You know how sometimes you won’t hear anybody say the word ’sheep’ for ages and ages but then suddenly you’ll have a few days in a row where you’ll suddenly have a bunch of conversations about sheep, or repeatedly bump into a variety of sheep-related things?

No?

Well this week has been Sheep Week for me. If you’re not into sheep you might want to stop reading this blog entry now - no politics or education commentary today.

Sheep Story #1: Sometimes when I’m feeling stressed out, I like to sew things. Lately I’ve been sewing dolls and handbags (they make good presents) and I’ve been making most of it out of felt I buy at a craft store. Well last week I was browsing the internet when I came across a supplier that sells 100% wool felt (I’d never seen ‘real’ felt before - the felt I get at the craft store is actually synthetic and fairly cheap). The wool company had sample cards that you could request, so I did. The felt samples arrived yesterday and wow, real wool felt is just flat-out gorgeous. It feels a hundred times better than the synthetic stuff and it comes in really beautiful, rich colors too. It’s expensive though - $45 per yard - but when I imagine how amazing my handbags would look if I made them out of this real felt I really want some. If I start saving some money now I’m pretty sure I can buy some later this summer. By the way, if you’re wondering what this has to do with sheep, wool comes from sheep. [I had to add this last sentence because Kim just walked by and asked me “What does this have to do with sheep?”]

Sheep Story #2: There’s a great story and photo essay in the New York Times today about sheep shearing.

Before:

After:

Ha ha!

Sheep Story #3: I just found out that my friend Teacup used to herd sheep.

- Bunny

Tonight Bunny, Mimi, and I were sitting around talking about the difficulty we sometimes have in trying to describe what The Pinky Show is. “What is your show about?” is one of the more common questions we get. You’d think this should be easy to answer, but even now, I often find myself struggling to summarize our work in just a few words.

Part of the difficulty comes from the fact that since starting up this project approximately three years ago, we’ve consciously tried to resist becoming a ’single issue oriented’ project, which is how most organizations are generally known to the public. Examples:

Greenpeace = environmentalism
CodePink = end the Iraq War
UNICEF = children.
etc.

I guess it’s natural for people to want to pidgeon-hole an organization or project in terms of a single, specific issue. After all, it does help make things easier to grasp immediately. I’m guessing this is why we often have people saying things to us like, “So the Pinky Show is an anti-war program?”, or “Oh I get it, you guys are environmentalists!” Well, we do oppose the war and occupation of Iraq. And yes, we also like trees more than pollution. But in spite of these kinds of statements of position, there’s something about self-defining our project according to these kinds of labels that doesn’t sit well with me. I think it’s because, to me, the main reason why I want to learn things is not to promote any particular policy agenda. The point of learning is to transform my world view, my consciousness. I feel like if we (all of us) were somehow more conscious as to what’s really going on around us and how the world works, we would all quite naturally start inching our way towards good and not evil. Of course we’d all have to fight it out as to exactly where we should go next, but that’s a given. First I want to be awake. I think this is why I prefer that we (Bunny, Mimi, Kim, Daisy, myself) not focus on one or even just a few ‘related’ subjects to discuss. I’d rather we keep learning about all sorts of things, together with all the complicated connections that exist between them. I don’t want to become an ‘expert’, as the word is commonly used nowadays.

I’m sure a lot of people will interpret the above as being ‘unfocused’ in a negative way, but probably this is unavoidable. What I really want to create is a good way of relating to the world and all the beings, things, and ideas in it. In the past I’ve described this as our obsession with trying to train ourselves to think and act with openness, honesty, and compassion. We are trying to guide ourselves according to these somewhat abstract principles, rather than always working within a specific issue or disciplinary boundary.

Now, it would be good if I could figure out how to say this clearly in one sentence.

~ pinky

[ note from Bunny: I don’t like the way you suggest it’s possible to somehow ‘wake up’ first, then struggle towards good things second. I think we continually develop our consciousness as we struggle along. ]

[ pinky: Okay, good point. But either way I still can’t find an elegant way to summarize our project in one or two sentences. The point is our project does not approach ‘education’ in a conventional manner, and unless Mimi has some catchy, clarifying blurbs to write in our grant applications, The Pinky Show won’t be around for much longer. ]

[ Bunny: Agreed. ]

[ Kim: Some people think that the single unifying theme of The Pinky Show is that it is always anti-American. ]

[ Bunny: Those people are idiots. ]

[ pinky: So much for the ‘compassion’ part! ]

[ Bunny: Ch! I know you think they’re idiots too… ]

[ pinky: I don’t think they’re idiots… If you believe in ideology, how can you be surprised that people would think it’s reasonable for ‘good citizens’ to be quiet and do as they’re told? ]

[ Bunny, 4/11/2008: I’ve been thinking about this some more… Maybe it would be good to identify The Pinky Show not so much as an instructional program about various topics, but rather an ongoing project that uses the form of making educational materials as a way to explore our own minds. It’s not a noun, it’s more like a verb. To me this would be a more accurate description of what we are doing. Because think about it - if you describe The Pinky Show as a bunch of online videos, then of course it’s natural for someone to ask “So what kind of things do the various episodes talk about?” But teaching others about certain topics is not the main reason why we’re doing The Pinky Show, right? The main thing is for us to keep learning. Imagine if we had zero viewers - the activity of doing research, writing, distilling down the information, and making presentations would still be an excellent process to help us think clearly about how we’re thinking. I for one would still enjoy making Pinky Shows (or Bunny Shows) even if no one ever watched our show. ]

[ Kim: Yeah, I like Bunny’s point. It’s not like the point is to be critical of specific things - X, Y, and Z. It’s more important to make critical consciousness so that we can be critical (not in a bad way) of anything and everything. This way we can know who we are and not always be getting lost. ]

[ pinky: Agreed! Although for me, I do like the idea that lots of people watch our show, because then I feel like we have company as we try to move towards good things. ]

Recently Bunny, Mimi, and I had watched Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land: The U.S. Media & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and thought that it was really excellent. Tonight as I was following up trying to learn a bit more about the Media Education Foundation (the people who produced this video) I found out that this documentary is actually available in its entirety (1 hr. 20 min.) via Google Video. The analysis provided in the film is extremely important - I sincerely hope everyone who reads this blog takes the time to watch the film and share it with others. Our mini-review of the film is here. ~ pinky

[ note from Bunny: One of the things I thought was extremely important in this film was how carefully it examines the use of language in creating consciousness and controlling opinions. We all ‘use’ language but generally don’t spend much time thinking specifically about exactly how we are using it or how it is connected to specific configurations of power. The Media Education Foundation has a catalog of films that deal with the politics of representation - in television, music, video games, schools, etc. Check them out: www.mediaed.org. ]

My friend Tim sent me an e-mail with this photo attached (click for a larger version):

“This is one of the new stadiums being built for the Beijing Olympics. Apparently it can only be used at night when it isn’t casting so many shadows. Oops.”

Is this for real? I’m having a hard time believing that anybody could make a mistake like this…

- Bunny

Posted by Kim.

I wouldn’t call myself a bookworm but I do love popular science books by people like Stephen Jay Gould or Carl Sagan. By the way, here’s a nice quote by Carl Sagan:

“The business of scepticism is to be dangerous. Scepticism challenges established institutions. If we teach everybody, including, say, high school students, habits of sceptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year-old channelees. Maybe they’ll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?”

I thought about this for a while, and I wonder: Do you think high schools are spending enough time teaching young people how to use methodologies of skepticism? I never went to human beings school so I don’t know for a fact if they do or they don’t. But judging what I read in the op-ed sections of newspapers I am going to go out on a limb and guess that they’re not doing a good job with this. - Kim

[ note from Bunny: I think you’re misreading the quote. I think Sagan is implying that high schools were never intended to cultivate skepticism in students. ]

[ Kim: Oh. Okay, I guess I can accept that reading. But don’t you think it’d be great if high schools could be changed to do this? ]

[ Daisy: Schools don’t exist to teach people how to be “dangerous”; their primary function is to train young people to live their lives within the limits of state policies. Anything beyond that is variously defined as failing, substandard, non-compliant, illegitimate, abnormal, deviant, degenerate, suspect, dangerous, at-risk, criminal. Take, for example, the recent (February 2008) ruling in Califronia’s Second Court of Appeals regarding home schooling. The court ruled that education is only valid when a child is being taught by a credentialed teacher. Parents, or any other persons for that matter, who attempt to teach children without a state-issued teaching credential, will be subject to prosecution. Most parents who home school their own children do not have teaching credentials - which means that under California law these children should be classified as truants and in some cases even removed from their parents’ custody (under the guise of “educational neglect”). Some parents have been very vocal in protesting what they see as a violation of their right to home school their kids, but to me the implications are much more far-reaching. Basically the state is trying to claim that only they have the power to define what education is. Under this kind of logic, neither Einstein nor Jesus would have been qualified to teach children (I’m assuming neither ever held a California State teaching license). In fact, they would’ve been punished had they tried to impersonate “real teachers.” ]

[ Kim: O hai Daisy! ]

[ Daisy: Hi. ]

[ Bunny: Hey Daisy, two questions. Number one, how did the teachers union respond to the court ruling? Number two: Are you opposed to all forms of schooling? ]

[ Daisy: The largest teachers union in California lauded the decision. Second question: No. ][ Bunny: …? Why ‘no’? Can you elaborate? ][ Daisy: I’m not anti-school. To me a school is just a building, a place. What I object to are unimaginative and limited conceptions of what constitutes schooling (i.e., ‘formal education’). When most people say schooling, what they really mean is mind-numbing training. Dogs need training. Human beings need intellectual, ethical, cultural, and spiritual development; none of which happens as a result of being trained. If schools could be remade into authentic places of learning rather than training-buildings, I would be supportive. But at that point, we might as well call them something other than “schools.” ]

[ Pinky: Hi you guys. Here’s a quote from the judge that presided over the process, Justice H. Walter Croskey:

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

So I think it’s pretty clear that our conception of ‘public welfare’ and Justice Croskey’s are built on fundamentally different values and assumptions… And just to be clear, Daisy, don’t you think there are also many home schooling parents that are also guilty of confusing learning with training? ]

[ Daisy: Yes. ]

A mini-report by Daisy.

This is an excerpt from yesterday morning’s House Judiciary Committee meeting on Capitol Hill. Here Congressman Robert Wexler questions FBI Director Robert Mueller about FBI inaction following reports that the CIA was torturing prisoners.

[ start transcript ]

Congressman Robert Wexler: Alright, Mr. Director. An L.A. Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote “the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved” end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote “pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy” end quote. My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?

FBI Director Robert Mueller: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.

Congressman Wexler: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?

Director Mueller: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.

Congressman Wexler: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?

Director Mueller: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.

Congressman Wexler: So you can’t tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don’t you get involved; you can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?

Director Mueller: I’ll tell you we followed our own protocols.

Congressman Wexler: And what was the result?

Director Mueller: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.

Congressman Wexler: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?

Director Mueller: I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.

Congressman Wexler: Why can’t you comment on the actions of another agency?

Director Mueller: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.

Congressman Wexler: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?

Director Mueller: I am the Director of the FBI.

Congressman Wexler: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you’re saying?

Director Mueller: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.

Congressman Wexler: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?

Director Mueller: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.

Congressman Wexler: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?

Director Mueller: I’m not certain what you mean.

Congressman Wexler: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.

Director Mueller: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice… [talking over each other]

Congressman Wexler: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that’s it.

Director Mueller: I’ve told you what our protocol was, and I’ve indicated that we’ve adhered to our protocol throughout.

Congressman Wexler: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.

[ end transcript ]

“Protocol.” Apparently it is illegal or immoral to answer with a “yes” or “no” in Washington D.C. I believe it was George Bernard Shaw that once said something like, “All professions are conspiracies against the public.”

A systematic study of how bureaucrats learn to speak like this would be very useful.

Daisy
Thursday, April 24, 2008

The desire to not suffer from hunger must be one of the most basic drives of all animals, human beings included. Which is probably why when I read the following passage yesterday I was literally stunned into silence. An excerpt:

“The Haitain [food shortage ] crisis is so extreme it forces people to eat (non-food) mud cookies (called “pica”) to relieve hunger. It’s a desperate Haitian remedy made from dried yellow dirt from the country’s central plateau for those who can afford it. It’s not free. In Cite Soleil’s crowded slums, people use a combination of dirt, salt and vegetable shortening for a typical meal when it’s all they can afford. A Port-au-Prince AP reporter sampled it. He said it had “a smooth consistency (but it) sucked all the moisture out of (my) mouth as soon as it touched (my) tongue. For hours (afterwards), an unpleasant taste of dirt lingered.” Worse is how it harms human health. A mud cookie diet causes severe malnutrition, intestinal distress, and other deleterious effects from potentially deadly toxins and parasites.

Another problem is the cost. This stomach-filler isn’t free. Haitians have to buy it, and “edible clay” prices are rising - by almost $1.50 in the past year. It now costs about $5 to make 100 cookies (about 5 cents each), it’s cheaper than food, but many Haitians can’t afford it…” (from Stephen Lendman’s Hunger Plagues Haiti and the World; read the whole article here)

I realize there are many people who will say that hunger and starvation is inevitable. They tend to think that some people - either because of bad luck or perhaps their own ineptitude - are simply meant to perish due to a lack of food.

But as I’ve looked more carefully into the economy and politics of food, I keep coming to the opposite conclusion: that food shortages are not unavoidable, that they are usually man-made, and that malnutrition and starvation could be eradicated if first world human beings in positions of power had the will to do so. Which means that ordinary nobodies like us (you and me) will have to be the ones to force their hand. Please don’t go to bed tonight without taking at least one action against starvation.

Here are links to a few organizations that are already fighting:

Oxfam [ www.oxfam.org; donation link here ]

UN World Food Programme [ www.wfp.org; donation link here ]

The Hunger Project [ www.thp.org; donation link here ]

Thank you,
pinky

note: Thank you to Brian Koontz for sending me the link to the Lendman article.