ŽIŽEK ON TOILETS

http://www.projectfreerange.com/zizek-on-toilets-and-the-christchurch-rebuild/

[…]

Žižek talks about the connection between objects and ideology using, as examples, the different types of toilets he encountered while traveling through Europe. He reflects on three types: the French, the German and the British toilet. For the uninitiated, I shall briefly describe each. In France, the toilet is designed with the hole at the back of the bowl so the waste falls immediately into water and can disappear unseen and unacknowledged by its maker. The German model is the exact opposite. The Germans place the hole in the front of the bowl with a raised shelf behind. When you use the toilet, the waste collects on the dry shelf below you, affording the opportunity to inspect it for disease before you flush it off the shelf and into the hole in the front. The English design is a compromise that places the hole in the center of the bowl with a larger amount of water. This lets the user decide whether they wish to confront their waste or not.

Noticing these things, Žižek wanted to know how these different designs had come about. Architect friends supplied him with technical books on the subject and he describes how each designer tries to prove their design is the best in a purely functional sense. Since they are all ultimately variations on a theme, Žižek says this argumentation merely reflects the cultural ideology behind the features of each design. While there may be technical arguments for one design feature or another, the best combination is ultimately a matter of cultural taste. To those who would argue we live in a post-ideological world, Žižek says you only need to go to the toilet to find you are literally sitting on ideology, so to speak.

While it may seem ridiculous (and perhaps a bit gross) to spend too much time pondering toilet design, I find his argument compelling on a number of levels. Every man-made object is, in varying proportions, both utilitarian and symbolic. We have items that are almost entirely symbolic which, like a king’s scepter, have almost no utilitarian purpose whatsoever. At the other extreme are things like the humble toilet, which are so banal and commonplace that we can forget they carry any symbolic baggage at all. The toilet is an especially extreme example since the act of using the toilet is considered by most cultures to be a vulgar necessity, to be done in private and not to be discussed, further negating any potential symbolic value. A designer wanting to make their mark on the world is not likely to choose the toilet as their medium. But there it is: holes in different places, shelves, different water flows, and we haven’t even left Europe.

These small differences can have lasting social impacts. To this day, most German men urinate sitting down, precisely because any attempt to pee directly on the German shelf from a height results in urine being splashed all over the room. Although the German-style toilet is disappearing (perhaps understandably) from German homes and public places, the culture of seated urination for men is alive and well. Foreign men living in the country for any length of time are likely to encounter signs urging them to sit down and it is not uncommon for a German host to ask for this directly, even if they have an English-style bowl. It makes me wonder how many habits I carry around from objects now gone or completely different from their antecedent

[…]

U.S. Doctors & Scientists Spied on and Fired

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdiggers_of_the_week_7_fda_whistleblowers_20120721/

Posted on Jul 21, 2012

Doctors and scientists working for the Food and Drug Administration became targets of surveillance and some lost their jobs after blowing the whistle on the agency’s approval of medical devices that they believed were not safe for public use.

The seven professionals were in communication with President Obama, members of Congress, federal law enforcement officials and journalists. Obama, who has been waging a war against whistle-blowers, appears not to have commented on the scandal yet. But it is difficult to imagine the president disapproving of experts leaking sensitive information in the interest of public safety, regarding matters that are not directly political.

The FDA monitored the scientists’ computers at work and home, copying emails and data on thumb drives, and watching messages typed line by line as they were composed. And it did so cheaply. The spyware, sold by SpectorSoft, costs $100 for a single computer and can be placed on 25 machines for less than $3,000. “Monitor everything they do,” SpectorSoft’s website says. “Catch them red-handed by receiving instant alerts when keywords or phrases are typed or are contained in an email, chat, instant message or website.”

The FDA defended its methods, saying it monitored only work computers, did not focus on members of Congress or their staffs and at no time attempted to interfere with scientists’ communications.

The surveillance was discovered when one of the scientists browsed the Internet for information on himself while applying for a job. The scientist discovered that the FDA had uploaded at least 80,000 documents containing sensitive information gathered during the course of spying.

In an interview with “Democracy Now!” Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center and the attorney representing the scientists, saidthe pretext of leaks is being used to justify large-scale surveillance. He explains that documents pertaining to the program show that the FDA targeted whistle-blowers who did not have access to the “so-called trade secret information.” Then the agency targeted messages sent to Congress, Kohn said, even though the law protects the confidentiality of federal employees’ safety appeals to the Office of Special Counsel, which means the FDA broke the law by violating confidentiality rights.

Kohn went on to describe the “insidious nature of domestic surveillance.” Once the agency identified the first whistle-blower, it was able to discover who he was talking to and create an “enemies list,” he said. And the list grew. One list had seven names. Another held 21. And Kohn believes there are more.

It takes courage to put one’s job on the line for the sake of others, especially in economic hard times. For risking and in some cases losing their livelihoods—at least for now—in pursuit of public safety, we honor the seven FDA whistle-blowers as our Truthdiggers of the Week.

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly. Follow him on Twitter: @areedkelly.

USA CORN PRICES SURGE TO RECORD HIGH

Sam Ro | Jul. 19, 2012, 6:33 AM

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corn-prices-2012-7#ixzz21OF3hENG

Corn prices are now north of $8.10/bushel, a new record high.

This is above the previous record of $7.99 in July 2011.

A historic drought has caused corn crop yields to shrink and prices to explode higher.

Some form of corn or refined corn goes into countless types of goods.  Eventually, this could hit producer and consumer prices

[…]

NYC storm July 18, 2012. Photo taken by Dhani Jones

a good leftist musician

crummy Right-Wing musicians

Amy Grant, 

Avenged Sevenfold, 

Charlie Daniels,  

Gretchen Wilson, 

James Hetfield, 

Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, 

Johnny Ramone,

Taylor Swift,

Ted Nugent,

50 Cent.

The making of the Muslim left

Muslim leftism is the only way to ensure that Islam's individualist revolution doesn't take an even darker turn than it already has.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/16/themakingofthemuslimleft

By Ali Eteraz, guardian.co.uk

I went to a government school in the American south where I had constant interaction with religious supremacists. Such people believe that their moral mandate must be given preference, if not outright dominance. In the south, these people were Christian. Their imperative was to acquire converts who would eventually help make their political programme the law of the land.

Many times I put up with the noise of evangelical youth preaching on the steps with a megaphone. I was condemned to hell in class discussions. English teachers had to tread carefully through 19th century literature so as not to offend. I had to politely reject, and then oppose, Bible study groups.

My brother and I were the only Muslims in the school. We lamented the ceaseless invasion of our personal conscience by "these fundos".

After a couple of years, a number of Muslim students enrolled at the school. They were also upset with the endless Christian proselytising. Since many of them were family friends, they took me aside and urged me to help them set up an Islamic society. Its primary purpose would be to hold Quran study circles, correct anti-Muslim propaganda in textbooks, and - "just like the Christians do" - invite students to learn about their religion. All on school property. Their goal, just like the Christians, was evangelism (the Arabic term is da'wa). They presented two white boys with new Muslim names as proof of their success. As I left, my acquaintances couldn't understand why I wouldn't help them. "It's just da'wa!" they said. "It's a free country!"

There it was, in the microcosmic world of high school, staring at me in the face: the Muslim right. Or, as my brother pejoratively called them: "Falwell Muslims."

Today, it is undeniable that traditionalist clerical Islam - which is quietist, meek, and oriented towards the status quo - has lost its monopoly over Muslims. This is the result of multiple instances of internal dissent over a millenia (as well as colonialism). Led by a mixture of cleric-minded Muslims in the US, UK, and Jordan, traditionalist clerical Islam is trying to make a comeback and become more relevant - like by writing a letter of peace to the Pope. Though such efforts are good, it is a case of too little too late.

Instead, Islam is well on its way towards an individualist revolution; one that no amount of clerical effort can contain.

The most attention-grabbing child of this revolution has been jihadism. However, it is not the most successful. That (dis)honour lies, in my mind, with the Muslim evangelicals - also known as Islamism, the Muslim right, or political Islam. It is a great fallacy to think that jihadists and Islamists are one and the same.

The Muslim right is an ideological movement. Why not? When rationalism is rampant and clerics can't bind Muslims together, ideology is the best thing to obtain mass obedience.

Islamism's ideological aim is secular, ie political power. Yet, despite its secular ends, it makes its political base among a large swath of religious Muslims. With their religious supremacism - which convinces them that everyone else's life would be better off if they adopted the same values as them - these Muslims leave themselves wide open to be preyed upon by savvy propagandists. Thus, hateful tricks like invoking the dangers of homosexuality, attacking sexual liberation, demonising religious minorities and foreign cultures, and censoring anything that smacks of critical thinking, are all used to keep the ideological base stirring.

With that base in hand, Islamism then agitates for unfettered democracy. It purports to speak for the "common man" (even as it preys upon it) and acquires a populist mystique. Islamism doesn't fear elections because it is the best of the grassroots propagandists.

The Muslim right is international. It played off the Cold War and in a Machiavellian stroke made the US its benefactor. It ended up creating a decentralised international network. Jamat-e-Islami in Pakistan consulted with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; the Brotherhood then, with "tacit support" from their self-professed enemies, created Hamas. Then the Sunni Islamists went and assisted Khomeini, pragmatically putting aside their doctrinal disagreement with the Shia for the sake of shared ideology. Taking inspiration from these successes, copycats rose up in Gulf and African states. For publicity and fund-raising purposes, theMuslim right brought its evangelism to the west. Muslim children coloured by this ideology ended up in school with me, asking me to help them set up an organisation that does exactly what Christian supremacists do.

So the dilemma for 21st century Islam is that there is a group of Muslims who with "activists" instead of "clerics" have reined in Muslim individualism, organised it into a system, injected it with illiberal values, and then invoked non-violence and freedom of speech as a shield to hide behind. If I had not seen Karl Rove do it with American Christianity I could have never realised how the Muslim right does it with Islam.

So what is to be done?

Well, secular tyrannies are inadequate. Monarchies are dictatorial. Outright Islamophobia and directly demonising Islam gives fuel to Islamism. Military confrontation is out of the question for ethical and pragmatic reasons.

I recommend creating a viable and well organised Muslim left. It would be an intra-religious movement as 

opposed to a universalist one (though obviously it doesn't shun allies). It would be a cousin of the international left, but in a Muslim garb. Just as the Muslim right found Islamic means to justify the destructive ideas from the enlightenment (Fascism, Marxism, totalitarianism, evangelical religion), the Muslim left should find Islamic means to justify the positive ones (anti-foundationalism, pragmatism, autonomy, tolerance).

This Muslim left should also espouse the following basic ideas, without being limited to them:

• separation of mosque and state;

• opposition to tyranny (even if the tyrant has liberal values);

• affirmance of republicanism or democracy;

• an ability to coherently demonstrate that the Muslim right represents merely one interpretation of Islam;

• a commitment to free speech and eagerness to defeat the Muslim right in the marketplace of ideas;

• commitment to religious individualism and opposition to left-collectivism, specifically Marxism;

• opposition to economic protectionism;

• opposing any and all calls for a "council of religious experts" that can oversee legislation (even if those experts are liberals); and

• affirming international law.

Muslim leftists will - it is a must - have to be able to articulate all of these in Islamic terms, in order to persuade the people who need to be convinced, ie Muslims. This means that a Muslim leftist will, naturally, also have facility in the Muslim traditions. The real-world paucity of individuals with such dual facility is indicative of how far behind Muslim leftism is currently.

Further, in order to advance these ideas, the Muslim left will have to be sophisticated enough to employ certain strategies. These include but are not limited to:

a) Popularising the slogan "theocentric, not theocratic" to counter claims of religious treason that will be hurled by Islamists;

b) An alliance with supporters of old-school Muslim orthodoxy who despite their conservative values are not the same as the Muslim right because they do not like to politicise their faith. These Muslims, by virtue of doctrine and history, have always supported separation of mosque and state, and still do;

c) Having the confidence to call their solutions truer to the ethos of Islam than the ideas of the Islamists, without engaging in apostasy wars;

d) An alliance with Marxists and neo-Marxist Muslims without getting sucked into their collectivist phantasmagoria;

e) Opposing any and all punishments, fines and stigma for "apostasy," "heresy," and "blasphemy". This includes opposition to all "sedition" crimes;

f) Accepting that the enthronement of the left through democratic means might require the intermediate step of the Muslim right succeeding as well, due largely to its head-start;

g) Supporting arts, literature, agnosticism and atheism without engaging in derogatory or insulting gestures. The battle against Islamism isn't a fight against Allah or Prophet; it is against an ideology;

h) Supporting Muslims' right to express their piety with beards, hijab, niqab in order to draw the moderates among the pietists away from the Islamists; and most importantly

i) Opposition to all imperial western behaviour. Also, rejection of any and all alliances and support from the western right.

Muslim leftism is the only thing that will assure that Islam's individualist revolution doesn't take an even darker turn than it already has. Some in the Muslim right like to insist that they are moderate and ready for pluralism. 

That might be a bit of wishful thinking. Without a potent Muslim left, the right will not have an adequate check, nor any incentive to make accommodations. This is because political systems that rest on religious supremacism rarely make compromises. We know this from America. We know it from the third world as well. After more than two decades the Iranian right has failed to move significantly towards the centre. If unchallenged, better should not be expected from the Egyptian, Pakistani, or Gulf nations equivalents.

In the next post in this Islamic reform series, I will share names and identities of people who qualify to be on the Muslim left, in order to show how to identify others like them.