plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
7859 stories
·
20 followers

THE MOST AMERICAN PANDEMIC

1 Share

I write a lot less about the day-to-day of politics than I used to, mostly because I can't keep up with it (while maintaining other responsibilities) anymore but also because it's so self-evident the way in which most of what happens is bad that I don't feel like I have a lot to add. At some point there's only so many times you can say "Well, this is stupid!" or "They sure did fuck that up!" before you feel like the local news weather reporter in San Diego saying "78 and sunny" every single day until death takes you.

The billion ways in which the response to the COVID pandemic have been cataloged ably by many others, and in fact you probably figured them all out on your own without a real need to have what is bad about "Let's just reopen everything, masks are for pussies" explained to you. I used to have the energy for that; I no longer do. I salute anyone out there who has managed to continue doing that all day, every day. What it must be doing to your psyche, I can only imagine.

To me, the COVID response in the US will play out for History Books as not only the best example of everything wrong with us, but as the perfect representation / culmination of our last forty years of politics. The best way to summarize the response of the people in charge of managing this public health crisis is: Look, just do whatever is best for you. Handle it however you want to handle it. Go out or don't go out. Wear a mask or don't wear a mask. Stay home or don't stay home. Take quack drug treatments or don't. There's nothing the government or anyone else can tell you to do, and if they tried it wouldn't work, and they'd probably tell you the wrong thing, so I mean really what can we say other than "You make the choice" because ultimately you know what's best for you.

We've been pushing that line of thinking – nobody can tell anyone what to do, only you know what's best for you – in a million different policy areas and as an answer to every social, political, and economic question for a long time now. It has been pushed so hard and so effectively that not only is it the default solution to every problem but we can conceive of no other. Make everyone stay home? The government can't even do that!

On the first day of class in introductory American Politics, and in the first few pages of nearly every textbook on the subject, there is a discussion of the very basic concept of collective action problems. Government exists because there are some goods neither we as individuals nor "The Free Market" can provide. We cannot provide security for ourselves because we have to sleep sometime, and therefore we organize into groups that make rules and laws. We cannot provide our own roads so we tax everybody and build them as a cooperative effort. Public health is a collective good, too – it has an individual component, of course, because beneath the statistics there are real people getting sick (or not). But this isn't choosing Coke vs Pepsi, public schools vs private schools. We can't have pandemic for some people and no pandemic for others, especially without a vaccine or effective treatment. With a vaccine, a specious but technically accurate argument could be made ("Hey, get the vaccine if you want! I'm not!") that the individual has some control over the outcome. But in this situation you don't. You don't control whether you get it or not. You can protect yourself and reduce the odds, but you can't eliminate the risk.

And here we are, taking a purely individualistic approach – the do as thou wilt rule – to a basic collective action problem. It is idiotic and nonsensical on the most basic level possible, and here we are. We tried some collective action for a couple weeks, people got bored and business owners got mad because they weren't able to force their employees back to work and their customers back to shopping, and then we just decided that the collective action problem no longer required collective action. Not that it went away – that it simply wasn't a thing we needed to plan and execute a collective response to anymore. We didn't solve the problem so much as we simply decided it is not a problem anymore, or that it is, but we are powerless to stop it, but I guess we aren't powerless, but ok I guess what we really mean is we just don't want to.

Read that run-on sentence again and tell me there is a better way to summarize what the idea of governing has become in this country; it's not merely that we can't solve the problems we face, but that we can conceive of the solutions and have decided that we simply can't or won't implement them.

This is how systems collapse, albeit slowly – when everyone can see what is wrong but nothing can be done because the solutions would violate the consensus imposed by The System. And the system and the consensus around it are worth more to decision-makers than any single problem it causes, and so nothing changes, until eventually the problems pile up high enough that the whole edifice collapses.

The pandemic is a signal that we are entering the terminal phase, although there's no telling how long it will last – the phase in which the solutions are there but we can't do them and nobody can quite understand or explain why. It's the lemmings jumping off the cliff asking "Hey why are we doing this?" and then just doing it because everyone else did, without bothering to demand or propose an answer. We are doing what we're doing because this is the way it has to be, silly.

That works as an epitaph for a lot of empires.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Juneteenth

1 Share
[CW: slavery, white supremacy, violence]

I had a long-form rambling blog post here about Juneteenth that I ultimately didn't like the tone or arrangement of. But I did like some of its content, so I'll try to reproduce that here in a significantly shorter, hopefully more-readable point-form post.



0. Preface



  • Today is an important commemoration day for the nominal end of slavery in America.

  • Reflecting on that as a white person, in today's new-found white interest in racism discourse, makes me think of a couple things I'm seeing in the writing of fellow whites that are a bit off, so I'm going to write about them here.

  • Two things are: institutions and history.

  • Not trying to derail from present emphasis on police brutality, will in fact buttress that; but also think the most-present aspects of that are well-covered elsewhere and the dimensions I want to discuss are important parts of what I see in Black discourse about racism that are being consciously or unconsciously neglected in white discourse about racism.



1. Institutions



  • Institutions exist. If you can take one point from this post, take that. Part of neoliberal political propaganda is to deny their existence in order to obscure the function of those that favour the ruling class and undermine those that favour the lower classes. If you ever see yourself saying "there are no institutions, only individuals" you are parroting this propaganda.

  • Example institutions: governments, policing, justice and legal systems; military systems; banks, corporations, markets and economic systems; schools and universities; hospitals, doctors, health authorities and psychiatric systems.

  • Institutions have individual actors within them but they are independent of their individuals; they have constitutive physical, legal, financial, and bureaucratic form that greatly outlives and exerts much greater collective power than any individual.

  • The term "systemic racism" is not a synonym for "ubiquitous individual racism" (which is a separate and real problem); it is a synonym for "institutional racism" and refers to racism that is embedded within the constitutive forms of the institution as much or more than it refers to any individuals associated with the institution. Focusing on indivuals is, again, repeating political propaganda that seeks to obscure the function of the institution.

  • Specifically: the policies and records held in an institution can be (and often are) racist without any ongoing human effort. They are documents (or database rows) with their own force, part of the institution itself. Changing an institution at that level requires changing the policies and records. When someone asks to see institutional change, and gives a list of policy-change demands, and is then met with a promise that there will be changes to individuals or staff, that is missing the demand. Policy changes are required.

  • Besides policy changes (which address current and future wrongs), changing records also matters in order to address past wrongs. Records record what happened in the past and if that was wrong, the records are wrong. When someone calls for purging criminal records of people wrongly prosecuted, or granting citizenship to people wrongly excluded from it, or transferring land or money back to people it was stolen from, they are talking about modifying institutional records to address past wrongs. This is sensible and again if it's met with only a promise to change individuals on staff, the point is being missed.



2. History




comment count unavailable comments
Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

whimslcott: whimslcott: whimslcott: next time someone talks about welfare fraud, remember that if...

2 Shares

whimslcott:

whimslcott:

whimslcott:

next time someone talks about welfare fraud, remember that if you’re homeless you’re not supposed to have food stamps and if you lose your home and don’t report it to DSHS so they can take away your food stamps that’s welfare fraud

when i was on ABD (aged, blind, and disabled benefits – the only cash aid available to disabled people while we’re applying for SSI, a monthly $197) literally all money you get can be deducted from these benefits. this means that if someone sees you digging through the trash for food and gives you $20 the government will only pay you $177 that month. if you don’t report that $20 it’s welfare fraud

astute readers might realise that there’s no way anyone in the country can be expected to live off of $197 a month, and that that would have to be supplemented by another source of income. and if that money is going to disappear as soon as that other source of income hits $197, it might as well not exist. you’re right!

when i was on ABD i had a patreon running that brought in a steady $13 a month. the person in charge of my case rounded up the amount of money i was getting to $15. i was penalised by $15 for making $13.

Read the whole story
graydon
2 days ago
reply
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Photo

1 Comment


Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Rich people in China and America working together to impoverish everyone else!
Share this story
Delete

RT @total_exit: just dropping some appreciation for Ricardo Bofill's ABRAXAS—a true architectural work of art which also happens to be subs…

2 Shares

just dropping some appreciation for Ricardo Bofill's ABRAXAS—a true architectural work of art which also happens to be subsidised housing. turns out they don't all have to be grey cement cubes pic.twitter.com/3JU4N1jvGw






Retweeted by AliceAvizandum on Tuesday, June 16th, 2020 10:24pm


319 likes, 71 retweets
Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
mkalus
23 days ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete

https://whatsdifferentincanada.tumblr.com/post/621194525114843136

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Shoes in the house is disgusting
dreadhead
22 days ago
reply
Vancouver Island, Canada
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories