Condoleeza Rice and The Iraq Spin Zone

I've been trying to avoid commenting on foreign affairs matters on this site but recent events compel me to make a few observations. Again, my notes concern language and propaganda. Condolezza Rice on 60 Minutes Sunday said several revealing things.   Ed Bradley asked her:

The decision to go to war with Iraq - Nearly 600 American soldiers had died, thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. Given the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and there's no proof that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 or al Qaeda, the country is split about why we're even in Iraq and if we're fighting the right war.

Reasonable, legitimate questions. Here's the answer Condolezza Rice gave:

The war on terrorism is a broad war, not a narrow war.

Stop. He asked about Iraq. He already talked about there being no connection. But she's connecting it. Having made the the association, saying "terror", she can now talk about Iraq in that context, with that wrapper, with that association:

And Iraq, one of the most dangerous regimes, I think the most dangerous regime in the world's most dangerous region, in the Middle East - is a big reason, or was under Saddam Hussein, a big reason for instability in the regions, for threats to the United States.

OK, so we have instability and threats. Aren't there a lot of those in the Middle East, in Africa? North Korea maybe? Hell the Canadians have probably threatened somebody in the US before. She continues:

He had used weapons of mass destruction. He had the intent and was still developing the capability to do so. Saddam Hussein's regime was very dangerous. And now that Iraq has been liberated and that Iraq has a chance to be a stable democracy, the world is a lot safer.

Yes, he was bad. We should have properly cooperated with the international community to keep him boxed up at a minimum, taking him out as an international effort at a maximum. But as we are now finding out, the administration had its own agenda with Iraq well before 9/11, and used WMD and 9-11 as excuses. Dr. Rice offers the closer:

And the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq.

Perfectly wrapped up. The Iraq sandwich. Say "terror." Then say "Iraq." Then say "terror" again. The entire statement appears reasonable, but it's not logical. It's a non sequitur. After the last sentence Bradley should have asked "how, exactly is the war on terrorism well served?"

We've come a long way from "a threat of unique urgency."

Look back over statements Bush and administration officials have made since before the war and you will see the same pattern, over and over: Iraq = Terror, Terror = Iraq. With the complicity of the press, its no wonder some 70% of Americans believed Saddam was connected to 9-11. Manufacturing consent is the name of the game. Chomsky's famous book is now a how-to manual.

That "the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq" is at best wishful thinking. Many people believe the opposite is true: that the war on terror really will go on for decades thanks to our involvement in Iraq. It has escalated exponentially. More people hate us than ever before, and the really important war of hearts and minds is long lost.

The vision of neo conservatives of transforming the region by the the brutishness of hard power is a fantasy - a hoax played at the expense of the long term safety of the U.S. A hundred more Bin Laden's are in training, as As Egyptian President Mubarak predicted.

Al-Qaeda 2.0 is coming. And we've played right into their hands. We are, once again, their "Great Satan."

The Pledge of Allegiance: Under God?

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments from Michael Newdow on whether the phrase "under God" is constitutional. The first thing to be said is that we need more people like Newdow. My question is why it has taken someone so long to take it this far. That aside, he's responded particularly well to challenges from the court. For example, Newdow notes that before it was amended and the words "under God" added in 1954, "the pledge did serve the purpose of unification ... it got us through two world wars and a depression." Much of the strategy of the court so far has involved attempts to try and underplay it's significance. Souter, for example, claims that whatever religious significance "under God" has is "close to disappearing." In other words it's no big deal, it's what we've always done, it's harmless.

Far from it. Elisabeth Sifton warns that

once the Supremes assure them that the Pledge with "under God" in it is constitutional, then local teachers and politicians sympathetic to them might try to amplify it into more openly Christian, even Jesus-specific, formulations. They have a President in the White House who listens to them, a Justice Department sympathetic to their aims, a Solicitor General who is close to some of their principal agents – in short, a perfect political situation in which to further their cause.

Further, claiming that the phrase is harmless, merely a Hallmark card god is a way of avoiding the fact that this is a critical issue - two small words as ABC News concluded tonight, but they expose the question: what are our foundational ideas? Are they to be religion-specific, or tolerant humanist ideas as the founders intended? This is the culture war defined.

Salman Rushdie once said in an interview regarding his novel The Satanic Verses:

... there is an old, old conflict between the secular view of the world and the religious view of the world, and particularly between texts which claim to be divinely inspired and texts which are imaginatively inspired. . . . I distrust people who claim to know the whole truth and who seek to orchestrate the world in line with that one true truth. I think that's a very dangerous position in the world. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged constantly in all sorts of ways...

The root of the culture war reaches all the way to the founding of the country, a mythical place where its easy to project and extract desired meanings. In some ways the arguments about how much religion the founders intended to infuse the government with are moot. The country and the world change, sometimes evolve. We need a flexible, not rigid, foundational structure.

Though the founders believed in a God, they were deists, and as such they understood the fallibility of human institutions and interpretations based on faith. Hence, Paine wrote:

Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.

It is by believing in a specific human interpretation of god such as "the Christian collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who" that we "the victim of doubt and the dupe of delusion". And because truth and god are not revealed to man in these ways but rather through reason, Deists believe, we found our nation upon the reason of man rather than the delusion (and hence oppression) of a particular religion. In fact in some senses democracy itself is a defiance of religious authority. Lessening our defiance, giving in and retreating are threats to democracy.

Many would argue that the authority of the government comes from god. Isn't this precisely what we're trying to avoid in our nation building in Iraq? Our fear? The fact is that, on purpose, neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution mention god. The Declaration of Independence states that the government derives its authority "from the consent of the governed." - not from god. This is the triumph of a secular society.

And while I do not fully agree with the deist view of things, nor the founders idyllic view of reason, I appreciate their insight into the danger of founding a society on the narrow dictates of a particular faith. Many, however, argue that it is "tradition". Well, it's a reinterpreted tradition. An eighteenth century deist would be seen as blasphemous to most who defend the "under god" phrase in the pledge.

Even if you are religious, its easy to see that insisting that one religion be the legitimizing factor and the source of "truth" is at best intolerant. At worst it is racist and hegemonistic. Being a country of diversity we need to fully embrace it, and remove as many barriers to inclusion as possible. Finally, we should ask ourselves under what conditions we are pledging ourselves to a flag and the "nation for which it stands" in the first place. What does this pledging mean or accomplish? Unity and solidarity? Around whose ideals? Patriotism and the flag have been used as weapons by those who would co-opt it and own its meaning, accusing those who do not agree with this or that policy of being "un-american." Political and religious views are attached as riders (or suckerfish) to national symbols which then become corrosive weapons of propaganda, infectious carriers of a specific worldview.

I pledge my allegiance to defending "liberty and justice for all", not just those who wish to restrict its interpretation and benefits to themselves.

One of Salman Rushdie's characters in The Satanic Verses says

"Battle lines are being drawn today, secular versus religious, the light verses the dark. Better you choose which side you are on."

Indeed.

Books Threaten Small Minds in Plano

I went to a Barnes & Noble last weekend in Plano, Texas to browse and generally become one with the printed universe. I looked forward to seeing some of the new political books that have just been published, as well as a few memoirs. I enjoy looking at all manner of new titles, and it's always enlightening to see which ones are being promoted. I used to work in a bookstore in the dark ages and know a little about how this is done. At the front display there were the usual suspects: spy thrillers, celebrity bios, and the latest fad diets. And in this heated political season I expected to see a variety of political books. Well, I saw the political books, but no variety. The most prominent displays featured nothing but the right wing screeds.

Now I don't have a problem with this in and of itself. It's important to read all across the spectrum. The problem was that the books representing a counter opinion were nowhere to be seen.

I finally did find them, relegated to the lowest shelves in a display toward the back of the store. While there were some "lefty" books displayed, the ones with the word "Lies" and "Bush" in the title were curiously moved well out of sight. Hmm.

This is understandable, of course. Many people in this area prefer things to be hidden from them: flesh, ideas, minorities, truth. Being conservative and Republican is part of the landscape. Its a requirement, and nearly inescapable. And of course, they need to be protected from Michael Moore and the other heathens, to cover up what's threatening.

On another occasion several months back I was at a Costco, also in Plano. I was browsing the table of recent best sellers and noticed a man with a red face eying the books and making snorting sounds. He left and returned with a stack of Harry Potter titles, which he then proceeded to lay over the top of all the new Hillary Clinton books. When he ran out of Potter books, he turned the remaining Clinton books face down. Satisfied, he turned and rolled his cart towards the food section.

Not wanting the entertainment to end, I followed him. I took along a copy of Clinton's book. When he paused to look at a ridiculously large box of batteries, I placed the book down on the Duracels, pretending to be a discerning consumer of double A's. Hillary lay there in wait, smiling.

The instant he recognized the book he said, startled "You're not going to buy that are you?

"Yes, I am" I said.

Backing away in terror, he yelled "she's evil, it's the book of lies!"

"You might as well relax," I replied calmly, "she's going to be president someday."

His face turned nuclear meltdown red. He sped away with his cart, yelling again in to the crowd "it's the book of lies!"

Wow. What fun.

Happily, what these two instances show is how powerful ideas are, and how threatening to small minds a book can be. The lack of tolerance betrays a fragility and defensiveness in the world view of the pedestrian suburban mind. There is an uncontrollable desire to leave things as they are, because they are used to them, because they are lazy thinkers. Many liberals are often no better, allowing others to do their thinking for them. But at least some are comfortable with progressive social change, and try to look forward with hope instead of backward with fear.

Mistrust of America Worsens Around the World

So we are safer in the world how? At best, Bush's unilateral cowboy diplomacy has made us progressively more unpopular. And Kerry is not the only one who's been told by a foreign leader that they would prefer to see Bush go. Joe Biden said as much today on Hardball. The new Pew Global Attitudes Project survey finds:

A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished. Opinion of the United States in France and Germany is at least as negative now as at the war's conclusion, and British views are decidedly more critical. Perceptions of American unilateralism remain widespread in European and Muslim nations, and the war in Iraq has undermined America's credibility abroad.

Doubts about the motives behind the U.S.-led war on terrorism abound, and a growing percentage of Europeans want foreign policy and security arrangements independent from the United States. Across Europe, there is considerable support for the European Union to become as powerful as the United States. 

The Bush administration has made America a meaner, harder, uglier place. And our macho, bumbling, hard power approach makes the world much more dangerous for everyone. The Pew report finds that most Europeans agree, and think that the war in Iraq has undermined the larger war on terrorism. Worse, a majority also believe the US is less trustworthy and that we are not strongly committed to promoting democracy globally. All we've done is stirred the hornets nest. And, I'm afraid, made a lot more of them. Unfortunately, we now have fewer friends to help us.

Download the full survey here.

American Corporate Culture vs. European Communal Culture

William Osborne has written an excellent piece in Arts Journal commenting on the differences between American and European culture and the way it views and funds the arts. I have taken the liberty of quoting extensively from it here:

America advocates supply-side economics, small government and free trade – all reflecting a belief that societies should minimize government expenditure and maximize deregulated, privatized global capitalism. Corporate freedom is considered a direct and analogous extension of personal freedom... Europeans argue that an unmitigated capitalism creates an isomorphic, corporate-dominated society with reduced individual and social options. Americans insist that privatization and the marketplace provide greater efficiency than governments. These two economic systems have created something of a cultural divide between Europeans and Americans.
...
University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman stressed the value of limited taxation and unregulated global markets in the 1970s. ... Friedman’s philosophy of limited government and free trade ... is technically referred to by many economists as neo-liberalism. [This is not the same as American political liberalism - DT.]
...
Some of neo-liberalism’s most important tenets are cutting public expenditure for social services such as health insurance, education and cultural programs. ... and the replacement of traditional concepts such as “the public good” or “community” with values emphasizing “individual responsibility.”
...
America’s neo-liberalism would suggest that cultural expression that doesn't fit in the marketplace doesn't belong at all. For the arts, the alternative has been to maintain a relatively marginalized existence supported by gifts from corporations, foundations and the wealthy. A system similar to a marginal and elitist cultural plutocracy evolves. This philosophy is almost diametrically opposed to the tradition of large public cultural funding found in most of Europe’s social democracies.
...
The dangers of artists being forced into conformity are apparent. ... Ray Kroc, one of the founders of McDonald's, who was angered by some of his franchises: “We have found out ... that we cannot trust some people who are nonconformists. We will make conformists out of them in a hurry. ... The organization cannot trust the individual; the individual must trust the organization.” The very nature of a mass market is conformity in both product and customer.
...
In culturally isomorphic societies, thought is less and less likely to move outside a pre-configured set of paradigms. ... Since narrowed perspectives make it difficult to confront aspects of reality, a culture of self-referential rationalization evolves.
...
Europeans ... often see American culture as hegemonistic -- a totalizing and destructive assault on the humanistic, cultural and social structures they have worked so long and hard to create. 

Osborne gives as an example the destruction of small towns by the presence of Wal-marts and how the character changes from personal to corporate, from walkable downtown streets to endless parking lots and big box stores on the edge of town. He says in Europe this would simply not be tolerated:

Pavlov's Consumer

Every Sunday morning for the past twelve years I have had breakfast in a busy restaurant, alone.  It’s a ritual, a time to clear my head and get oriented for the coming week.  Last Sunday, in a Plano cafe, I couldn’t help but listen to a man sitting in front of me. He was about thirty, balding, grey t-shirt, round head and oval body.  He was talking to what probably were his sisters.  Normally I hear a few words and then resume my concentration, my ears shut down, my eyes on a note pad or coffee creamer.  But this one man’s voice penetrated the space of my booth, stealing my precious focus.

What I heard, and what kept me listening, was what he was talking about and continued to talk about, ad nauseum. No, he wasn’t talking about sex or drugs or money.

Well, sort of.  He was talking about products.  Products he wanted, how he planned to buy them, and where.  He talked about them one after the other, without pause: Direct TV vs. Dish Network, how many high definition channels one had over the other, his mobile phone plan options, a new SUV, etc. 

Ok, you’re asking, so what?  Well, I assumed the person sitting across from me, interrupting my breakfast, was a human being.  I was mistaken - he was an automaton.  He sounded like a series of television commercials.  Pre-programmed.  The script from his conversation was taken ad hoc from celebrity spokespeople and radio ads.  There was no questioning, no opinion, and no personality.

He then went on to describe in detail how and where he shops for clothes.  How chooses the same store every time.  He was a study in brand loyalty.  Conditioned, like Pavlov’s dog, like a mouse.  But not only does he run the shopping maze as directed, he thinks as directed.

Not once did this man talk to his sisters about anything outside his life of purchasing consumer goods.  It wasn’t a human conversation - it was a robotic monologue, and went on like this for an hour.  His words were not about people, or ideas, or feelings, but about things, products. 

I’ve done may fair share of marketing and advertising and imagine that most marketers couldn’t be more pleased with their product – not jeans or cola - but this man, a consumer.  Filled with the words and phrases dreamed up by advertisers his mind, our minds, are brand occupied territory.

As occupied territory, life becomes a series of purchases, decisions a selection between products, choice an illusion.

Am I any better?  Have I too blathered endlessly about computers and digital cameras and organic chocolate?

Yes, I have been guilty of daydreaming of retail redemption.  The next purchase will make me better somehow, more complete.  But it doesn’t.  It just makes me want more. A hedonistic treadmill some critics have called it.  I am compelled to work harder for things that I’m told I want.

Now all those purchases I made that were once a momentary salvation sit in the garage, are broken, have been lost or given away.  And I’m still here with less money and less time.

My Sunday morning breakfast is a haven from television and billboards and commercial noise in general.  It is a place for me to think my own thoughts, and to get them in order.  But last Sunday I ran into a walking, talking, omelet eating product of the marketing regime: the consumer. 

It made me wonder how many of these thoughts I’m trying so hard to put in order are mine, and which are just slogans someone else thought up.

That’s one way to ruin a good breakfast.

[This article was published in the Dallas Morning News on April 3, 2004]

Election and Voting Reform

The U.S. likes to think of itself as the model democracy for the world. In the area of voter turnout, this is especially untrue. We have the lowest voter turnout of any democracy in the world. Part of the reason for this apathy is thinking your vote makes little difference, and even if it did you have no real choice in candidates: they represent powerful, monied interests that are not your own. Many people, unfortunately, have been fooled into thinking these powerful interests are aligned with their own. They are sadly mistaken. The rest of us want representation, and frustration seems warranted when your party wins the popular vote but loses the election. Then to find the winning party acts as if it has a mandate to unapologetically carry out a radical agenda, ruling by the Bible or the Buck, whichever is more expedient and which constituency is being served.

One suggested reform is proportional representation. The Nation's Katrina Vanden Huevel notes "the most obvious difference between electoral politics in the United States and Europe is our plurality, winner-take-all electoral system. Giving all representation to the candidate with the most votes by definition shuts the door on political minorities." More from FairVote.org:

Advocates of proportional voting systems propose that the legislature should be more like a mirror of the population, with majority and minority viewpoints represented. Note that proportional representation advocates still very much believe in majority rule: because proportional systems accurately translate the popular vote into representation, candidates or parties with the greatest support should obtain the largest share of seats in a legislature. In fact, studies have shown that governments elected by proportional representation are more likely to produce policies that are in line with the "will of the majority."

Vanden Huevel in a recent article noted a series of reforms. Here's an edited excerpt:

*Public funding of elections, either through general revenues, individual tax credits or special scrip. Big money politics give disproportionate influence to the wealthy, and blocks the candidacies of those without access to money.

* Election day registration. A third of American adults are not registered and, even if caught up in the excitement of an election in its final days, are denied a chance to vote.

* Election day as a holiday. The highest voter participation in the United States is in Puerto Rico, which makes election day a holiday. In addition to giving frenzied working people time to get to the polling booth, this contributes to a civic awareness of the importance of elections.

* Consolidation of election calendars. Because the United States spreads voting throughout the year, the impact of one's vote in any one election is weakened, and important primary and local elections often draw single-digit turnout as a consequence.

* Tying FCC licensing to more public affairs programming. A real public channel or two would dramatically increase electoral awareness.

Public funding of elections and the idea of more public stations and programming are, for me, the most critical. Money is not speech, as some have argued. Removing the now complete control that big money and lobbyists have over politicians who are supposed to represent the citizenry will be stupendously difficult. It's like telling a room of addicts that tomorrow, no one will be addicts any longer, and the world will now be free of addiction. Better to start over with those not inflicted with the disease.

Democrats and Republicans are both culpable. It's just that Republicans are indistinguishable from their financial supporters at this point. They have fully embraced the situation and are comfortable in their own skin. Democrats should be very uncomfortable, though most are not. To have any kind of legitimacy, the Democrats should make a clean break, and make reform an item at the very top of their agenda. I'm not holding my breath.

Our Democracy is no longer in our hands and its time to take it back. If this means dismantling the Democratic party as we now know it, so be it. If it means abandoning it, then walk away. My question is what language do we use to talk about it? To convince people? The term "special interests" doesn't mean much to anybody and fails to resonate besides. We need new words, new images. Hmmmm.

"Corruption" and "patsy" come to mind.

Misled on WMD by the Press

A major study conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and the University of Maryland confirms what many of us have been saying for more than a year. That the press fundamentally absolved itself of its responsibility as the 4th estate, especially in the face of war. The report concludes: Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspectives on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats and policy options. Reporters routinely reported back what the White House told them, with little or no questioning.

This reveals the critical problem with corporate media: the profit motive. It is my contention that motive of commercial media is inherently at odds with responsible reporting, the kind that provides an all important check on the excesses of propaganda generated by this administration and all others.

There was a complete clamp down on questioning and dissent for several months leading up to the war. It had the effect of state run media, but was self imposed. All the major media bought into the public's conflation of patriotism and support of administration policies. Alternative or critical perspectives were rare. If they were present, the press, especially network and cable TV, played the role of defender and apologist for the administration; marginalizing, trivializing, and sometimes ridiculing dissenting voices.

This is all the more reason to support public media. Some of the best discussion and debate was to be found on PBS and the Charlie Rose Show. PBS also broadcast the BBC, which is recognized by this study for being more responsibly critical than the US media.

As Robert McChesney has pointed out in Our Media, Not Theirs, we need a robust, well funded array of public media to counter the inherent deficiencies and conflicts of interest inherent in corporate media.

Editor and Publisher summarized the other main conclusions like this (numbering mine):

1. Too few stories offered alternative perspectives to the "official line" on WMD surrounding the Iraq conflict.
2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration linking the "war on terror" inextricably to the issue of WMD.
3. Most media outlets represented WMD as a "monolithic menace" without distinguishing between types of weapons and between possible weapons programs and the existence of actual weapons.

John Steinbruner, director of the center, adds "the American media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires."

The study, titled "Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction," was directed by Susan Moeller and is available in a summary or full version. Read it.

Culture Wars: Divide & Conquer

This from James Carroll in the Boston Globe today

The phrase "culture war" comes from "Kulturkampf." That word was coined in the 1870s when Germany's George W. Bush, Otto von Bismarck, launched a "values" campaign as a way of shoring up his political power. Distracting from issues of war and economic stress, the "Kulturkampf" ran from 1871 to about 1887. Bismarck's strategy was to unite his base by inciting hatred of those who were not part of it.

... The Kulturkampf was explicitly understood as a struggle against decadence, of which the liberal emancipated Jew became a symbol. What that culture war's self-anointed defenders of a moral order could not anticipate was what would happen when the new "virtue" of anti-Semitism was reinforced by the then burgeoning pseudo-science of the eugenics movement. Bismarck's defense of expressly German values was a precondition of Hitler's anti-Jewish genocide.

One need not predict equivalence between the eventual outcome of Bismarck's culture war and the threat of what Bush's could lead to. For our purposes, the thing to emphasize is that a leader's exploitation of subterranean fears and prejudices for the sake of political advantage is a dangerous ploy, even if done in the name of virtue. No, make that especially if done in the name of virtue.

While the references to Bismarck may be a stretch, the point is well taken that playing the culture card is playing with fire. And what stokes the fire is ignorance. And unlike oil and honesty, there's plenty of that in supply. The Republicans do have an excellent strategy, however. The job growth rhetoric doesn't convince everyone in the "middle" (who are actually are harmed by Bush policies) so culture war issues are used to distract and turn races into emotional contests. The "values" that are promoted are meant to make the Democrats look godless (some proudly are) and to fill us with fear.

In fact much of the Bush strategy is based on fear. Fear of terrorism, of gay marriage. Did I mention terrorism?

For Bush, its always September 12th. And that's where he wants us all to be, psychologically - in a never ending war, in constant fear. That way we don't have to think about the real issues: our lost jobs, a deteriorating environment, corporate influence on government, or the monumental diversion - now disaster - that is Iraq.

Communities vs. Sprawl

[Michael Landauer, in the Dallas Morning News weblog, wonders why more people are not interested in their local communities, why so few run for local office. And since the DMN weblog is not really a weblog (it doesn't allow open comments) I posted my reply here.]

Last year I moved back to Texas from Southern California, where I lived in a lovely, friendly community. People walked the streets at night, said "hello", and participated in many community events: movie nights in the park, Halloween block parties, 4th of July parade, etc. I knew probably 20 or 30 people by name. When I moved here last summer there couldn't have been more of a contrast. People consciously avoided me, no one waved or said "hello" unless directly confronted, and there was a general chill in the air. I found this highly discouraging, but not entirely surprising. What everyone else in my neighborhood has done is simply accepted the situation. It is the neighborhood "style". Call it the dysfunctional 'hood.  I refused to accept this because I had experienced an actual, working community. And not only in California. I had seen it right here in Dallas, in East Dallas actually.

I decided to investigate and have been working on a documentary film for the past 10 months. Briefly, what I discovered is that neighborhoods fail to function for a variety of reasons, some of which are historical, not so obvious, and difficult to remedy. Others can be solved by concentrated community effort. Here's a quick overview of what I found out:

First, suburbs are a result of the 20th century desire to automate and homogenize. Like McDonald's, McNeighborhoods are products - units designed to sell to a specific demographic. And just as McDonald's has no interest in a rich, unique dining experience but rather a predictable, efficient one, housing developers are not in interested in community, only units. Hence they do not design them with the things that make communities work: walkable streets, local shops, attractive parks, community spaces. And they are designed with around the car, not the pedestrian. This creates a host of problems, namely sprawl. Further, the houses themselves contribute to a sense of isolation: rear entry garages, tall fences, faux porches that no-one will ever sit on. (These issues have been well critiqued by the New Urbanism movement, writers like James Kunstler and books such as Suburban Nation.)

Second, city and county officials often have no training or interest in civic planning. I understand Allen has a limited growth policy, which is great but it is rare. Traditional urban planning has been taken over by traffic engineers and suburban developers. In other words there is no planning at all. "Tax base revenue" has replaced the public interest in a livable community. The idea of zoning for specific uses has separated everything from everything and requires a car to go from place to place. In traditional towns most daily needs are accessible with in a five minute walk.

For these reasons and several others including transiency, it is inherently difficult to have a working community. The deck is stacked against it. But there are things that can be done.

In the East Dallas community of Little Forest Hills, voted recently by the Dallas Observer as the best neighborhood in town, there is a model for the rest of the city. I've been documenting the community activities of this area for nearly a year. The difference is that there are a group of people who make the neighborhood work. They have a very active neighborhood association and regularly host events: a garden tour, an arts fair, barbecues, a fourth of July parade, and others. Like my former Southern California neighborhood, it was a caring group of very active people that made the neighborhood truly a community for everyone.

Interestingly, there also seems to be a class element involved. My new, cold, unfriendly neighborhood is upper middle class while Little Forest Hills is solidly working class, with most homes measuring at around 1200 square feet. The difference is that when people move into Little Forest Hills, they are personally welcomed with a cookie basket, information packet, and an invitation to the next neighborhood event. There people are generally comfortable with themselves, relaxed, and informal. Most are not obsessed with impressing one another with outward, superficial displays of status. And rather than worrying about fitting in, there is actually a healthy celebration of diversity and eclecticism.

By contrast, people in to my far North Dallas neighborhood are absolutely obsessed with status: the latest oversized, selfish symbol SUV, the most square footage, whatever. And when people move in to this landscape of sameness and envy, nothing happens. You are ignored, and most likely feared.

Goodbye Spalding Gray (again)

The body of Spalding Gray was found in the East River today, two months after his wife reported him missing. The NY Times reports In his 1980 show "Point Judith," Mr. Gray spoke a line that may well have summed up his life and career. "It's very hard for me," he said. "Not to tell everybody everything." See my previous post for more thoughts on the late great Spalding Gray. And make sure you watch or read "Monster in a Box" and "Swimming to Cambodia" if you haven't seen them already. And if you have, maybe make another viewing in his honor.

Splitsville

Alt7 is on vacation this week. We'll be back next week. See you then.