Hasta La Gadget!

Like most of us I have been following the tempest succeeding the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris, the wave of anti-terrorist rhetoric, the rendering of Mohammed as a kind of ‘we’ll-show-you’ counter-punch, the counter-counter punch of Muslims being offended by the rendering, and on it goes. Everyone seems offended by something.

I spend a lot of time thinking about and trying to observe the phenomena that are being referred to in ordinary conversation — when we are speaking and listening. My point of view, is that if we cannot observe something then whatever we’re talking about isn’t actionable. For example, when we generalize about someone or speak about their ‘personality’ we may have a sense of what we’re talking about, but in all likelihood different people will have different views and none of them can be verified independent of the speakers, and in most cases rarely leads to action or any real change. This can in turn become part of our conventional wisdom, such as ‘people’s personalities and human nature don’t change in fundamental ways’, which then for all practical purposes become ‘facts’. Put this kind of thinking into a political or religious context, and it is a set up for a never ending and irresolvable condition, like a ‘family-feud’ that takes on a life of its own. It becomes the source of institutionalized suffering and violence.

I heard a great podcast of an interview with Terry Gross of NPR’s ‘Fresh Air’ and Maajid Nawaz, a very articulate and thoughtful author who became an Islamist at the age of 16 and was able to extricate himself 10 years later. (click here to listen) He tells a compelling story of the arguments used to recruit youth into Jihad and the difficulties faced once one is on the inside of Islamist organizations, which like other cults become closed and self-referential systems. On the question of how to think about this issue of offense to Islam by rendering what Muslim’s consider to be blasphemous, he offers a very simple but essential distinction.

Specifically, he suggests that Muslims (or anyone) who are offended by any form of expression are entitled to being offended. But they do not have a right, if the offense is some form of legal self-expression in a free and democratic society, to punish or promote violence against the offenders. In a closed Muslim community members may have and choose to enforce their own rules, but to apply those rules to those not
belonging to their community is a form of theological or ideological fascism, and cannot co-exist in a free society. Nawaz is the author of the memoir Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism.

The question I use to test if something can be observed is, ‘where is it’? Show me. If the word is trust, what I might see is that trust can be observed as specific judgments. I can’t observe a feeling or an emotion, although I can observe my thinking and my behavior that I label as an emotion or feeling.

I am suggesting that any form of ‘being offended’ is similar to feeling someone is ‘nagging’. It is a phenomenon that only occurs (and can be observed) in our listening and the meaning we give to what is being said. It is entirely a function of our interpretation, our values and our commitments and it is never caused by something outside ourselves. I may consider you to be a jerk, that what you are saying to be inappropriate, and even judge a statement to ‘offensive’. But to then say that the statement you are making OFFENDS ME, is to react to the statement, and abdicate any responsibility for how I relate to and listen to the statement. My view is that your statement is causing something that it is not, and cannot, be the cause of. Said differently, we become prisoners of our own belief system, and then ‘react’ to anything that challenges or calls our beliefs into question.

Finally when we are responsible for our feelings, particularly our negative feelings like being offended, then we can express ourselves in ways that can open dialogue, allow for education and at some moment bring us closer together. Rarely does someone try to intentionally offend someone else. Yet, people get offended all the time. As we learn to listen more deeply, acknowledge our differences and communicate our intentions, we may also learn that whether we like it or not, we are always co-creating our reality. The opportunity is there to co-create a world that works for all of us, and when we do, we may discover that being offended is a choice.

OFFENSE is always a function of the interpretation (listening) of those who are offended. It is legitimate to declare that “I am feeling offended”, it is not legitimate or accurate to say “you (or the statement) are the cause of my feelings.

Martin Luther Ling Day is today and to any American it should mean a rebirth of the principles enumerated on the Fourth of July. The latter commemorates the formation of our country upon the values of freedom and equality. When we remember Martin Luther King, however, we commemorate the man who brought America to conform to those founding principles which were being violated. But to Jews, too, this day is one of unique importance.

As protests waged through Ferguson and New York City these past few months, anti-Israel activists pounced on the opportunity to hijack the tragedies to their own ends. Mixed in with the “Black Lives Matter” billboards were a handful of other signs reading “Palestinian Lives Matter.” What the Israel haters are trying to do is to drive a wedge between the Jewish and black communities.

The relationship between blacks and Jews is one of true depth, one which strikes at the core of both peoples. It was not built on a shared oppression, but on a shared faith, not upon a common history, but upon a common destiny. Not on shared interests, but on shared values. Not upon a mutual alienation from the mainstream, but upon a mutual commitment to social justice.

Faith has always been the central pillar of the black community. The civil rights movement, far from being a simple political response to injustice and oppression, was a religious movement – one conceived in churches, led by ministers, and which marched to the sounds of old “Negro spirituals.”

Faith fueled the soldiers of the civil rights movement and sacrifice sustained them. And it was this burning faith that serves as the true secret to their success. The world has seen so many liberation movements succumb to the battling egos of their leaders or simply replace the original oppressor with a newer one: Czar Nicholas with Lenin and Stalin, Batista with Fidel Castro, or a white-ruled Rhodesia for a Mugabe-controlled Zimbabwe.

The leaders of the civil rights movement, being men and women of deep faith and spiritual conviction, exhibited the most incredible humility. They always put the interest of the people before any personal lust for power. Walter Abernathy and Fred Shuttlesworth could easily have resented Martin Luther King Jr. for his higher profile, and King could have wanted more for himself than to die on the lonely balcony of a second-rate Memphis motel. But their objective was not personal advancement but rather to lead God’s children toward a promised land of equal rights and human dignity. They put the people before their egos and placed reconciliation with the white man ahead of fratricidal civil war.

The same chains of slavery that bound the Jews in ancient Egypt and the blacks in the New World may have imprisoned their bodies. However, it liberated their spirit. Those chains taught Jews and blacks, above all else, to see in God the source of their salvation rather than in any professed human liberator, be he as righteous as Moses or as determined as Lincoln. Both became nations to whom faith was endemic and sustaining.

For most people, religion is a guide to gaining entry into the afterlife, a way of avoiding hell. For blacks and Jews, religion was a guide to finding hope and comfort in this life, so that their earthly existence might transcend the hell it often was. Other religions reinforced the oppression of the faithful by instructing them in the divine right of kings. But Jews and blacks always held fast to the faith that no man was born subject to another. To them, all men were princes.

Other religions taught men to accept their suffering in this world in exchange for the comforts of paradise, which would more than compensate. But the faith of Jews and African Americans inspired them to challenge existing prejudices, because man is not born to suffer. Man dare not await the paradise of Eden. His highest obligation is to create heaven on earth.

As a Jew, my attachment to King’s speeches has little to do with the injustice of segregation, to which I was thankfully never subject, and everything to do with a modern preacher who brought the ancient Hebrew prophets to life. While studying at yeshiva I related to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah as characters in a book. But after listening to King’s magical orations, many of which I have tried to memorize, I related to them as living figures – as emboldened and animated opponents of injustice. Like Moses, King never reached the promised land. But like Moses, he found redemption in a life of service over adventure, winning righteousness over recognition.

That the Jewish and black communities are distinguished by their attachment to their faith is further evidenced by the unique problems faced by each upon the abandonment of that faith. The Jewish break with ritualistic tradition has at times led to materialism. Assimilation has led to questioning one’s identity, a futile attempt to erase distinctive Jewish characteristics, and a misguided attempt to blend and disappear into the mainstream. For many in the African-American community, a loss of the anchor of faith has led to a breakdown in familial and social bonds.

Today, as we experience a subtle rise of anti-Semitism and racism, Jews and African Americans need each other more than ever. To that end, Martin Luther King and the day that commemorates the great man should serve as a constant reminder.

The Forbidden Room.

Here’s on-set pictures I took just about three years ago in Paris while working on what would become Guy Maddin’s The Forbidden Room (co-directed by Evan Johnson) soon to be seen at Sundance and Berlin. These pictures are from the project, then called Spiritismes, shot at the Centre Pompidou, which I wrote about here and here. For me, it all started in July 2010, appearing in what was called Hauntings (during that time I also co-wrote with Guy and starred opposite a white wolf in our short/installation project, Bing & Bela.) It then grew and changed (as outlined in this interview with Guy) and has shaped into a feature film. I was happy to take part as additional story writer and actress. Here’s the official wesbite with more information to follow. 

This has been a long journey (for this writer and contributor, since 2010) for all involved and quite meaningful, in many, many ways, for me. 

Here’s more of my photos. Click on the pictures for larger images.

Read more Kim Morgan at Sunset Gun.

The House Democratic Party leadership made a remarkable step forward last week in putting out a proposal for a financial transactions tax (FTT). The proposal is part of a larger package which includes a substantial tax credit for workers, and also a limit on the tax deductibility of high CEO pay, but the FTT portion is the most remarkable.

There has long been interest in financial transactions taxes among progressive Democrats. The list of people who have proposed financial transactions taxes over the years includes Representatives Peter DeFazio and Keith Ellison, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders.

But the proposal last week came from Representative Chris Van Hollen, who is part of the party’s leadership. And Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi indicated that she also supports the proposal. This means that financial transactions taxes are now part of the national debate on tax and financial policy.

And there should be no mistake; this is a really big deal for the financial industry. The proposal outlined by Van Hollen is modeled after one being debated in the European Union. It would apply a tax of 0.1 percent on each stock trade and 0.01 percent on trades of derivatives like options, futures, and credit default swaps. The European Commission estimated that this rate structure would generate an amount of revenue equal to 0.4-0.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, this would be between $70 billion and $90 billion a year.

The best thing about this story is that almost all of the revenue would come from the financial industry. While the tax rate would be low even if borne by investors, research shows that trading volume will decline roughly in proportion to the increase in trading costs. This means that if the tax raises trading costs by 50 percent, we would expect trading volume to decline by roughly 50 percent. The amount that normal investors, for example people with 401(k)s, pay for trading will remain pretty much the same.

Investors care about what they spend on trading costs, not what they spend on trading taxes. In this case, the additional amount they spend on taxes is offset by a decline in the amount they spend on other trading costs (e.g commissions and fees to the industry), leaving their total costs unchanged. And since investors don’t on average gain through trading (for every winner there is a loser), this means that the financial industry will bear almost the entire burden of the tax.

Needless to say, the industry will not be thrilled about this prospect. The cost to them of the FTT is almost certainly larger than all the provisions in Dodd-Frank put together. Enormous profits and massive paychecks have been earned in recent times through the proliferation of complex derivative instruments and the promotion of the rapid turnover of stock and other assets. This would all change with the FTT that Van Hollen is proposing.

To be clear, this is not a story of shutting down the financial industry. The financial industry plays a central role in sustaining a healthy economy. It provides the money families need to buy a home or start a business. It also provides businesses with the capital they need to expand. But the financial sector has grown way beyond the size necessary to fill these purposes, with the core financial sector (investment banking and securities and commodities trading) expanding five-fold as a share of the economy since the 1970s.

Research from the Bank of International Settlements shows that a financial sector of this size is a drag on the economy. It pulls highly skilled workers away from productive sectors like computers and biotech. It also pulls capital away from smaller firms, as money goes into speculation rather than the expansion of rapidly growing businesses.

The Van Hollen proposal would raise the cost of trading stock and other financial instruments back to where to where it was 15-20 years ago. The United States had a large and dynamic capital market in 1995; it would have a large and dynamic capital market in 2015 if trading costs returned to their levels of twenty years ago.

The Democrats deserve a lot of credit for adopting this proposal. The financial industry is enormously powerful and will do everything it can to bury Van Hollen’s plan before it gains any traction. Look for a slew of economic studies showing that a tax of 0.1 percent on stock trades will be the end of the economy as we know it. The reality is that it just means the end of speculative finance as they know it, and this is a very good thing.

Somebody hacked the Lizard Squad’s super stupid DDoS-for-hire service last week, and guess what? The Lizard Squad sucks at cybersecurity. Not only did the hackers leave their so-called LizardStresser service vulnerable, the money-hungry kids left all their customers’ data in plain text and $11,000 in bitcoin on the table.

Read more…