Don't let the title fool you, this is about pop culture, too.
So, mild spoilers for Star Trek: Into Darkness follow...if you don't want to know anything about the plot, don't read.
I have always considered myself a liberal. I think it is pretty obvious that a lot of Hollywood is, as well. On social issues, I am all the way blue (except for a purely theoretical endorsement of the death penalty...but that is another subject). I am trying to figure out where, exactly, I lost my taste for political discourse. I used to write about elections and politics like I was auditioning for a column at politico.
Some friends of mine are really politically aware, on both sides of the spectrum. There are two issues I have no real opinion on, Monsanto and Drones. Or, more honestly, my opinions are not based on facts at all.
First, we'll take Monsanto (Star Trek is coming, don't worry). Genetically Modified foods are a bit of a bogeyman. I listened to an NPR show the other day where the primary guest was a researcher who puts the GM in GMO. She was stating that decades of scientific studies have resulted in there being no evidence of health dangers from the ingestion of GMOs. A rebuttal came from a man who said that there had been some studies that refute that. Neither of them mentioned which studies nor where the preponderance of evidence lies (although, from reading between the lines it still sounds like GMOs=harmless has been more proven than not). The researcher made some good points about the selective breeding of animals for consumption and cross pollination of seeds that has happened for centuries. These are attempts to select for a specific gene and encourage it. Some callers agreed, most (being frothing liberals) just wanted to demonize the researcher. As she was ganged up on, I felt sympathy for her having to defend her life's work as ethical.
And that is just the thing, I don't know if what she is doing is harmful. I don't know the science. Can I believe a corporation would poison their customer base to make a dollar? RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris say yes. Can I just as easily believe people are designing GM foods to help make food better (more damage resistant or longer lasting?), yes I can believe that, too. It is no secret I have anger issues. Is it from eating bovine growth hormone in fast food burgers for the past 35 years? Who the hell knows. I say, if you want to avoid feeding your family something that could be dangerous, I completely understand. If I am being totally honest, I will be very slow to take a stand against such GM foods because I am sure that is most of what I eat. Although I am slowly changing my lifestyle, I don't know if I will ever be the "all-organic" diet guy. Hearing those organic farmers on that same radio show, they seemed just as greedy as everyone accuses Monsanto of being and it is in their interest to create a panic. I just know it is hard to get the facts in this kind of environment where there is not one news source I trust to give me an unbiased view.
So, Star Trek. The main storyline of the movie seemed (at first) like a clear metaphor for the use of drones in Pakistan. A terrorist flees into a sovereign territory to which the UFP has no access. So, stand at the border of friendly space and send weapons in that will kill innocent people (whether we think they will or not). That could have been a great set up for exploring the moral ramifications of U.S. policy towards drone strikes. Kirk pulls a bit of a Zero Dark 30 and sends in a team to get just the terrorist. Once the terrorist is secure, no more provoking a war. The end game seems to be that a war will happen no matter what (at least in Robocop's opinion). I imagine that will be the plot of ST3, in fact. So what is the lesson here? Sending in ground troops is ok but drones aren't? It all gets kind of muddled by the end of the movie. But it got me thinking about Obama's very tricky situation.
So, you have inherited one semi-legit war (and one bogus one). U.S. forces drove most of their enemies out of Afghanistan very early on. The enemy set up in Pakistan, which is now harboring our "enemy" just like the Taliban did. But, they are too useful to straight up piss off and declare war against (plus, they may have a nuke). So, full scale invasion as your forces are already startlingly thin? Not smart, plus you can get India blown off the map that way. Do nothing, let the people who are now really pissed at you regroup and come back stronger than before? You will be eaten alive by the hawks in Congress and in the conservative press. Like it or not, 47% of the nation thinks the best defense is a good offense (Pew research 2011). Piss off half the country...not smart. Send in drones? The system can be abused and innocents can be killed by sloppy pilots. Of course, lots of innocents would be killed in a full-on military campaign as well. So, really, the only way to save innocent lives is to do the politically "wrong" thing. Then you get voted out and someone who will get us in a full-scale war goes in.
Drones strike me (no pun intended) as the equivalent of the criminal justice system. The reason I can't endorse the death penalty in the real world is because our CJ system is imperfect. If we knew (beyond any doubt) that we were gacking the right people, I would be all for eye for an eye justice. As it stands, it is better that ten guilty escape rather than one innocent suffer. So, we have to deal with a flawed system. I'm not sure what I would do differently (certainly hold pilots who kill innocents accountable...I think the military tradition of forgiving such "mistakes" shouldn't extend to remote controlling a death machine...shooting an innocent accidentally in the heat of a firefight, I get it...gunning down some family because one of them kind of looks like an enemy, not so much).
Honestly, I had no idea where I was going with this when I started but it reminds me of The Dark Knight. Batman takes the blame for the death of Harvey Dent. He knows he will be attacked for it but he has to endure. While Batman making the hard choice is noble, it is pretty explicit that he doesn't trust the people of Gotham with the truth. I guess, to answer a question I started this with, I lost my interest in politics when I realized that our whole process is broken. From entrenched bureaucrats, to Congress being bought and paid for by the highest bidder, to Court justices acting on party principles rather than internal beliefs. And the worst is us, the electorate who allow it all to happen. We are uninformed, uninterested and unwilling to make real change happen. I freely admit, I am part of the problem. Maybe going forward, I can be part of a solution.
Low-income families with small children rely on WIC for most of the dietary basics: milk, bread, cheese, cereal, etc. Our WIC vouchers can only get us approved brands. Almost all of the approved brands are Monsanto and we aren't allowed to get the organic brands. Living below the poverty line, if we want to feed our families GMO free, we have to fight Monsanto. But I guess there are enough poor people now that even if none of the privileged march with us, we still have a chance of changing things.
ReplyDeleteSo, are you marching to change WIC policies? That I can see. Are you marching to prevent GM foods from being sold altogether? I don't see that happening.
ReplyDelete"There is not one news source I trust to give me an unbiased view."
ReplyDeleteThis is true, given that all major media outlets are corporations who stay in business thanks to the advertising dollars of other corporations. The trend of consolidation continues, with mergers happening constantly and power increasingly concentrated in ever fewer hands. It simply isn't in a "news" organization's best interests to criticize a major multinational conglomerate or to expose their wrong-doing. But the information we need to make informed decision is out there.
For me, the issue isn't even whether GMOs are harmful or not, because the findings are inconclusive. For me, the issue is "who is making the decisions about what we eat." Who makes the decisions about our health and environment, the economy, jobs? Are these things in trustworthy hands? Should we feel comfortable with huge corporations, run by an extremely small, extremely wealthy minority (which knows how and has the power to get whatever they want out of the political system), making all the decisions regarding the fate of this planet?
Like other industries, agriculture has evolved into Big Business, following the globalization model of market consolidation. A few companies control a large portion of the food the people on this planet consume. In capitalism, profit is King. By law, a corporate charter states that a company must consider the profits of the shareholders above all other considerations. Everything else (public health, environmental degradation and so on) is considered an "externality," and only considered after profit. When you look at the record of major corporations, it's not hard to find cases of exploitation of workers, for example.
As we've acknowledged, the evidence is inconclusive. Monsanto and other agribusiness companies have not proven that GMOs are safe. And the burden of proof is on them. I think most people could agree that if a company earns its profits by feeding large segments of the population, it should have the ultimate responsibility for proving that the food it profits from is safe. Most people would agree to that, unless they happen to work for, say ConAgra or Monsanto.
Of course the march this Saturday won't end Monsanto. But seeing that there are similar marches across the country can give us hope that a movement is beginning. We're marching to hold Monsanto and other big businesses accountable. The first march will be small. We'll be lucky if there are a few hundred people there. We expose ourselves to public ridicule on the streets and in the press. But it's worth it in the long run if more and more people become aware of how the world works and how we can respond.
Drones are another issue entirely. If in fact nearly half the country believes that "the best defense is a good offense," it demonstrates the effectiveness and thoroughness of the corporate propaganda model. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman wrote a book called Manufacturing Consent (made into a highly entertaining documentary film - available on Netflix) that explains how the news media works in depth.
ReplyDeleteUsing drones to assassinate political enemies is a simple evasion of due process. We're back to the 13th century here. We burned the Constitution already, so let's go back even further and burn the Magna Carta. The President (who, if we recall, got elected on a platform that primarily differentiated him from his predecessor rather than his opponent) has regular meetings to decide on whom to kill next. Forget arrest, incarceration, charges filed, hearings, trial by jury and all the other instruments of the legal system, forget "innocent until proven guilty." The President is judge and jury, the CIA is executioner.
We won't touch upon the reputation the United States garners in the world through its incessant use of violence, its hundreds of military bases in countries around the world, the fact that U.S. arms manufacturers make more than half of the world's weapons in spite of the end of the arms race that coincided with the fall of the Soviet Union.
But worth mentioning is the fact that the manufacture of drones is a business. A big business, with lots of money behind it. See where we're going here? There's a drone lobby. Anyone can lobby Congress. But not just anyone can wine and dine Congress, send them on golfing trips or Caribbean vacations, help fund their campaigns.
Currently drone manufacturers are marketing to local police forces all around the country. Does the idea of unmanned drones (some of them armed) hovering everywhere, recording everything we do, sit well? It sounds paranoid and Orwellian but it's actually happening. The technology exists, the manufacurers want more profits and hope to build up the domestic market. They don't care if having drones in the air limits our constitutional rights. It's an "externality." In fact, having lethal drones over our cities here in the U.S. could curb political dissent, which protects the corporate power structure, the status quo.