Recently in Ethical issues Category

Some background (scholars of international politics please correct any errors)

India has a multiple-party system of democratic government that means parties have to work together and build alliances. Since gaining its independence from Britain, India has mostly been governed by a party called the Indian National Congress. It's left-leaning, sort of. Its primary opposition is the BJP, a hindu nationalist party, the religious right of India.

Five states in india have enacted limited bans on Coca-Cola but the state of Kerala is the first to ban it entirely. Kerala is one of the most left-leaning states in India, it also has the country's highest literacy rate, highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality, lowest population growth, etc. As of this year's elections, the state government is controlled by the Left Democratic Front, a coalition to the left of the Indian National Congress. The right-wing BJP has no seats in the Kerala state assembly.

The struggle against Coke in Kerala has gone on for years, on several fronts, but state-level efforts were often overturned at the federal or judicial stage. They'd tried legal battles over the groundwater and the toxic sludge stuff before. It's likely that the the Left Democratic Front winning the majority in the state government is what finally enabled the ban to take place. And now, unsurprisingly, the Indian federal government is disputing Kerala's claims of pesticide contamination.

What makes a democratic left-wing party like the Indian National Congress beholden to corporate interests? In part, pressure from the U.S. government. Consider the statement made by Frank Lavin, the Bush administration's undersecretary for international trade, disapproving of the Coke & Pepsi ban: "When India is working hard to attract and retain foreign investment, it would be unfortunate if the discussion were dominated by those who did not want to treat foreign companies fairly." The rhetoric of "fairness" is pretty funny, as what Lavin really wants is preferential treatment for multinationals, the ability to overrule local democratic decision-making. Consider also the $380,000 donated by Coca-Cola to the 2004 Bush campaign. Probably a wise investment.

Subtext: India, still struggling to emerge from colonialism, is facing significant environmental and humanitarian crises, as well as a heated relationship with Pakistan. Developed countries have pushed trade agreements and "development aid" (with strings attached) supposedly offering "help", but this isn't motivated by altruism, but the promise of expanded reach and global market dominance.

So this issue with fizzy-sugar-water and India is one that has very real tangible effects on the welfare and survival of people in that country, but it's also a symbolic struggle for a country that is still being forced to fight for their independence more than half-a-century after escaping British rule.

Vandana Shiva is one of the world's foremost radical scientists and is a leading voice of the anti-globalization movement. As what Gramsci would call an organic intellectual, Shiva has firsthand experience with the issues she writes and speaks about, and how they affect the women of the third world. Here's a podcast-sized lecture she gave last year at MIT. (MP3, 59:00)

Shiva gives us the vocabulary to understand what is going on in with Coke in India: not just corporate misbehavior, but corporate colonialism. Thus, the "Coca-Cola quit India" campaign directly borrows the language of Gandhi's campaign to get the British to "quit India". Like Gandhi, Shiva is convinced that individual acts of conscience connected in organized resistance are the way forward. While most of us will never have the opportunity to physically stand alongside Shiva as she blockades the bottling plants, we are not powerless. As consumers who have the privilege of consumer choice, we can choose to do business only with socially responsible companies. As U.S. citizens who have the privilege of democratic government and freedom of assembly (without getting shot by Coke's thugs), we can lobby our government and our peers to action. And as creative people with the privilege of free expression we can choose not to let our ideas and creative energies get used in service of the corporate ogre. We can refuse to be complicit.

I know how cheesy this sounds, but that's how it goes with irreducible truths, and anyway I am following the instructions of Some Velvet Sidewalk: "Let us fear no cliches!"

If you're interested in hearing more from Shiva, I'd start with Staying Alive, a book which is notable for the way it links ecological crises, colonialism, class & economic "development", and the oppression of women. Of particular interest to me is the way Shiva draws on the religious teachings of her native tradition, showing how Hindu concepts and goddesses function as sources of ecofeminist wisdom, passed down from generation to generation. It's counterintuitive and exciting, if like me you're used to thinking of traditional religion as generally androcentric and patriarchal, especially in the "developing world".

Edit: I initially failed to credit Freeman Z, for generously hosting this recording.

Anyone familiar with the evangelical right's rhetoric about homosexuality has undoubtedly run across the work of Paul Cameron. As chairman of the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Cameron has made a career out of publishing studies that supposedly offer scientific justification for antigay public policy, depicting gays as diseased perverts. Of course, his studies are so flawed and biased as to render them entirely meaningless; Cameron was even thrown out of the American Psychological Association for violating ethical principles and repudiated by the American Sociological Association for posing as a sociologist. Nevertheless his work is still frequently referenced by relatively "mainstream" opponents of LGBT rights. When William Bennett claims "the best available research suggests that the average lifespan of male homosexuals is around 43 years of age", he's talking about one of Cameron's bogus studies. When televangelist Rod Parsley stands next to Texas Governor Rick Perry, celebrating the passage of yet another anti-marriage amendment and says "Gay sex is a veritable breeding ground for disease", when the American Family Association claims gays are more likely than heteros to molest children, or some nutjob on the internet starts shrieking about how gays average somewhere between 106 and 1105 different partners a year, they're talking about Cameron's work. His research has even shown up in state supreme court opinions in Massachusetts and Florida, in service of arguments that discrimination can be justified for public health reasons.

So, no secret that dude doesn't like the gays. But here's what's news to me: Cameron actually tells parents to encourage their teenagers to engage in heterosexual sex play as a method of warding off homosexuality!

In a 1978 book called Sexual Gradualism, Paul Cameron offered a "solution to the sexual dilemma of teenagers and young adults." The man who would go on to become America's most vitriolic anti-gay researcher proposed that teenagers and unmarried adults be encouraged by their parents, church leaders and society in general to engage in sexual activity that gradually increases in intensity, but always stops short of "going all the way" before marriage. What follows are excerpts from the meandering, 70-page manual, which is part social theory, part how-to guide.

Gradualism is a process-oriented approach to learning the physical skills of sexuality in step with gaining maturity in the psychological aspects of sexual intimacy. Gradualism is anchored on set levels of sexuality activity. These levels are:

Level 1: Being near another.
Level 2: Holding hands, hugging and the like.
Level 3: Kissing.
Level 4: Breast fondling.
Level 5: Mutual hand exploration of the genitals.
Level 6: Total nudity, perhaps in a bathtub. Manual stimulation.
Level 7: Oral sex.
Level 8: The final level of sexual intimacy.

Level 5 is the break-off point. Only people who truly love can care enough to handle beyond Level 5. Level 5 provides 60 percent of the overall fun of sex.

Gradualism would best be practiced at home. A responsible set of parents might allot a room, privacy, access to a bathroom, a television, and snacks to their teen-agers to practice gradualism. Some parents may shudder at this prospect. But they should remember that the minute a teenager leaves in a car, he or she is able to do anything desired.

Another advantage of gradualism is the insulation value it provides against homosexuality. By gradually introducing a young person to the opposite sex, gradualism steers in a heterosexual direction. While no parent wants his child starting the sexual process "too young," better too young than homosexual. (Link)

To this, I say, huzzah! It's about time the Christian right came out in favor of teenage bathtub handjobs. And parents providing snacks would be such a thoughtful touch! What teenager hasn't found himself thinking, mid-breast-fondle, "Damn, what I wouldn't give for a can of Pringles and some Sunny D right about now!"

Further reading:
An overview of Cameron's career from the SPLC's Intelligence Report.
An extended discussion of Cameron's bogus methods.

Via the reliably weird WFMU:
"Lil' Markie" is the creation of evangelist Mark Fox, who uses his ability to sing in a terrifying "childlike" falsetto to sing cautionary Christian tales.

Start with "Diary of an Unborn Child" (8.0 mb MP3). If you can handle that, go here to download the entire 17 song album. Don't miss the video clips; the voice is even more surreal when you see it being produced by a jolly mulleted man.

edit: Usually I avoid posting this sort of thing. Though often accurate, the whole "What did they do now? Gosh those evangelical christians sure are nutty!" trope is trite and not particularly productive. I made an exception because this was just too crazy to keep to myself.

I should have done this earlier, but what the heck.

Many people seem to be looking for ways to help with disaster relief but are frustrated with reports of mismanagement and bureaucracy at the American Red Cross (perhaps they should be renamed Red Tape?)

If you're looking for an effective agency to donate to, I strongly suggest UMCOR, the United Methodist Committee On Relief.

Yes, they're affiliated with the United Methodist Church, but fear not, nonbelievers: UMCOR has a strict policy of not letting prosletyzation pollute their relief work. They actually really piss off the conservative wing of the Methodist denomination by not letting them slip little bibles into their relief kits. It's strictly about service and compassion.

And they have a reputation among relief workers as one of the most well-organized and effective relief organizations around. Example: FEMA just outsourced its gulf coast hurricane relief case management to UMCOR because they knew UMCOR could do it better than any other agency. Heck, UMCOR was focusing on the situation with conflict diamonds in Africa back when Kanye was still folding t-shirts at the Gap.

Apparently UMCOR has been so busy helping people that they haven't had time to implement a way to donate with a credit card on their website. But you can call 1-800-554-8583.

Last December, I was feeling particularly uppity and wrote this letter.

I've been enjoying Arthur since issue 4.  Here's some reflections:

Arthur seems to be embracing the role of sixties revivalist in a lot of ways.  If you're going to go that route, it's important that you avoid replicating the mistakes of that era.

There are a lot of young people who look back and have to conclude that drugs were the achilles heel of the sixties peace movement. Trying to get stoners politically organized is like herding cats. There's people who've been trying to start a NORML chapter at my college for like 6 years, but by their own admission their drug intake means they always seem to lack the motivation and organization.  The corporate media then-as-now loves drug culture because its emphasis on immediate gratification resonantes so strongly with consumerist desire.  (cf. Thomas Frank's first book, Conquest of Cool).  They glamorize and normalize getting fucked up through shitty movies like "Dude Where's My Car" and shitty music like Pantera & Cypress Hill & Staind.   For many of us, getting serious about overthrowing the corporate oligarchy means staying self-aware by not fucking with our brain chemistry.

So that's why it bugs me to see articles like Mark Pilkington's piece on magic mushrooms, replete with glamorous photos.  Pilkington adheres to a false binary between cool progressive hipsters who like drugs and stodgy old conservatives who wanna stop them.  This oversimplification means that people who support decriminalization of drugs but have strong reservations about their use are never represented.  This is pretty much true throughout the magazine.

I don't want to come off as authoritarian or judgmental.  Of course drug policy in this country is absurd, racist, and counterproductive. I'm open to the idea that psychedelics might provide legitimate insights or heightened consciousness for some folks, though I'm certain that one can get there in other ways.  And of course, I'd rather see the 14 year old kids around my small rural town doing shrooms than meth or oxycontin (seriously a big problem here).  But I'd REALLY rather see them explode their minds in healthier ways.  If you're going to try to start a consciousness-raising trend, why not publish a nice big feature spread on transcendental meditation?

I guess what I'm asking for is balance.

Also:  more articles written by and about women & queers.  Please?

Thanks.

xo,
Kevin Erickson
Walla Walla, Washington

The letter ignited a lengthy and not-very-productive exchange of emails between myself and Jay Babcock, Arthur's rather defensive editor. (Can someone explain to me why dudes always bring up "quotas" when you ask for more emphasis on women and queers?) So I was surprised and pleased when Babcock decided to print my letter and also to take my advice and print an excellent article on "Meditation as a subversive activity" by Michael Brownstein. Brownstein's article is definitely worth the effort of trying to track down a copy of the magazine (issue #15, Feb 2005). He apparently also wrote this book, World On Fire which is now on my wishlist.

So the conventional wisdom is that the Republicans botched this. They saw it as an easy way to pander to the pro-lifers, but polls indicate that majorities even of white evangelicals opposed federal intervention.

To me, the most surprising aspect of the situation was the involvement of liberals Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson alongside scary psycho Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, best known for harassing women outside abortion clinics. My housemate Alex theorized that the mainstream media's conception of the Terri Schiavo issue as a simple right-left divide is imagined, and this is consistent with my experience...a couple of my very liberal friends surprised me by saying they supported keeping her artificially alive.

I am not sure why Nader and Jackson got involved, but I think perhaps it's good that they did, because it destabilizes the polarized discourse surrounding the so-called "culture of life". Maybe they hope to end the identification of a "culture of life" with a conservative social agenda that neglects obvious life issues like war. Perhaps Nader and Jackson sense that the "Save Terri" crowd are realizing that the republican interest in the issue was insincere, and are ready to look elsewhere for leadership. Cue Jim Wallis, talking rather predictably about consistent life ethics.

The best analysis I've read comes from Eric Santner, who reflects on the case in light of political theology.

Given the fact that many who oppose abortion also condone capital punishment, one has good reason to wonder whether what is really at stake here is not innocent life but rather living innocence, that is, a fantasy of protecting not a human life but a condition of purity and innocence that can, in turn, only be truly embodied by non-sentient life. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder whether what President Bush has referred to as the “culture of life” only refers to non-sentient life; as soon as one acquires feeling, perception, and awareness one is more or less abandoned to the minimally regulated vagaries of the market place. (read the rest)

Meanwhile, Julianne points out what ought to be the obvious lesson of this sad episode...so why is the media ignoring it?