Chuck Norris Facts
This has been around the internet like 5,264,723 times, but I think this is exceptionally funny.
March 2006 Archives
« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »
March 31, 2006
___________________________________
Ugh. Yesterday sucked. Amy was at work until nearly 6:30; she's normally off by 4:00 but the shelter has 16 dogs when a normal load is like four. Beyond that, the bank raped us up the ass and didn't even have the courtesy to clean up after it was done. Because things "hit in the wrong order" and we had too many "floating" charges that hadn't hit, despite a massive deposit of my month's wages that was also "floating" but "in the wrong order", we got charged $93. I called and complained and was about in tears. They said they may refund half.
March 30, 2006
A Few Thoughts
This is the first spring break in my history in which I haven't been involved in some huge trip to a destination at least a few states away. Say what you will about my parents, but they travel all the time, and Tim and I were always there too. It feels weird, like this isn't spring break at all. It feels like an endless string of Saturdays... and that sucks because most Saturdays I spend cleaning the house and doing other such stereotypically masculine things. I mean, I'm on vacation, right? I should be able to sit on my ass and watch the paint dry, right? Well, I feel guilty whenever I'm not doing something productive anymore. I've become such a tool!
March 29, 2006
Baseball is Coming!
The weather's starting to warm up a bit, and spring is here. The first pitch of the season is now less than a week away. This makes me happy, because October to April is a long time to be without baseball.
March 25, 2006
Vacation and Music
Vacation is coming. The Steelhounds game last night ruled hard, as Youngstown won 6-0. The six goals meant a free Big Mac at your local Youngstown McDonalds with a game ticket, which we were sure to pick up on the way out of town.
March 23, 2006
So Close
I'm so close to break. I'm a talk with Shawn over the NASCAR project and an exam away from Spring Break.
Welcome to Indianapolis, Adam Viniteri!
The Colts got rid of Vanderjagt and signed Adam Viniteri. I know this is more a signing for show than anything, but Adam V. is Mr. Clutch, and he is from the team that did the Colts in so many years in a row.
March 22, 2006
Fucking Od!
I had a couple of strange experiences today. Please don't give me shit for these, since I don't talk about things like this because of paradoxically simultaneous fears of being painfully normal or completely abnormal. And I hope you'll know this, but I'm really not making either of these up. And I'm not on drugs these days... not for years.
Approaching Burnout
If you're wondering why so many of my posts lately have been sports-related...
March 20, 2006
Madness Musings
I have to talk some sports. The Bradley University Braves, the lowly 13th regional seed team that's still alive for the (national) Sweet 16, remind me a lot of my favorite college basketball team ever.
March 19, 2006
Blogs Come in Spurts (Oh Yeah...)
I blogged like 13 times last week. Then, for Friday night, Saturday and most of Sunday, none. Blogs come in spurts, g... Sometimes I feel like it, and sometimes I don't.
March 17, 2006
iTunes Survey (a different one)
I did a longer but similar survey for itunes a couple months ago. Now, as I'm sitting here at home trying to wind down from a long week, I'm doing this one.
March 16, 2006
Marxism and Me
I guess I'm a Marxist. I've never necessarily aligned myself to a particular critical perspective, but if you read this article draft I just wrote, it becomes quite clear. Read, friends, read. And comment and point out concerns, because I'm not God's gift to writing and I do need feedback.
This particular article was written for a local activist magazine.
Working Title: The Coming Fall of the American Empire
Author: Andrew Shears
Contact: killsuburbia@yahoo.com
Word Count: 4,902 plus a list of suggested readings.
Note: Contact author for feedback regarding any contextual edits.
The United States is currently, in terms of economic, political and military power, the most dominant entity on the face of the earth today. Through a sequence of intentional policies throughout the past century, the U.S. has risen to this place of global hegemony, which it maintains through exercising its military might. Concurrent military activities are being perpetrated by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly soon Iran under the banner of an ongoing "War on Terrorism." Make no mistake: the war is not one of competing ideologies but one created to accomplish certain economic objectives. The need of capitalism to continually grow has led the United States to seek interest in foreign markets. The establishments and maintenance of these interests has been achieved through the use of military power. With the continuation of this war, the U.S. economy continues to grow through mobilization, and the establishment of new markets through the flexing of military muscle increases demand for U.S. goods. This demand is sustained through the U.S.-led implementation of neo-liberal trade policies targeting developing nations for exploitation. Any challenge to the role of the United States has led to direct military action, and a neo-conservative reestablishment of the status quo.
Every dominant empire in the history of the world has ended. Throughout history, the ends of empires have been marked by a period of increased militarism as the imperial leaders attempt to maintain the peak level of power and hegemony. The War on Terror that continues to be waged by the Bush administration without any sense of accountability is not the definition of the American Empire but rather symptoms of the imperialist condition of the United States. It can also be considered a continuation of the historic trajectory of U.S. policy.
The history of the American Empire can be contained in a relatively recent context. The first imperial notions in the history of the United States can be found in the time of "Manifest Destiny." This notion assigned to the United State a duty of conquering the North American continent and its vast array of resources. One requirement of an industrializing capitalist society is an unfettered access to resources for exploitation, and the United States was industrializing and developing at a rate unprecedented in world history.
The militaristic annexation of "empty" lands containing millions of people in hundreds of unique cultures was excused by applications of racist ideology. To the conquerers, who viewed these cultures through a western lens, the cultures were remarkably inferior. From a more economic perspective, David Harvey claimed that the lands were accumulated for American use through the dispossession of these peoples because the natives had not achieved a proper mix of their labor with the land (e.g. industrialization in the western sense) the primary basis for claims of inferiority.
For a time, the sprawling continent on which the nation was situated fulfilled the needs of the growing American economic giant. Once the continent was conquered and local frontiers were limited, the eyes of the U.S. government began to focus to international conquests. However, because of the relatively late arrival of the United States to the colonial game, its list of places for traditional colonization was short. This required the U.S. to develop a new two-pronged strategy to acquire needed exploitable resources to continue growth. The first angle was to acquire political control of colonial possessions from existing empires, and to retain control of these colonies through projection of military strength. The second was to create an economic climate of liberalization in which international trade was free and unfettered, therefore opening new markets to U.S. goods.
In 1854, a U.S. naval fleet forced Japan to begin international trade after centuries of isolation. In 1867, the government of the United States coerced the ceding of Alaska by Russia for $7.2 million. In 1898, the U.S. government and military strong-armed the Kingdom of Hawaii into waiving rights of independence, becoming a United States territory. The same year, through the construction of a catalytic event in the explosion of the USS Maine, the United States entered a war with Spain. Through a victory in this war the U.S. political control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines was achieved.
During the first World War, the United States remained officially neutral for the first three years of the conflict. This was certainly more of an economic decision than one of political basis, as the economy of the United States benefited tremendously from the manufacture of armaments to supply the war efforts of the United Kingdom and France. The active participation of the United States beginning very late in the ultimately inconclusive war was at best a grasp for power in the future of Europe. The Versailles Treaty, constructed by Woodrow Wilson and European leaders, created the League of Nations and was essentially an agreement to policies of western hegemony and globalism. With the creation of the League of Nations, Wilson would control the discourse of global power through enforcement of its ideals. Despite the language that was so friendly to imperial interests, the U.S. Senate, which in the shadows of a bloody war favored absolute control of national sovereignty over international agreements, defeated ratification of the treaty.
The passing of 22 years would witness the beginning another World War, one far more global in scale. Like World War I, the involvement of the United States during the early days of the war was officially neutral, reinvigorating the national economy decimated from the Great Depression through the mobilization of manufacturing to supply the Allies. The event leading to the official entrance of the United States to World War II is ironic. Pearl Harbor on the Hawaiian Islands, a colony of which the U.S. had assumed control only 43 years earlier, was attacked by Japan on 7 December 1941. Japan, prior to a visit and bombardment by the United States Navy in 1867, had self-imposed centuries of isolation. The opening of the Japanese ports to trade (and hence a market for U.S.-made goods) inspired a self-westernization and industrialization of Japanese society by Meiji. As Japanese industrialization continued the need for raw resources and trading markets increased, and a policy of Japanese imperialism that led to political expansion throughout the Pacific, ultimately to Pearl Harbor. Following a resulting declaration of war on Japan by the United States, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S., simultaneous involving the nation on two fronts of the war.
The war ultimately led to the defeat of the Axis powers in both theaters of the conflict. At the Yalta Conference of 1945 as the war in Europe continued, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Josef Stalin met to negotiate the future, both in terms of territory and in terms of power. Building upon an earlier meeting between the powers in Tehran, the balance of power in the future United Nations was determined in Yalta. In the new organization, the U.S., U.K. and U.S.S.R. played a complex game of political chess, each vying for enhanced power in the new organization. Each became permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and through negotiations of power between these parties, France and China were also enlisted to quell fears within the council of domination by any one of the members. Roosevelt and Churchill worked together to ensure that the communist Soviets would not control the organization by adding votes for satellite states. All three, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt each left Yalta confident that their governments could exercise control over the new international organization.
In the occupation and rebuilding of Europe and Japan and through continued influence in former colonial possessions, the United States had installed a great financial interest abroad. Additional American investments had been made elsewhere throughout Southeast Asia, South America, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The might of the American military required to protect and maintain these interests required unbridled access to the petroleum products of the Middle East. Both Roosevelt and his successor Harry Truman maintained close ties to the Saudis to ensure this access. In 1953, after threat of nationalization of U.S. oil interests, the CIA overthrew the government of Iran installing the dictatorial (and U.S.-friendly) Shah. This event was only the beginning for the influence of oil in the international policies of the United States.
The Cold War is often described as a military rivalry between two superpowers vying for global domination. It is often painted romantically as a struggle between two competing ideologies, of which capitalism emerged victorious. This idea is false. The Cold War was begun and continued by the government of the United States following World War II. The American economy had been invigorated by its rapid war mobilization, and the government wished to continue this growth. In order for an industrialized capitalist system to grow (and therefore profit), a demand must be produced to realize the dead capital of the manufactured goods. While some demand was certainly created domestically through the promulgation of enhanced credit options and an increasingly consumerist society, external demand was necessary to continue growth necessary to realize continued profit. The transition of a state to socialist ideology represented a double threat for the United States. First, any U.S. interests or investments, particularly in oil or infrastructure were possible targets of nationalization. Secondly, the capitalist potential of this market as a society of ever-increasing demand for U.S. exports was limited in a capitalist system, further limiting the ability of the U.S. to continue growth and profit on the finite global scale.
Until the end of the Cold War, overseas involvement of U.S. military, paramilitary and CIA operatives following World War II follows a familiar and repetitive pattern. In each of these cases, a socialist regime comes to power and threatens U.S. interests, followed by a U.S. intervention in either overt or covert means. A similar sequence of events at least once between 1945 and 1991 occurred in Greece, Italy, Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama, El Salvador, Grenada, Laos and Australia.
Luckily for the U.S. government, the Cold War presented a distinguishable enemy, an "other" which was the "godless" and communist Soviet Union. In discourse, the actions of the United State military could not rest until these communists were freed from oppression, allowed to practice religion and, perhaps most importantly, spend earnings freely in the world market. Through the doctrine of McCarthyism, the binary was enhanced further in American society, painting communist and socialist sympathizers as the enemy and worthy of blacklisting. Scary scenarios such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, nuclear fallout drills and institutionalization of the Pledge of Allegiance solidified the "us" portion of the binary. Participation in other competitions such as the space race, the dramatic supply of West Berlin via air transport and Olympic games further drilled the rhetoric of competition into the minds of Americans. It was also during this time that an increasingly militaristic culture emerged. From GI Joe dolls beginning in the 1950s to the scene-changing wipe introduced by fighter jets on today's Fox News Channel, the military is visible in many aspects of American society. Millions of dollars are spent annually on relatively fruitless campaigns of military recruiting, as outlined by Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire. This increased militarism has led to the American public assuming that the military is justified and necessary to American life.
A consequence arising from this rhetoric was the weakening of American labor. Prior to World War II, labor leaders had been openly sympathetic to communist and socialist leaders such as Eugene Debs. The Great Depression and World War II provided the perfect set of conditions in which capitalist America could crush labor with little resistance. While the Great Depression yielded the Bonus Army riots of 1934, an event nearest to socialist revolution in U.S. history, the Depression also broke the public support of rights of the American worker. Sympathy for wage and benefit demands was hard to gather when fully a third of the country was unemployed. The end of the Depression only came with the new demand of armaments and materiel for the war efforts. Again, American labor had little popular support, as the disabling of U.S. manufacturing through striking would be portrayed as exceptionally unpatriotic. It was these social conditions that allowed for an enhanced exploitation of U.S. laborers; it was upon their backs that a supply of goods was manufactured for which a growing demand would be created by U.S. policy in the postwar years.
When the U.N. was in its infancy, the Allied Powers convened to discuss the financial implications of rebuilding war damaged areas. At the U.N. Monetary and Financial Conference, held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and a precursor to the World Trade Organization were formed. Originally created to stabilize global market corrections by providing financial aid to unstable economies, the IMF quickly morphed into an organization trumpeting the superior efficiency of market capitalism. The IMF disallowed funding to states that failed to enact tax cuts, government spending cuts and other pro-business legislation. Originally founded as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank focused originally on extending credit to reconstruct areas destroyed by the war. Development was an afterthought as much of the world was still colonized; development was considered the prerogative of the mother country in these cases. The focus of the World Bank shifted in the 1980s under pressure from U.S. President Ronald Reagan. After 1981, if a state hoped to acquire loans for development from the World Bank, the state must adopt IMF-friendly policies. The third product of the Bretton Woods conference was the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, a powerless organization that became the influential World Trade Organization in 1995. The World Trade Organization enforces free trade onto states by disallowing IMF/WB funding if conditions of free trade are not met. The problem with free trade is that infant industries in industrializing states cannot survive the competition of imports from states in which particular industries are well established. The bitter irony of this situation is that developing nations are borrowing money from the IMF/WB to increase industrial capacity, while the enforced free trade prerequisite entirely precludes the establishment of these industries, an investment for which the money is borrowed. This policy entraps these developing nations to debt from which no local profit is realized, leading to further dependence upon the developed world. This was neo-liberal imperialism through the forced liberalization of trade laws, a new state of dependence is realized, and a new market for exploitation and consumption is produced for the disposal of the developed world.
Such debt is an inherent characteristic of an advanced capitalist system, both internationally and domestically. While the creation of overseas demand through U.S. foreign policy has been discussed, an important partner to this these policies was the expansion of domestic markets. Since 1945, credit opportunities for American consumers have become dramatically more available as a way to create fictitious capital for these consumers to invest in more goods. By many measures adjusted by inflation, the average two-income U.S. family does not make more money today than 40 years ago. However, the number of material goods consumed by each family has increased exponentially during this time. Parents have been convinced to purchase televisions, stereos, automobiles and computers for each child, as well as one of each for their own use and enjoyment. As workloads increase to enable such consumerism through the production of additional income, both more production and consumerism is created. After 12 hours on the job, a parent who must feed the family is more likely to visit McDonald's to fill this need than to cook for an hour at home. And amazingly, this consumerism creates more consumerism! As the nutritional needs of children are going increasingly unmet throughout adolescence, countless weight-loss plans offer freedom from obesity for a fee, and psychiatrists offer overweight children facilities to emotionally cope with the social banishment that such "unacceptable" appearances have caused. The emotional insecurity of teens in terms of appearance is yet another cottage industry by which companies such as Abercrombie & Fitch continue to operate, offering clothing that will ensure social acceptability, of course priced at a substantial margin of profit.
What is the point of this seemingly unrelated side note? Americans have become completely placated by the material of this capitalist system. It is difficult to convince a college freshman to care about the world around them if he can drift back into his iPod-induced isolation immediately after encountering the annoyance of enlightenment. It is difficult to convince the cubicle worker that she is being exploited and oppressed if she has achieved the status she desires with her recent purchase of a Mercedes-Benz. In the 61 years following the end of World War II materialism, consumerism and greed have been firmly entrenched into American society so deeply that matters beyond personal financial well-being are of little consequence to the average U.S. citizen. It is because of this material placation that Americans have allowed the politics of the past 20 years to occur without incident. An underlying understanding is loaned to contemporary rhetoric: a protection of U.S. interests abroad through covert or unilateral means is a protection of the materialist way of life that domestic citizens enjoy.
It is here that Iraq bears mentioning. Iraq was a target of necessity and convenience upon the commencement of hostilities in the original Gulf War in 1990-91. The impending fall of the Soviet Union had left the United States without an enemy from which a powerful military was needed to protect the nation. The Gulf War was established by George H.W. Bush to accomplish three major objectives: to justify the continuation of bloated military spending that had become commonplace during the Reagan administration; to set a precedent by which overt military action was acceptable to accomplish objectives of U.S. economic policy; and to ultimately protect U.S. oil interests through achieving some measure of political stability through hegemony in the Middle East. The Bush Administration portrayed Saddam Hussein as a horrible tyrant; he was, but nothing had changed since the U.S. support of his regime in the early 1980s. Regardless, U.S. domestic support for Operation Desert Storm registered in the ninety percent range.
This establishment of a neo-conservative doctrine was disrupted when William Clinton defeated the first Bush in the 1992 election. Clinton's foreign policy, while similar in terms of a goal of global hegemony, differed from Bush's in terms of means to achieve this end. Neo-liberalism was employed through the creation and strengthening of the World Trade Organization. The most popular diplomatic weapon of Clinton was the economic sanction, though smaller-scale military actions such as air bombings were frequently employed to remind the world of the U.S. hegemonic power.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected president after a disputed election, marking a return to the neo-conservative philosophies of his father. During the Clinton Administration, military spending in the United States had been significantly cut as the military demobilized from the Cold War. As a recession settled into the U.S. economy after nearly a decade of growth, the second Bush realized that drastic action was necessary to revitalize the economy and avoid blame for the downturn. He also realized that a clear enemy was necessary to justify a rapid increase in military spending.
The events of 9/11 came at a time that was amazingly convenient for Bush. The death of nearly 3,000 people at the hands of Arab hijackers trained by an international non-governmental organization offered the perfect opportunity to create a new "other" that the U.S. had sorely lacked since the end of the Cold War. Also conveniently, the "other" this time was called the "terrorist," an ambiguous term that could be loosely applied. This terrorist was a party that challenged the U.S. role of global hegemony, a sort of rebellion that would have to be quashed very publicly to set an example. Bush declared the U.S. to be involved in a "War on Terror" that would be ongoing and waged on many fronts. The war started in October 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the terrorist-harboring Taliban government. Late in 2002, the focus of the administration shifted to Iraq, declaring that Saddam Hussein was a threat to U.S. interests. This declaration followed an announcement by Saddam that Iraq would be selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars, putting the United States at a trade disadvantage. Bush wagered that the reopening of Iraq oil to the United States through military action would reestablish the neo-conservative precedent that his father had intended to set during Gulf War I, and the occupation of Iraq presented other non-military opportunities for demand of goods.
That an ongoing unilateral war could be waged without tremendous international or domestic backlash is an interesting phenomenon. The limited objection at the beginning of the war from Germany and France was nothing more than an expression of those nations' own economic interests in the region. In the United States, the roadblocks presented by this opposition in the United Nations, a body intended at inception to serve as an international arm of U.S. policy, was portrayed as a threat to U.S. sovereignty, security and freedom. Internationally, in a blatantly American style, the spoils of the war were offered to those who states who supported the war. The United Kingdom, Poland, the Philippines and Mongolia were admitted to a "Coalition of the Willing," which in return for discursive support for the war in Iraq were granted concession privileges during the rebuilding process. Bush, realizing that placation of his own constituents was achieved through economic means, simply translated the use of economic rewards to a global scale to achieve at least limited international support.
To claim that the war in Iraq is waged for oil is at least partially correct. The Achilles heel of the American empire is a desperate dependence upon petroleum products. Without relatively inexpensive oil and gasoline, the U.S. economy would be instantly halted. Additionally, the military machinery of the United States is predominantly fueled by petroleum. Globally, peak petroleum production occurred in 2004 and the United States imported more than 80f its petroleum consumption during that year.
The irony of the American economic system is clear. At the current state of advanced capitalism, continued expansion and imperialism is necessary to continue the growth necessary for capitalism to avoid implosion. In order to continue this expansion, the U.S. is exceptionally dependent upon foreign oil. The military intimidation necessary to continue the level of foreign exploitation necessary for the U.S. economy requires a tremendous amount of oil to both fuel the machinery of war and to fund the military through continued economic growth. As the oil supplies in the world continue to dwindle and as U.S. demand faces competition from the industrializing nations of China and India, the future of the United States hegemony seems bleak.
Boulding noted that power has three faces: economic, military and integrative. The United States military is certainly unparalleled in terms of global dominance. However, the economic and integrative power of the United States is slipping. Giovanni Arrighi noted that the economic power of the world is shifting to the export-based economies of the Far East, which certainly competes in the U.S.-created markets for demand. With the ongoing War in Iraq, the U.S. has achieved limited success in translating the military action into economic growth. Economically, the United States is incredibly dependent upon the success of the military in maintaining overseas interests and investments. Should the military slip through overextension or through simply running out of gas, the other two faces of American power will quickly crumble, much like the Soviet Union. Certainly this perspective ignores an application of Marx's historical materialism by overlooking possible innovations in alternative fuels for military machinery. The perspective is intentional as no such innovations can be reasonably foreseen.
The empire will fall, just as all empires in the history of the earth have. The end of the American Empire is, for the first time since World War II, certainly foreseeable though not temporally certain. This crumbling may occur within the next 20 years, or it may take the next 100 to truly fall. The likely scenario for the fall of the American Empire is well outlined by Michael Klare in Blood and Oil: as the U.S. becomes increasingly concerned about oil supplies, more and more military investment will be made to protect access to the existing supplies. This investment will serve two purposes; insurance of U.S. access to oil, and controlling the access of possible challengers of hegemony such as China. As this continued investment in protection of oil continues to grow, the relative returns will diminish. Overextension of the military, both in terms of troops/supplies and funding will occur. The bloated military will not be sustainable by an economy that realizes limited returns from other neglected foreign interests. The American Empire's economy will suddenly implode, as the government, preoccupied with protecting oil, will be unable to support the overseas investments and markets needed to continue growth. The government will attempt to reverse the downturn through military spending, further deepening the problem. The resulting everyday conditions arising from such a collapse is a chore best left to fiction writers, though one can be assured that the lifestyle of the average American will be drastically different. The resulting struggle for power in the relative power vacuum following the fall of the United States could be catastrophic for the human condition.
A question frequently posed by the activist community is: "what can we do?" The question is difficult to address given what is outlined here. A good starting point would be a simple point of agreement: the current conditions of global politics and of the American Empire are not beneficial to the greater portions of humanity. The hyperexploitation promulgated by the current system leaves a vast majority of the world's population without much hope. The question is whether to encourage the American Empire to its inevitable demise, or to attempt to reverse the current trajectory to slowly roll back American hegemony to avoid the potential humanitarian catastrophe realized by the struggle inherent to a global power vacuum.
The current times are discouraging for activism, as it seems that very little activist activity has been successful in the years since Seattle. Protests are seen as phenomena of antiquity, evoking the 1960s and so-called "hippy" culture. Even those who agree with the politics of contemporary radical activism feel too uncomfortable to engage in active protest because of this negative linkage. A strong connection here can be made to one of the biggest problems of American culture and complacency: the attachment to material goods and therefore convenience. The average American sees a protest that halts traffic on a busy street as nothing more than an annoyance to convenience, something that will cause tardiness in returning to work from lunch and hence potential disciplinary action from an employer. This inconvenience can be explained metaphorically: consider the reaction of a less-politically minded colleague when a presidential address, which is typically of more familiar political orientation to mainstream Americans, preempts the newest episode of Survivor or Desperate Housewives. This me-first aspect of American culture is deep-rooted, meaning that such protests are more likely to turn away the minds of those whose daily convenience is interrupted. And unfortunately, it is the less-politically minded that should be the target of activism! This is not to say that such protests are useless in today's society, as protests in Seattle, Washington, Toledo and Chicago have shown during the past decade. Rather, it should be said that careful consideration in planning and execution must be exercised to cater the means of dissemination to the society of focus.
Just as the government exercises hegemony both overtly and covertly, activism must be involved in both spheres to spread its messages. While the public protests and interruption are the public side, activists should be encouraged to simultaneously focus on other means. Vladimir Lenin's notion of vanguard is exceptionally important in today's society. Activists must be exceptionally well-prepared intellectually to even mount an offensive to overcome the amount of material placation existent in American culture. Personal interaction and political discussion must be both memorable and remarkable, making instantaneous positive impressions on those encountered. Activists must also work to lead a life of example that others will strive to emulate. This is a particularly daunting task due to the problem of access. The average American may only be exposed to activism a few minutes of a lifetime, but this same American will have 24/7 access to Fox News Channel, courtesy of the satellite provider.
If activism is going to have a say in the end of the American Empire, the time for action is now. Evidence, through a culture of increased militarism by a realization of neo-conservative doctrines under George W. Bush, has been presented that the end of the Empire is impending. While this end would appear to be the ultimate goal of activists, caution in terms of goals assigned and methods to implement these goals is strongly urged. The time is an incredibly fragile time for activism and it must be handled very carefully and deliberately to ensure an improvement of the general human condition in the future.
Biographical Sketch (in case you use it for the end word): Andrew Shears is a doctoral student in the department of geography at Kent State. Originally from the cornfields of Indiana, he is very happy to have escaped to northeastern Ohio to finish his education. He resides with his wife Amy in Akron, and welcomes any e-mail discussion to killsuburbia@yahoo.com.
Suggested Further Reading:
- Arrighi, G. 2005. Hegemony Unravelling. New Left Review. 32(2):23-116.
- Boulding, K. 1990. Three Faces of Power. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
- Cox, K.. 2002. Political Geography: Territory, State and Society. Malden, Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing. 382 p.
- Flint, C. 2003. Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Geographic Research Questions and Agendas. The Professional Geographer 55(2):161-169.
- Harvey, D. 2003. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press. 275 pp.
- Johnson, C. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 389 pp.
- Klare, M.T. 2004. Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 277 pp.
- Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Random House, Inc. 394 pp.
Stiglitz, J.E. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton Company. 288 pp.
<LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">Smith, N. 2005. The Endgame of Globalization. New York: Routledge. 227 pp.- Tyner, J.A. 2005. Iraq, Terror, and the Philippines' Will to War. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 143 pp.
Anyway, like I said, any feedback is certainly welcome. I haven't given it a little time to sit so I could come back and edit, so there may be severe problems that I haven't noticed. Be gentle, but firm.
March 15, 2006
Tournament Picks (sport post)
Okay, I always do a bracket for the tournament. This time, I've actually entered the departmental pool. Five bucks got me in, 60or first, 30or second, 10or third. Not bad!
Article, Broken Bowls, GFS and Strange Documentaries
I've been working on an article for Seeds of Change. It's going to be around 3500 words, so hopefully they like it. Well, I don't care if they really agree with it, but I'd like it if they'd publish it. I'm mostly treating it as an intellectual exercise to think about the American empire and put some thoughts about it into my own words. Publication is secondary. Since Mary doesn't hate me (like I was concerned that she did...) I'm going to have her read it and get her input. I'll post it (or a link to it) here once I get it done and published.
Read "Article, Broken Bowls, GFS and Strange Documentaries" »
Relief
I talked to Mary today. She said she was PMSing yesterday, and felt a million times better today. I guess that's something I'll never truly understand, being a dude and all. But I'm glad she feels better and I'm glad she doesn't hate me or something.
Woot!
Boredom (Survey)
I've been pretty good about not filling these out lately. That streak has ended like all good things. Amy's sleeping, and I'm bored. This one comes courtesy of Mrs. Hooper. Enjoy.
March 14, 2006
Radioactivity
I think I did something to piss Mary off. Maybe not, maybe she was just pissed in general. I hope it's the latter. She's a good kid, and I don't want to lose her friendship.
March 13, 2006
Barefoot Executive and the Seeds of Change
I'm sitting here with Sancha, watching The Barefoot Executive and thinking about a paper I'm writing for Seeds of Change magazine. That's the KSU activist magazine, and I promised them 2,500 words on the end of the American Empire. I've got it pretty well outlined in my head, and I think I may just sit down and write it tomorrow.
March 12, 2006
Akron Schmakron
I'm back in Akron after a week in Chicago for the AAG.
March 09, 2006
1871 comes to mind...
March 07, 2006
Chicago or Bust
I'm going to Chicago in about seven hours. I just took some NyQuil about ten minutes ago to help me get some sleep. I'm already goofy.
March 06, 2006
Bed Sheets
"They" say that heaven will be different to everyone. For me, at least one component of heaven will be perfectly comfortable beds with sheets that, no matter how much you twist, turn, move or jump on the bed, stay perfectly on the mattress. One of my biggest pet peeves in life is when you're lying in bed and the sheet pops off the corner, leaving you a sheet to tangle your appendages in and the sheer pleasure that is bare skin on bare mattress.
March 03, 2006
Blahh
Today is pretty blah. It's kinda gray outside, and I'm pretty gray as well.
March 02, 2006
Yes, I'm That Bored
I got this one from Molly.
Post Number 200
This is post number 200 for this particular blog. My blogging (save a couple failed attempts before) started as Adventures of the Geographically Irrelevant back in October of 2004. I started volume 2 on myspace in later August 2005, then turned it into Radio Free Akron sometime in November. Now, I'm up to 200 posts on myspace. I'm such a loser like that, I suppose.
Cool iTunes Survey
This survey comes courtesy of both Muncie Sam and Nikki. I actually think it's kinda cool, even though I write this as I don't know my results. I'll bulletin this too, just like every other stupid thing I fill out...
March 01, 2006
Oddly Profound Thought
I had a thought today on the way home that was [probably a little too] profound. See, today I'd been working on turning my thesis into a publishable paper. I've actually come really far on that, and all I have to do in order to send it to Dr. Schwartz, my co-author, is dump in some graphics. Then, he'll comment and work on it, and I can revise, get some other editorial comments from others and start submitting it to journals.
Damn It.
I forgot my flashdrive today. Most of the work I was going to do was dependent upon me having that flashdrive to work off of. Ugh.
So now? I'm wasting precious minutes on myspace while my work sits idle. Why? Because I was too fucking stupid to grab my flashdrive so that I could finish a paper I'm writing.
And I was hoping to email it to my co-author today...
Instead, I'm wasting time, waiting for the beginning of Hazards Mapping. How boring.