NAOMI KLEIN IS SHOCKING

I always have the best of intentions when placing events in my calendar, but when the day actually arrives, I tend to be rather lazy and plop down in front of the TV instead. On Saturday, however, I went against my nature and attended the Naomi Klein lecture at Victoria Hall in conjunction with the Santa Barbara Book & Author Festival. I have to say that Ms. Klein's talk was truly one of the most educational and powerful discussions I've heard in a long time, and I'm so happy that I went. For those of you who don't know, Naomi Klein is on tour right now to promote her new book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. To be honest, I hadn't even heard of it before last night, but you can bet I'm going to run over to to the local book store and pick up a copy.

Those of us who who have made an attempt to keep informed on global and political affairs over the years were told many things in the lecture we've heard before: Bush used our fear after 9/11, for example, as an excuse to attack Iraq. Yep, knew it. But the amazing thing about Naomi Klein's work is her ability to put these kinds of events in a larger historical context. I'm almost afraid to attempt a summary of her speech for fear of leaving something out. But it's important, so I'll give it a shot. In a nutshell, I came away with these overarching themes:

1) When people are in shock (physical, emotional, and/or economical), they revert to a childlike state. In a sense, they lose their "story" or their "narrative."

2) Governments know this about humanity, so they take advantage of people in this state by giving them a new story. In other words, they can sort of "reboot" them.

3) This tactic can be used on individuals (i.e. torture) or whole societies.

4) Governments often use shock to push through the privatization of government functions and the chipping away of civil liberties. When people are in shock, they want someone to take care of them, so they don't question things they would normally have a problem with.

5) A perfect example of this phenomenon is 9/11. Americans as a whole were in shock after that event, so the government was able reboot us. The expressions "pre-9/11 thinking" and "everything you thought you knew before was wrong" came out of this mind-set. This is the new story they gave us. We were told that we had to let go of our rights as Americans, and being in this childlike state, we said okay.

6) This is nothing new; governments have been doing it for years. They can cause the shock or simply take advantage of it.

7) The king of neo-con economic thinking is Milton Friedman, and he has a famous expression that "you never have real changes unless you have a time of crisis." The extreme privatization of government functions in Iraq and New Orleans were allowed to occur as a direct result of our state of shock.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but better you just read the book. Or at the very least, watch the above short film made by Klein and Alfonso Cuarón (he directed Harry Potter boys and girls)!

In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with my favorite Naomi Klein quote ...

We lost [the battle of ideas] because we were crushed. Sometimes we were crushed by army tanks, and sometimes we were crushed by think tanks. And by think tanks I mean the people who are paid to think by the makers of tanks.

SANTA BARBARA RANTING

There were just so many Santa Barbara related topics to discuss last week that I decided to sum them all up in one entry ...
________________

On Thursday, there was a short article on the Santa Barbara Independent web site about developer Jerry Beaver and his desire to seek donations to help make up for the $35,000 he spent fighting the Light Blue Line project. Maybe I'm overreacting a little here, but this really chaps my hide. The Light Blue Line was a nice little endeavor with the sole purpose of bringing awareness to the very real threat of global warming. The fact that a small group of vocal opponents was able to kill this project was a sad day for my town and makes Santa Barbara look pretty lame in the eyes of other more progressive cities who will take this enlightened action.

So, now we're so supposed to feel bad that some rich developer wants his money back? No one asked you to spend your money to fight this fight, Mr. Beaver. If you didn't want to pay the piper, you should have kept your feelings (and your dollars) to yourself. As much as I despise Wendy McCaw, I doubt you'll see her looking for handouts to pay for the legal fees she's incurred fighting the union, Jerry Roberts, the NJR, the former NP employees, the businesses that posted signs, everyone who's worked on her house, people who want to walk on the beach, bloggers ... Ow, I think I'm getting carpel tunnel. Anyway, Mr. Beaver, if you do get 35K in donations, will you make a pledge give it to the people who's houses are under water when SB is swallowed by the sea?
__________________

On the front page of Thursday's Santa Barbara News-Press was the headline "ROOT OF THE PROBLEM - Removal of El Paseo eucalyptus spurs controversy over protection of landmarks." Was I the only one that had that "deja vu all over again" feeling upon reading that? Since Wendy is now famous for being enraged by the removal of trees and then pointing to Travis Armstrong as proof of a community-wide outrage, I can't help but ask if that is what is happening here. I know that El Paseo is a local landmark, and you're not supposed to make changes without permission. But the question I'm asking is if "locals are really upset" about the tree itself? Can anybody help me out here? Are people other than the NP editorial section really angry by this? Inquiring minds want to know.
__________________

Apparently I wasn't the only one who didn't like the Daily Sound's Conservative Turtle debut. Reader Kevin McDaniels had the audacity to write a letter to the Sound stating that he wasn't so happy with their portrayal of liberals. So, the Turtle decided to spend its entire second column (on Thursday) tearing apart Mr. McDaniels's statements. Is this what we get to expect from the new column: Turtle makes outrageous statements about progressives, someone writes a letter calling Turtle on it, and then Turtle picks apart letter? If you feel the need to spend an entire column responding to one negative letter, I think you need a thicker shell.

I will give the Turtle credit for one thing, though ... they actually discussed an issue in this one instead of simply taking pot shots at the left. Specifically, they talked about Das Williams's efforts to convert city vehicles to run on biofeuls. You'll be surprised to hear that I actually agreed with many of their statements about this up and coming fuel source. But then they quickly lost me again by going on a tirade against compassion and tolerance, frequently linking those traits to Nazism. After that, the Turtle -- once again -- went back to the "poor me" stuff ...

We fear the effects of their [progressive liberalism] attacks on traditional institutions such as a biologically related family (based on marriage and procreation between a man and a woman), attacks on religion, attacks on our culture by those from other cultures, and the undermining attacks on the military.

Why don't you stop making these high level vagaries and give specifics? For example, what attacks on religion have I made? Are you talking about the fact that religion is often used to justify homophobia (as you've done here)? If so, then yes, I attack religion in that case. And how have we attacked the military exactly? Democrats want to give the military body armor, better health care, and more time at home with their families (your side just fought and defeated that last one, by the way). Being against Bush and against the Iraq war is not attacking the military.


You state you want a constructive confrontation ... then start talking about something of substance.

Sincerely,

The Liberal Rabbit

THE LIBERAL RABBIT

Let me preface this blog entry by stating that I, as much as anyone, have been an emphatic proponent of The Santa Barbara Daily Sound since its inception. And it goes without saying that they have been a breath of fresh air in a city suffering from the putrid stench of The Santa Barbara News-Press. Thus, it is with this in mind, that I've so far held my tongue on an issue that I -- and others in the blog community -- have noticed over the last few months ... What's with all the conservative commentators?

In last Tuesday's edition, a new column debuted titled The Conservative Turtle that finally gave me that "enough is enough" feeling in the pit of my stomach. This new addition to The Sound is apparently written by a collection of SB conservatives led by a man named Aaron Shaw, and boy are they a depressed bunch of sad sacks. For a group who's ideology is all about being tough, I've never read so much "woe is me" babble in my life. I'd like to go through paragraph by paragraph and respond to each comment, but I think that would give me heartburn. Instead, I'll pick out a few of my favorites ...

Those few [Conservative Turtles] that do remain have mostly been rounded up by the outspoken liberal and progressive activists and placed in a pond ... in an attempt to contain and control yet another endangered species.

And then there's this ...

But we have been afraid. The world has become a dangerous place for turtles ... We fear someone from another culture will pluck us form our pond and maul and torture us ...

And this is nice ...

We dream of a ... city where we can actually speak the truth ... without the filter of the barking liberal media and specter of political correctness, with its associated character assassinations.

You mean like wearing Band-Aids with purple hearts on them to signify John Kerry didn't really get hurt all that bad in Vietnam? Anyway, one more ...

We will no longer be intimidated. We will no longer be inhibited when our words are twisted by the slanderous name-calling left.

Wow, how horrible it must be for you to live in our little town by the sea. I mean, if I controlled all branches of government over the last six years, I'd be ecstatic. But I guess that's just me. You've covered a lot of ground here for such a slow moving animal, but like turtles, you've said very little. It may sound a little cliche, but "where's the beef!" Being a proud and vocal liberal, I could take exception to the many "slanderous name-calling" statements you've produced in this column, but I won't. Instead, Mr. Turtle, I'd like to ask you a few questions ...

1) Do you think Bush did a heck of a job with Katrina?
2) Do you believe Iraq was at all involved in 9/11?
3) Do you believe there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
4) Do you believe the "vast majority" of Bush's tax cut went to the lower and middle class?
5) Do you think Ann Coulter was right when she said the 9/11 widows are "enjoying their husband's deaths?"
6) Do you believe in global warming?
7) Do you believe in evolution?
8) Do you believe that stem cell research has the potential to save lives?
9) Do you believe we're winning in Iraq?
10) Is Bush a great president or the greatest president?

These, Mr. Turtle, are the values that this barking liberal wants to discuss. Don't hide in your shell; you need not fear me ... unless, of course, you fear my ideas. So, what say you?

Okay, Mr. Jeramy Gordon, now a couple questions for you ... Are you simply a big champion of The First Amendment as everyone has been saying, or are you a conservative who feels the media leans left and wants to rectify it in his paper? Should I be worried that the wall separating news and opinion will start to chip away at some point? I'm not going to get on my soapbox and suggest people stop reading your paper, but I'm also not too interested in the voices of Santa Barbara becoming Robert Novak, John Stossel, Dr. Laura, Travis Armstrong, and The Conservative Turtle. So, how about a real progressive voice in your paper? And I'm not talking about a slightly left of center, Alan Colmes-like liberal. No, I mean a true progressive sound.

If you have trouble finding someone, give me a ring.

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Just when I think The Santa Barbara News-Press couldn't infuriate me any more, they pull another rabbit out of their hat. On Saturday, I was enjoying my morning jog near one of the The News-Press stands and noticed a column one, front page story stating that the News-Press filed a motion to the NLRB asking it to throw out its previous ruling (in favor of upholding the union vote) because of an e-mail that the union failed to produce during discovery. If you want the details, Craig Smith has a good write-up on it.

What angers me about the whole thing is not that Capello made this motion but that The News-Press chose to make this its main story for the day. Forget that it's not even worthy of a front page story, but consider the following ...

Firstly, this is exactly the same BS they pulled with the Jerry Roberts hard drive article. Just as she did in that horrible story, Wendy disguised what she really wanted to say inside of a supposedly innocent "fact-based" article. In Saturday's edition, the article STATES that The News-Press is filing a motion with the NLRB. But the article SAYS, "Hey look everyone, the union is a bunch of dishonest jerks." In the Jerry Roberts article, the story STATES that The News-Press wants the hard drive back. But the article SAYS, "Hey look everyone, Roberts likes kiddie porn." See how that works?

Secondly, this is a perfect example of how the NP says little to nothing when the union or former employees receive a victory in the courts. But, when it seems The News-Press has an item that skews in their favor, then BOOM, it's front page news! When the judge upheld the union vote recently, was that a front page, column one story? THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF BIAS! Grrrr ....

Lastly, the article was once again written by Scott Steepleton. Not only is he clearly biased in this situation, but he's a witness in the case. Isn't that like a mega conflict of interest? They should have at least slapped in one of their famous "NEWS-PRESS STAFF REPORT" by-lines.

People, please cancel your News-Press subscriptions.

GIVE ME YOUR HAND

I was reading the story titled Chief Says Fed Is Ready to Act on Credit Pinch in The New York Times today. Here's the first sentence ...

Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, declared on Friday that the central bank "stands ready to take additional actions as needed" to prevent the chaos in mortgage markets from derailing the broader economy.

Reading a little further, Bush states that he may provide some assistance to those who are going to lose their home to creditors, but he caveated it with this ...

"It’s not the government’s job to bail out speculators," Mr. Bush said, "or those who made the decision to buy a home they knew they could never afford."

Right. Forget the shady creditors that were dishonest and sold loans to people they knew couldn't afford them; it's those damn idiot people who didn't read the fine print. Funny, too, how Bush pointed to home buying as proof that the economy wasn't so bad when he was trying to get "re-elected." How quickly they turn.

This is a great example of the flawed "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" Republican philosophy: When it comes to ordinary people, you're on your own. However, when it applies to businesses, the Fed's all primed and ready to jump in and help.

My favorite example of this that horrible bankruptcy bill that was passed a few months back. Never mind that most people declare bankruptcy because of illness. Nope, sorry, you made your bed and now you have to sleep in it. Funny, though, how the rules didn't make it more difficult for businesses to declare bankruptcy. Oh, poor business, let me give you a helping hand.

Conservatives hate welfare, but I guess the corporate kind is okay.