User Info
 Welcome Anonymous
Membership:
 Latest: lucky
 New Today: 0
 New Yesterday: 0
 Overall: 3
People Online:
 Members: 0
 Visitors: 1
 Total: 1
Who Is Where: Visitors:01: News
Staff Online:No staff members are online!
|
Our Official Blog : Making a profit from environmental destruction
Posted by horatio on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 (19:05:46) (48 reads)
There's an old saying that you shouldn't kick a dying dog when it's down, but that seems to be exactly the motivation driving those as BP and their slimy allies in the corporate world. Why so bitter, you ask, well, it all goes back to the recent Gulf oil spill and how BP is handling it, or rather, how the government is allowing BP to handle it, and the underhanded politics even in this big of a mess, where corporate arrogance and stupidity define what goes and what counts as sane business. Chill out, you say, well, chew on this while you consider the ramifications of this oil spill:
| Quote:: |
| The deadly blowout of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was triggered by a bubble of methane gas that escaped from the well and shot up the drill column, expanding quickly as it burst through several seals and barriers before exploding, according to interviews with rig workers conducted during BP's internal investigation. A group of BP executives were on board the Deepwater Horizon rig celebrating the project's safety record, according to the transcripts. |
So as has been reported, BP is using a dispersal agent to try and break up the oil leaking in the Gulf. The dispersant that is being used, COREXIT EC9500A, is produced by the NALCO corporation. Take a wild guess as to who sits on the Board of Directors for NALCO? For those in a hurry, here's a short and sweet recap of the BoD and their major affiliations:
J. Erik Fyrwald, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer: DuPont, Eli Lilly and Company, the Society of Chemical Industry, and the American Chemistry Council.
Carl M. Casale: Monsanto.
Rodney F. Chase: BP and Lehman Brothers.
Richard B. Marchese: Georgia Gulf Corporation, Georgia Pacific, and XCEL Corporation.
Paul J. Norris: Sealy Corporation, W.R. Grace & Company and FMC Corporation.
Douglas A. Pertz: Culligan Water Technologies, Inc., The Mosaic Company, Compass Minerals International and Bowater Incorporated.
Daniel S. Sanders: ExxonMobil Chemical Company, Milliken and Co., Arch Chemical* and Celanese Corporation.
*I always love it when a company has a clever and clear tagline for their operations, like Arch Chemical--whose tagline is "The Biocides Company". Wow, a company dedicated to killing life. How swell.
Mary M. VanDeWeghe: Lockheed Martin and J.P. Morgan.
As another example of the greenwashing business has perfected, check out the Milliken and Co. World’s Most Ethical Companies for 2010 Award from the Ethisphere Institute. Sound fish, well, it is. Check out some of the past winners for this "World's Most Ethical Companies Award" and have a laugh:
-Aflac
-American Express
-Campbell Soup
-Ford Motor Company
-General Electric
-Google
-L'Oréal
-Nike
-PepsiCo
-Starbucks
-T-Mobile USA
-UPS
-Whole Foods Market
-Xerox
And as an added bonus, guess who provides the information and investor management services for NALCO. Yup, Reuters Corporate Relations arm, that bastion of objective global news coverage and information services.
So we have BP buying a chemical surfactant that, even by the EPA materials data sheet standards, is only somewhat effective (54% by one estimate) in breaking down Louisiana Crude oil (EPA data sheet here), and which is being provided by a company who has such tight ties with the chemical and industrial world that even an environmental disaster like this one allows BP to profit, as well as their allies who sit on other corporate boards like that of NALCO.
And with minimal government oversight (The Minerals Management Service of the US gov't was at least 16 inspections behind on the Horizon rig!) and a belief that somehow corporations shouldn't be liable for their own actions, but it's better to let the feds cover the bill, this is sure to be another major debacle.
Wow, it's a great time to be a corporate raider. From Wall Street to The Gulf of Mexico, the lesson I learned is that corporate crime pays--and well!
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
bioart : The battle of technology-vs-technology
Posted by horatio on Monday, May 17, 2010 (17:57:06) (42 reads)
Two interesting stories I ran across today.
comments? | | bioart | Score: 0
|
Does banning ethnic studies include European immigrant history?
Posted by horatio on Thursday, May 13, 2010 (16:39:44) (72 reads)
In light of the passage in Arizona of SB 1070, itself a racist and hateful attempt to target immigrants in Arizona, Governor Brewer and the state Legislature apparently feel this isn't enough, and they need to purge the whole state of ethnicity even from academics. Hence the recent passage of HB 2281, which bans ethnic studies from being taught in Arizona schools.
There is a good article from today on RaceWire by Julianne Hing about HB 2281, Arizona's ban on ethnic studies, which is the latest racist attack on immigrants and communities of color in Arizona.
Here is the critical part of Arizona HB 2281 as it relates to educational curriculum and funding from the Dept. of Education.
| Quote:: |
Section 1. Title 15, chapter 1, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 15-111 and 15-112, to read:
15-111. Declaration of policy
The legislature finds and declares that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people.
15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement
A. A school district or charter school in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following:
1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.
If the state board of education or the superintendent of public instruction determines that the school district or charter school has failed to comply with subsection A within sixty days after a notice has been issued pursuant to this subsection, The state board of education or the superintendent of public instruction may direct the department of education to withhold up to ten per cent of the monthly apportionment of state aid that would otherwise be due the school district or charter school.
|
What I find most interesting in this whole process is the claim, which I heard repeated again yesterday in an NPR story about SB 1070, that the advocates and supporters of SB1070 are not racist, but are simply dealing with a broken immigration system that the feds have failed to address. There is no attempt to target "minority groups" or Latin@, advocates of the bill claim, and the bill is not going to lead to racial profiling by police.
Of course this is nonesense, as anyone who seriously looks into this matter with a critical view will see the deep roots of white nationalism, racism and xenophobia informing and driving all of these efforts. If this wasn't clear before, it should certainly be now, with the passage of HB 2281, where the target of the bill is clearly and explicitly "ethnic"studies, which although not defined by the bill, is implicit in its assumption that whites are not an ethnicity, and therefore teaching white ethnic history, which is the hegemonic history taught in all US schools, goes unquestioned and unchallenged. But of course, all whites are ethnics too, even if we ignore our own past.
One good documentation of this is Roediger's book The Wages of Whiteness.
As we have seen in the history and study of white nationalism and the far right religious political movements, attacks on what some call the "cult of multiculturalism" have once more gained political steam, thanks in part to the increasing visibility and cache of white racist politics in the form of the Tea Party, attacks on Obama as a black president, and increasing tensions over the failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform in Congress. All of this is not new, and much of this rhetoric and politics echoes back to the politics of Operation Gatekeeper by the former INS, Proposition 187 in California, and HR 4437 (The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 [bill text]), which was introduced in December of 2005 by James Sensenbrenner.
All of this doesn't just come out of nowhere, it all has a history and a context, something that many people seem to forget today. But it is equally important to challenge efforts like this, as they are the most visible and clear mainfestations of white supremacy and attacks on the limited advances that have been made by people of color and ethinic groups to achieve some semblance of political representation and power within the US. So one of the really important questions that we should be asking now, is, what about white thnic studies, are those going to be banned too? And if so, what happens to the field of history in public education...?
comments? | | Score: 5
|
New Arizona
Posted by horatio on Friday, April 30, 2010 (17:13:03) (55 reads)
This just came across my e-mail network and wanted to share it, as I think it is really good news and important updates on the immigration front.
New Arizona
In the midst of the Arizona state government passing the most
outrageous anti-immigrant law since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882,
several happenings pass unnoticed by the national media. At a packed
Flagstaff City Council meeting discussing the law, waves of people
declare publicly that they are undocumented, practically daring law
enforcement officers to arrest them. At the same meeting, a member of
a radical immigrant rights group receives thunderous applause for
demanding the repeal of all anti-immigrant laws and declaring the
right of all people to “live, love, and work wherever they please.”
Even the most conservative city councilman admits he liked the
notion. Down in Phoenix, high school students spontaneously organize
a school walkout through mass texting, without direction from the
established immigration reform organizations. This infuriates the
organizations because it pre-empts “their” planned protests. And then
these same students chuck water bottles at cops when they arrest one
of their own.
Welcome to the new Arizona.
Arizona has been dragged through the mud by the media and national
opinion over the passage of SB 1070, a heinous anti-immigration law
that massively expands police power in the state, basically mandating
racial profiling and making it a crime to associate with undocumented
people. Much of this derision is deserved. The law was crafted by
one of the most nativist politicians in the country, State Senator
Russell Pearce of Mesa, and signed by Governor Jan Brewer, who is
running as far to the right as she can in order to win the coming
Republican primary. The anti-immigrant sentiment is so strong in this
state that even our “maverick” U.S. Senator, John McCain, endorsed the
bill. McCain, who supported immigration reform when he ran for
president in 2008, is also up for reelection this November.
Anti-immigrant sentiment is so widespread it could change the
political landscape here—for the worse. The rumor is that Maricopa
County Sheriff Joe Arpaio—who began the nativist sensation in Arizona
in 2006 with his roadblocks and sweeps for “illegals”—is going to run
for governor against Brewer. Andrew Thomas, the Maricopa County
Attorney who is otherwise known as Arpaio’s mini-me, recently quit his
job in order to run for state attorney general. Pearce salivates at
the thought of replacing Arpaio as County Sheriff. So if you think
things are bad now, wait until November, when we could have Arpaio,
Thomas, Hayworth, and Pearce running the state. It’s enough to make
David Duke exhale a low whistle.
But the courageous actions of undocumented workers and high school
students suggest that nativism will not rule the Grand Canyon State
without a fight. And those from below just might win.
You can see the kernel of the new Arizona in the shell of the old in
the Repeal Coalition, a grassroots, all-volunteer organization with
chapters in Flagstaff and Phoenix. As one of its main organizers,
Taryn Jordan, explains, the group was formed in 2008 to fight anti-
immigrant legislation. “We knew something like this [SB 1070] was
coming, and we’ve known it for a long time,” says Jordan. “Our goal
in Repeal was to provide a new face of resistance to it.”
And it is new. Most immigrant rights groups here call for
“comprehensive immigration reform,” a law that would create a long,
arduous path to citizenship for only some undocumented people, while
leaving many in legal limbo. The Repeal Coalition, however, argues
for the repeal of all anti-immigrant laws. “We demand the repeal of
all laws—federal, state, and local—that degrade and discriminate
against undocumented individuals and that deny U.S. citizens their
lawful rights,” their literature states. “We demand that all human
beings—with papers or without—be guaranteed access to work, housing,
health care, education, legal protection, and other public benefits,
as well as the right to organize.”
Flagstaff Repeal Coalition organizer Ashley Cooper says that in the
current anti-immigrant climate, repeal is the only relevant demand.
“You can’t reform these laws; you can only repeal them,” she says.
“And this gets to the heart of the issue. In a global economy, where
goods and services move effortlessly across borders, humans deserve
the same freedom. The only way to achieve that is to repeal existing
laws, not create complicated and difficult paths to citizenship that
only some people will be able to access.”
The group is finding an increasingly receptive audience for its
message, especially among undocumented people and college and high
school students.
Repeal’s approach to political organizing is also different from most
immigration reform organizations. “Our goal is not to work for the
people but to work with them,” explains Phoenix organizer Ceci Saenz.
“We believe that the people should be leading this struggle—and that
they already are leading it.” Repeal’s task, she explains, is to
facilitate this leadership by bringing people together, encouraging
them to “develop their militancy,” and to provide a political
framework for their struggle, which is expressed by their slogan, “No
more hate, harass, and blame: Freedom for all people to live, love,
and work where you please!”
Flagstaff Repeal helped mobilize the undocumented workers who
courageously spoke out at the City Council meeting, for example, and
they are currently organizing pickets at a local hotel that has
harassed and abused (and now fired) undocumented workers there. The
weekend before, they organized three protests in a row, which drew 500
people in a town of 60,000. “It wasn’t even our idea,” explains
Flagstaff Repeal Coalition organizer Katie Fahrenbruch. “We held a
meeting just before 1070 was passed. When one of our volunteers asked
folks what they wanted to do about [the law], the entire audience said
‘Protest!’” (In Spanish, of course.) “They couldn’t collectively
agree on a day, so they said let’s do it for three days. So, we
helped organize it in less than twenty-four hours’ notice.”
In Phoenix, the Coalition is organizing undocumented people, trailer
park by trailer park, apartment complex by apartment complex. While
thousands massed at the state Capitol the day after Governor Brewer
signed SB 1070 into law, the Repeal Coalition was with a group of
several hundred, led by undocumented women, who led a protest through
the Latino neighborhoods they are organizing. Later that evening they
called an emergency meeting, and within thirty minutes there were
forty undocumented people meeting inside a garage in a trailer park,
discussing strategy.
Many people have been talking about leaving the state since 1070 was
passed, but this group did not. They talked about fighting.
Something is new here.
All of this is being done by a group of just a handful of volunteers
without non-profit status and with virtually no budget. Three Phoenix
organizers live in a “Repeal” house, paid for by a small grant they
obtained. They agree to work at least thirty hours a week for Repeal
in exchange for free rent and utilities. “We don’t live large and
it’s been stressful since 1070 was passed, but it’s worth it,” says
Chris Griffin. He lives in the house and spends his days visiting
jails, courthouses, and the homes of undocumented workers struggling
against these laws.
This is the new Arizona. As conservative whites try to drive every
“illegal” out of the state, and as immigration reform groups wait for
Obama and Pelosi and Reid to put immigration reform on the agenda,
folks in the Repeal Coalition are holding mass meetings of
undocumented workers and are going to the hangouts of high school
students, encouraging them to take their struggle to the next level.
And as snipers line the roof of the State Capitol, they are smiling
every time a water bottle whizzes past a cop who is now empowered to
check their papers.
Welcome to the new Arizona.
comments? | | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : Take Back the Night march 2010
Posted by horatio on Thursday, April 15, 2010 (00:51:18) (66 reads)
Here's a short video I made from the 2010 Take Back the Night march at the New School in NYC. I'll be posting a blog about it as well, as I have a lot in my head, but not enough time right now. Enjoy!
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : Will Texas Conservatives Undermine Public Education?
Posted by horatio on Monday, March 15, 2010 (02:18:49) (76 reads)

On Friday March 12th the Texas Board of Education made national news in their plans to make sweeping reforms to the educational standards for Social Studies curriculum in the state for the next ten years. While final changes won't be clear until sometime in May, things look pretty bad for Texas children when it comes to Social Studies lessons for the near future. While the proposed changes still have to go through a 30-day comment period in the state register, the final approval by the BOE is unlikely to change substantially. Approved changes are likely to take effect in the 2001-12 school year.
The New York Times Magazine just did a major feature on this, and the Texas Freedom Network's article on these recent changes is highlighted in their "money quote," which gets to the heart of the matter:
| Quote:: |
| The Christian “truth” about America’s founding has long been taught in Christian schools, but not beyond. Recently, however — perhaps out of ire at what they see as an aggressive, secular, liberal agenda in Washington and perhaps also because they sense an opening in the battle, a sudden weakness in the lines of the secularists — some activists decided that the time was right to try to reshape the history that children in public schools study. Succeeding at this would help them toward their ultimate goal of reshaping American society. As Cynthia Dunbar, another Christian activist on the Texas board, put it, “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.” |
As TFN notes, this absurdity has even gone so far as censoring the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River.
So what is all the hullabaloo about anyway? I spent the afternoon trying to answer just that question. For Texas conservatives on the BOE, like Don McLeroy, the answer is simple:
“We are adding balance,” said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.” (nyt)
Here are some of the proposed changes to the new curriculum that stood out for me:
a) A plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
b) An amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation.
c) An amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism
d) An amendment requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.”
e) The economics curriculum revisions would add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes.
f) Replacing the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”
g) An amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders in the sociology curriculum.
h) The removal of Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone.
i) Change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
j) Ensuring textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
(nyt)
One of my favorite quotes from the NYT article is from conservative board member David Bradley:
| Quote:: |
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.” (nyt) |
I decided to take Mr. Bradley up on his offer of the $1000 charity donation, since the 1st Amendment answers his challenge quite nicely. Here's what I wrote to him:
| Quote:: |
Dear Mr. Bradley,
I was reading an article in the NY Times today concerning the recent decision by the Texas BOE on textbook materials and curriculum. In that article, you were quoted as saying:
"I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state," ... "I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution."
As you should be aware, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the US reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is clear and unambiguous proof that the Founders and early American political leaders did feel it was important to keep religious views separate from the civil laws of the nation, even if they themselves were all Christian or deists of some denomination or another. There is no doubt that they all had their own views on religion, and a review of many of the Founders journals and letters shows that there was a consensus to not include any religious requirements in the Constitution, other than the negative freedom restraining the state from supporting any particular one. They left the positive freedom of choice to individuals.
So I would like to know if you are a man of your word, and will in fact offer the $1,000 to a charity for pointing out the basis in the Constitution of the separation of church and state? |
While I haven't heard back from Mr. Bradley yet on his offer, I'll be sure to keep people updated on his response, if I even get one.
Now I don't want to give people the wrong impression, I think conservatives do sometimes get a raw deal in public conversations I'm privy too, but a lot of it is not entirely undeserved, especially from those one the far right, fundamentalist evangelical fringe. And sadly, it seems like those are the very people sitting on the Texas BOE.
For example, when we teach kids about the conservative resurgence in the 1970's and 1980's, will we talk about how this was partly a response to social advances for women, highlighted in the struggle over the Equal Rights Amendment, of which conservatives Republicans like Phyllis Schlafly in particular, were rabid opponents. And they probably won't be mentioning the rise of militant christian pro-life groups and associated abortion clinic bombings and attacks on doctors.
And I doubt the Texas BOE is planning to include discussion about the Watergate scandal and Nixon's many illegal dealings, in particular the bombings in Cambodia under Operation Menu, nor the Iran-Contra scandal of Reagan and his even shadier foreign policy--the Reagan Doctrine--and support for right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Or the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, or support for apartheid South Africa, or...well, you get the idea.
Venona papers or not, nothing excused the witch hunt politics of McCarthyism, and to suggest otherwise is to show a desire to return to Cold War era politics--no thank you!
Hum, so interning Japanese was racist, but if we also interned Germans and Italians, that makes the Japanese internment not racist? Sorry, I guess I don't follow that logic. This somehow assumes that racism against Germans and Italians during WWII didn't exist, which is utter nonsense if you know anything about this period.
Even President Reagan--the shining Conservative star--acknowledged this racism when the Congress passed and he signed legislation in 1988 apologizing for the internments, stating the internment was wrong and apologizing for: "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" So maybe these conservatives should go back and study their own national history a little closer! Geesh
I'm all for adding Friedman and von Hayek, but what about some other radical economists, since this list is pretty skewed to the right already. And changing "capitalism" to "free-enterprise system," some on, when will we stop preaching the myth of free market anything. It never had, and never will, exist. The so-called free market is so dependent on state support and regulation that it's a joke.
I'm all for teaching about personal responsibility, but to suggest that government policy and social pressures have nothing to do with suicide, dating violence, sexuality or eating disorders is ridiculous, and reeks of the "welfare queen" and "baby machine" stereotypes of black and latina women, as well as the "bootstrap" and "trickle down" mythologies conservatives so love to promote. I'd like to hear exactly how individual responsibility plays into being a young college female forcibly raped by male students! NPR did an excellent piece on this recently, Seeking Justice for Campus Rapes, reminding us that 1 out of every 5 women on campus will be sexually assaulted while in school! Personal responsibility my ass, and the same goes for issues of sexualities and constant homophobia rampant in our society. Personal responsibility has nothing to do with stopping these problems, they are systemic issues, and changing high school texts to ignore this fact only protects the perpetrators and makes things worse. Thanks Texas conservatives, way to prepare your students for the future!
In a similar strain, I'm sure the inclusion of texts on the "violent philosophy" of the BPP will not include, say, the efforts by the CIA and FBI to flood the West Coast with crack cocaine, or the illegal and immoral actions like Cointelpro, which were ripped to shreds by the Church Committee report. and are extensively documented in, among other sources, Agents of Repression by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall.
There is a lot more I could say, but the point is, when you start inserting ideological nonsense into educational texts, you are doing a disservice to everyone. We should be teaching our children critical reading and thinking skills, not dumbing them down with selective and revisionist histories of the way things were. We've already got enough of that in our public school textbooks, let's not make things even worse.
You can watch some of the Texas conservatives in action for yourself in these videos.
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 5
|
bioart : Dissecting Kac and Transgenic Art
Posted by horatio on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 (22:18:06) (97 reads)
In watching some of the videos and reading some of the articles circulating almost a decade ago over Alba, Eduardo Kac's gfp enhanced rabbit, and also trying to put that into dialogue with the Leonardo's Choice readings and videos from the UCLA event, a number of pressing questions came to mind. In particular, the questions about ethics and rights that were raised by Steven Best and Carol Gigliotti. But even more than that, the underlying question that we tend to ask a lot in my field, which is what work does this project do? With that in mind, I want to explore a few threads relevant for our class.
Carol Gigliotti writes in her opening to Leonardo's Choice that:
Unlike the majority of discussions on biotechnology, whether endorsing or critical, this volume, as a whole, views seriously the disastrous impact of these technologies on animals themselves. Amidst the wealth of human intelligence and imagination invested in the development of technologies, the natural world and non-human beings have been regulated to proprietary roles, even though our technological innovations could not exist without them. Our long-standing pre-occupation with technological outlooks and technological solutions have obscured the reality and agency of the more-than-human world, or what is left of it.
Gigliotti points to three key moments, following Italian philosopher Paola Cavalieri's trail, which have left a historical imprint in the form of a human-animal binary. These are:
The Greek separation of humans and animals in the polis (cf. Plato's city of pigs).
Descartes notion of mechanistic action and the animal autonomata.
The current techno-industrialization (what Haraway calls 'technoscience') of animals in society.
But Gigliotti argues that the biotech revolution is a new 4th destructive moment for animals, in part because it has the potential to undermine the advances in animal rights and concern for animal welfare, as well as the deeper metaphysical changes in public thinking towards animals, by a re-instrumentalization of the animal as object of science. We can see this in a few different places:
"It is also true and needs to be articulated clearly that the current goals of Western science and technology, bound up as they are with entrenched ideas of animals and nature existing solely for our use, are antithetical to these challenges and are still driving the development of “transformative” biotechnologies." (Gigliotti xiv)
"This collection’s central questions revolve around how Western ideas and practices of creative freedom are disassociated from the impacts they have on the non-human world. This disassociation has contributed to shifting an organic understanding of nature to a mechanistic model in which the image of the non-human world is one of an (mere) inert, soulless machine and in which the agency of animals is obscured." (Gigliotti xiv)
"Animals have been conscripted into these technologies to further an agenda of controlling the creation of all life through the manipulation of various manifestations of code. In today’s biotechnologies, animals have become code." (Gigliotti xvii)
This is where I think a lot of the concern over Kac's work really centers. What work is Kac "trying to do" with his art? Well, here's what he has said in the past about the gfp bunny in context:
"Transgenic art, I proposed elsewhere, is a new art form based on the use of genetic engineering to transfer natural or synthetic genes to an organism, to create unique living beings. This must be done with great care, with acknowledgment of the complex issues thus raised and, above all, with a commitment to respect, nurture, and love the life thus created."
The "GFP Bunny" project is a complex social event that starts with the creation of a chimerical animal that does not exist in nature (i.e., "chimerical" in the sense of a cultural tradition of imaginary animals, not in the scientific connotation of an organism in which there is a mixture of cells in the body)."
As I read this, he is basically taking a scientific practice build around and upon animal exploitation and trying to claim a liberatory artistic potential by pointing to how it can help to open up "complex issues" and perhaps also foster "care" and a vague and unstated "commitment" to the life under the genetic knife. But I don't buy it, not completely, and not on the most fundamental point--ethics. Nowhere in Kac's writing about Alba, or in his other writings on transgenetic art, do I see a real awareness that his ability to even make these transgenic art projects is premised on the acceptance of both animal exploitation and the violability of animal life compared to the human. Sure, he talks about the love he has for Alba, even if he/she? remains locked up in a French biotech lab, while he is busy making money and fame at the expense of this rabbit, nor does he ever acknowledge his perpetuation of animal experimentation as an acceptable practice, even though he wants to claim awareness of the fact. This was really brought home to me in one line in particular of his, where he states:
"I decided to proceed with the project because it became clear that it was safe...Put another way: green fluorescent protein is harmless to the rabbit. It is also important to point out that the "GFP Bunny" project breaks no social rule: humans have determined the evolution of rabbits for at least 1400 years." (GFP Bunny)
The gfp bunny project may not break any social rules if we assume that animal exploitation and experimentation is the norm (which it is), and we also accept that human manipulation of animals for "at least 1400 years" has been the norm (also true), but this completely misses the ethical question of whether these "social rules" are themselves acceptable. Many would say no, absolutely not. And that's the real rub with Kacs, he wants to have his animal friendly-lovey dovey story--and eat his gfp bunny too. But you can't have it both ways. Either the experimentation and manipulation of animals is ethically suspect, or it is ethically acceptable, and where and how that line gets drawn is precisely what he claims to want to interrogate and have a dialogue about, but at the very moment when his own project asks that question, he avoids it, or rather, he falls back into the old anthropocentric trope of, "well we've done this before, so it must be ok to keep doing it." That is not an ethically defensible position, it is an excuse that precisely avoids having to deal with the ethical problems before you.
Now in fairness to Kac, he does respond to this charge, but I find his defense equally lacking. Here's what he says about his project compared to standard genetics or animal breeding programs:
"GFP Bunny" is a transgenic artwork and not a breeding project. The differences between the two include the principles that guide the work, the procedures employed, and the main objectives. Traditionally, animal breeding has been a multi-generational selection process that has sought to create pure breeds with standard form and structure, often to serve a specific performative function. As it moved from rural milieus to urban environments, breeding de-emphasized selection for behavioral attributes but continued to be driven by a notion of aesthetics anchored on visual traits and on morphological principles. Transgenic art, by contrast, offers a concept of aesthetics that emphasizes the social rather than the formal aspects of life and biodiversity, that challenges notions of genetic purity, that incorporates precise work at the genomic level, and that reveals the fluidity of the concept of species in an ever increasingly transgenic social context." (GFP Bunny)
I grant that his project is not about breeding (whether the French lab maintains that same view is a different story), but again his claim to the "principles that guide the work" being different are hard to square, given the ethical problem just outlined above. As far as procedures involved, as far as I can tell the actual, technical science that occurred to make Alba is exactly the same as any other genetic experiment for breeding or trait selection, it just happens that he was engineering Albe to express the gfp gene, rather than say hair sheen or fur color. But the procedures are identical.
He also makes a clever but deceptive semantic slip here by moving from transgenic experimentation to animal breeding in the same sentence, asking us to see how his process is not like traditional multi-generational breeding programs, but that was never a point of debate. We know he didn't "design" Alba for breeding, so to say what he is doing is not like that is to setup a straw man argument which he can easily knock down. The question is the transgenetic process, not the breeding process, and we should not lose sight of that as he seems to hope we will do. The reason I think he makes this claim is because he immediately wants to say that breeding is usually for "a specific performative function," whereas his project is somehow different. I'm not sure that is a claim he can really defend. If anything, I see a gfp bunny as the ultimate in performative function. After all, doesn't Alba function in a performative framework precisely because the rabbit's functions is a symbolic chimera demonstrating the potential of art and science to be fused? This sure seems to be what Kac is claiming when he says:
"As a transgenic artist, I am not interested in the creation of genetic objects, but on the invention of transgenic social subjects." (GFP Bunny)
Here I have to disagree that Alba has been constituted as a social subject. If anything, based on all of the media coverage and attention around Kac and Alba, this social process seems to further reify Alba as a mute object of Kac's artistic creativity. While he may not be "interested" in creating genetic objects, I would argue that is precisely what he accomplished in the form of Alba. To talk about Alba as a subject is to mythologize what he wanted Alba to be, not what Alba really is. While we can surely argue that Alba as a living and sentient subject should be able to engage as a transgenic social subject in these debates, when it comes to actually observing that process playing out, all we find is an absent referent--a silently glowing albino bunny held captive in an animal research lab--and not a true subject. This reality becomes all the harder to swallow when Kacs says things like the following:
"Integrating the lessons of dialogical philosophy and cognitive ethology, transgenic art must promote awareness of and respect for the spiritual (mental) life of the transgenic animal. The word "aesthetics" in the context of transgenic art must be understood to mean that creation, socialization, and domestic integration are a single process. The question is not to make the bunny meet specific requirements or whims, but to enjoy her company as an individual (all bunnies are different), appreciated for her own intrinsic virtues, in dialogical interaction." (GFP Bunny)
It's pretty language, and sounds great, but the reality tells a very different story. Where is the respect for the spiritual life of a rabbit who is the object of genetic manipulation and the subject of forced confinement, when all the aesthetic talk dies down? And that he misses this very aesthetic fulcrum--the point he tries to make so forcefully about intrinsic bunny value--is the saddest part. When he says that "creation, socialization, and domestic integration are a single process," he seems to be talking about the single process of life as an object of transgenic lab experimentation, not a social subject in its own right. And it is the lack of recognition by Kac that this all occurs as a single process, from lab experimentation to media hype, capturing Alba in the gaze of society as transgenic spectacle, which makes it all the more maddening. How else could you explain an artistic comment like the following not sounding amazingly naive and trite:
"Today, our ability to generate life through the direct method of genetic engineering prompts a re-evaluation of the cultural objectification and the personal subjectification of animals, and in so doing it renews our investigation of the limits and potentialities of what we call humanity." (GFP Bunny)
While I may applaud Kac's creativity and desire to engage in these critical issues, I worry that he does more harm than good in the process. And if his more recent projects like "Edunia" are any indication, I still think he is missing the boat in his attempt at transgenic artistic critique. Similarly, exhibits like Damien Hirst's Away From The Flock seem to be stranded in the same boat as Kac. After all, what happened to Kac's beloved Alba ten years out?
On a somewhat related but different not, something which Steve Best mentions in his essay, how do these debates change when the animals in question die or are dead, like in Jessica Joslin's mouse bioart sculptures?
Links:
GFP Bunny
Natural History of the Enigma (Kac's transgenic Petunia exhibit from 2009)
Making Edunia
comments? | | bioart | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : Political Dissent, Speech Acts and the New School Milieu
Posted by horatio on Monday, October 05, 2009 (01:18:28) (182 reads)
An Open Letter to the New School
10.2.09
As many people at the New School are likely now aware, student protests at a Milano public forum on Homeland Security, where Tom Ridge was the featured guest, have sparked considerable controversy around issues of freedom of speech and political protest. This is a controversy deeply entwined with not only the history and legacy of the New School, but also with the current campus climate and administration of the school. Some of the questions that have emerged so far include:
~ Were students justified in protesting the appearance of Tom Ridge at the New School?
~ Were the specific tactics used to disrupt the Tom Ridge event appropriate?
~ What standards does the community use to judge what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" actions?
~ Are all forms of protest equally legitimate and protected?
~ What is the relationship between the protection of free speech on campus and the creation of a safe space for academic discussion and debate?
~ Should the university only invite individuals to speak whose values or politics we agree with?
~ What exactly are the core values and the mission of the New School today, and how do they relate to our historical legacy as an institution?
~ Does the university community have an affirmative obligation to condemn actions which pose a potential threat to free speech at the New School?
~ Can issues of political dissent be separated from the political critique being offered by those acts?
These are all very important questions which the university is now grappling with, but which I believe we as a community are not adequately discussing. With that being said, I believe the academic community at the New School has an obligation to engage with these issues in a constructive and timely manner—one which does justice to our political views and positions as individual members—as well as our philosophical obligation as the embodiment or living spirit that defines the New School. We must demonstrate the value of theory and practice in a unified manner in and out of the classroom.
In an attempt to do just that, I offer the following reflections to the New School community. First, by addressing the underlying political issues as I understand them and as I see them relating to the specific issue of Tom Ridge speaking at the New School. Second, by framing the issues of political dissent and free speech in both a very grounded New School context, as well as a larger philosophical context. And finally, by trying to suggest the interconnections between the first and seconds parts, and their immediate ramifications for our school.
Continued in Read More link below...
Read More... (30.19 KB) | comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 5
|
Supreme Courts and Objectivity
Posted by horatio on Sunday, June 07, 2009 (02:18:18) (139 reads)
On the Sotomeyer question... reflections to follow.
Q: Initial thought: When has there ever been an "objective" Supreme Court Justice that was not influenced by "his or her social, political or religious views"? and since when has the court ever had a "judge that objectively applies the law to the facts?"
A: to follow...
comments? | | Score: 0
|
Dear Diary : Help me throw 5 million tomatoes at AIG!
Posted by horatio on Friday, March 20, 2009 (20:01:19) (136 reads)
Yeah, I'm not normally a big fan of forwards and whatnot, but this one actually was worth the time. MoveOn, that pseudo-leftist group we all hate to love or love to hate--take your pick--has a campaign about the AIG bullshit that has been happening with our--yes our--tax money thanks to Congress (who elected these idiots?) and President Obama (see, I told you so!). Anyway, the details are irrelevant at this point as so much money has been thrown into this balck hole that the best option sounds like a public takeover of the entire building and, while we're at it, why not the homes of these CEOs too?
So if you feel like throwing some virtual tomatoes at AIG, here's your chance.
The people at AIG who are most responsible for the severity of the financial crisis should be in jail. But instead, they're slated to get $450 million in bonuses. Infuriating, right?
So a MoveOn member created a game to show just how mad Americans are at AIG. It's called The Great AIG Tomato Toss and it's based on the idea that we should stop throwing money at the people who ruined our economy—and start throwing tomatoes.
comments? | | Dear Diary | Score: 0
|
|
|