reason to impose higher foot rubbing costs on society under the guise of public wellness.
Or as Matt Yglesias put it: “Another day, another spurious occupational licensing effort.”
. Initially the book generated a number of “controversial” reviews that focused on sexual scandal, bisexuality, and racism allegedly related to this modern Hindu icon. Outrage!
