Dude, what the hell happened to you? I go to my favorite celebrity “where are they now” website to look up the infamous Chunk and I find this shit? By federal law child stars of 80’s blockbusters are required to be slovenly and bankrupt, perpetually and publicly coked-up with a plastic surgery addiction, and/or serving time for their 5^th felony DUI. So how the fuck did you become a successful entertainment lawyer with a law degree from UCLA?

I realize you aren’t the first former child star to experience some degree of success (and by success I refer to its loosest possible interpretation: not drowning in a pool of your own heroin-induced vomit before the age of 29). But I thought surely the loveable butterball who gave us the Truffle Shuffle, a national treasure by anyone’s account, was destined to follow the path of destruction set forth by so many others.

All the components for disaster were in place: the dizzying ascent to stardom as the most popular star of The Goonies, the glittery exposure to parties, drugs, and women, and finally the post-box office vacuum that settled in after the film had run its course. Throw in the pathetic attempts to milk the role for all it was worth by running for student body president at Berkeley on the slogan “Chunk for president” and your fate should have been sealed. Yet somehow you escaped unscathed, avoiding completely the emotional and financial depletion that have plagued such luminaries as Jodi Sweetin and the Corys (rest in peace Haim).

In some ways your success makes me feel ineffectual at shaping my own life as the hurdles you’ve overcome seem so large in comparison to the ones I find myself at odds with. Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction and truly, you have entered through the narrow gate.

Whether your success is the result of moderately acceptable parenting or a sheer love of intellectual property law, I applaud your deft avoidance of the all-too-common pitfalls. Being named to The Hollywood Reporter’s “Next Generation: Hollywood’s Top 35 Executives 35 and Under” was a nice touch too.

Best,

Jen

Jeff’s appearance on the famed game show “Child’s Play” circa 1983. A turning point, non?

I came across a most interesting post this morning that I felt was worth pondering. The title, Why I Hate Mother’s Day, hooked me, and the fact that the insightfully irreverent Anne Lamott wrote it reeled me right in.

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/05/08/hate_mothers_day_anne_lamott/index.html

A worthy read for the open-minded and slow to react. It validates the iconoclastic view on the holiday but also illuminates a richer subject to explore:

Mother’s Day celebrates a huge lie about the value of women: that mothers are superior beings, that they have done more with their lives and chosen a more difficult path. Ha! Every woman’s path is difficult, and many mothers were as equipped to raise children as wire monkey mothers. I say that without judgment: It is, sadly, true.

Personally, I’ve never viewed my dislike of Mother’s Day in this particular context; rather, I’m mostly uncomfortable with it for the same reason I bristle at the thought of most holidays: they’re overly commercial and hopelessly insufficient, absolving the guilt of those who ignore their mothers 364 days of the year through the last-minute purchase of jewelry and chocolate for example. But although the author’s irritation with Mother’s Day may be misplaced, the more important issue regarding the institution of motherhood itself, and how we view it in our society, shouldn’t necessarily be overlooked. I notice that the reader comments related to the author’s post were overwhelmingly positive, but those that took issue with her view were missing the bigger picture: namely, is there some vein of thinking that says we must reproduce to be worthy?

The subtopic of the article is one that’s especially close to my heart. As a 28-year-old married woman I’m often asked, to my considerable annoyance, when I’m going to start having kids, the implication being that I’m somehow not fulfilling my duty to society by focusing on career or personal aspirations. My annoyance isn’t about my wanting or not wanting to have a family, but more about the expectations that come with being a woman my age.

I value children and the life-changing relationships parents cultivate with them, but I also value career, service, accomplishment, education, and freedom. Reconciling the dissonance between these two value sets is complicated and I have no answer as to how I’m going to do it. Although in theory there isn’t a true dichotomy between the two, some people have chosen camps: motherhood vs. everything else. And for some, everyone else:

Ninety-eight percent of American parents secretly feel that if you have not had and raised a child, your capacity for love is somehow diminished. Ninety-eight percent of American parents secretly believe that non-parents cannot possibly know what it is to love unconditionally, to be selfless, to put yourself at risk for the gravest loss.

I haven’t checked the source of this data (cited from the original article), so I have no way of knowing if it’s accurate or not. I would also like to think most people have more intelligence than to believe such nonsense. But I can’t help but feel combative when I hear statements like this.

For one thing, according to research people who choose not to have children (as opposed to those who want to have children, but can’t) statistically tend to have better marriages, better finances, less stress, and are no more likely to be unhappy in old age than parents. Secondly, although I do believe there is no worldly experience to compare to being a parent, there is also no counterpart to accomplishing and experiencing the things a non-parent is able to be it in career, education, or some other arena, so it’s really not fair to say one is superior to the other (and as a side note I should clarify that I am speaking about women in this context as we all know that it’s not typically the male who gives up his body, career, or life in general to raise children, although that is another topic altogether).

This unintentional diatribe I’ve found myself in the middle of is not meant to be a criticism of mothers themselves. Most mothers I know are devoted, generous, selfless, interesting, wonderful people who are happy with the choices they’ve made (especially my own mama!). Mothers have made incomprehensible sacrifices for their children and we should all be grateful and full of reverence for their hard work, patience, and unconditional love. I could never repay the debt I owe to my own mother for all she’s done, and for that I try to celebrate her each and every day (but I could do a better job of it). To those mommy’s out there who look down their noses at those who don’t have kids (or are delaying the process) please get off your high horses. Motherhood may be the greatest joy of your life, but what makes you happy and brings fulfillment doesn’t necessarily make everyone else happy. The notion that different people have different desires shouldn’t be a difficult one. If you still can’t get your head around it at least refrain from evangelizing your childless friends : )

Me too.

If you’re like me , you spend ample time and energy each day pondering things that have no logical connection to personal or societal improvement. You also get off on devouring thick, sweet, saturated rings of dough, glistening with congealed icing and baptized liberally with sprinkles. Especially after drinking.

So obviously the mystery of doughnut (or, interchangeably, donut) shops would have crossed your over-nourished mind.

Let’s get down to business then, shall we? I’ll be blunt: how the fuck do doughnut shops stay in business, let alone turn a profit?

I’m not talking about mega-franchises like Dunkin Donuts which have well established brand power. I mean the mom and pop joints in downwardly mobile parts of town.

As I suspected, I am far from the first to be confounded by the sight of these ubiquitous “businesses”. From the pool of my research I have chosen to cite this next passage as the unifying premise of this post, because I simply cannot say it any better:

“Dude, have you ever noticed that there are, like, a ton of doughnut stores everywhere? With so many around, and the fact that a doughnut costs around 65 cents, how do they stay in business? Many of the doughnut stores where I live are open 24 hours a day and only sell coffee, doughnuts and a few other pastries. No breakfast sandwiches or anything halfway fancy. I just don’t get it man, just doesn’t add up.”

Well said my young rapscallion.

The first approach I took on my voyage of deep-fried discovery was to look at the doughnut profit margin after accounting for the cost of the ingredients. Indeed, doughnuts have a low direct cost and as it turns out, have a profit margin of nearly 700%. Holy Shit. That has to be one of the highest markups for a food item out there. But even so, at 65 cents a pop, is a 1500% markup even saying much?

Of course there are other startup costs to consider: $5000-$20,000 for doughnut making equipment, which would include dough sheeters, mixers, glazers, cutters, display cases and a deep fryer on the equine-scale.  Not to mention the requisite plastic menu board with the old-ass mismatched letters. Plus the monthly costs incurred in the form of rent, utilities, payroll and owner’s draw, inventory replenishment, insurance, advertising and marketing, taxes, debt repayment, and working capital.

The only potential edge boasted by running a doughnut business, rather than, say, a full-service restaurant, is the convenience offered by a using a satellite bakery at home, thus freeing up space and allowing for the rental of a smaller store. Once doughnut production is up and running, a “cold spot” can be established where you or your driver delivers the finished doughnuts for purchase by the consumer.  A cold spot can be operating within a few weeks and be operated by one employee. Holler.

OK, so it’s not exorbitantly expensive to make and sell doughnuts. But is there a market substantial enough to support the vast numbers of shops we see in every dilapidated strip mall?

According to one notable franchise website, the following can be said for the current “doughnut climate” as we’ll call it:

“Despite the growing concern on the part of nutritionists and physicians about our overweight population, the doughnut business remains a rapidly growing one. Why the doughnut business is robust is open to debate. Among the possibilities — the price is right. Doughnuts are not expensive. And they’re easy to eat on the run and not too messy. (Some people have been seen devouring them while behind the wheel — not exactly a safe driving mode.) They’re also readily available to whether you’re in Manhattan or the neighborhood mall.”

Although I agree that doughnuts are standard American fare (at least among the low-to-mid echelons of society), I’m not sure that fact alone explains how an entire shop can sell nothing but 65-cent mounds of dough and cover their costs. Let alone compete with the myriad other establishments trying to do the same.

There are some other aspects that could help explain the success of shops pedaling the working-class confection:

The product targets the low- to mid-income consumers so everyone can partake!

There’s a pretty universal customer base given that America is chemically addicted to sugars and starches (myself included ya’ll!).  The sight of a pink box alone makes most of us salivate.

People usually buy more than one doughnut. How can you choose between maple glazed and chocolate frosted? You don’t. You get both. You might even buy a dozen “to share with the office” before personally devouring them over the next 2 days.

You only need one hand to eat them. In this multi-tasking day and age one-handed manipulation is an important quality in a snack food.

They have kitsch-appeal for those wanting a little entertainment value.

But some scholars (yes, folks, scholars) argue that doughnut shops continue to thrive because of their place in our culture. The doughnut as we know it apparently became popular just after WWII, and the suburbanization of America in the years following helped develop the complicated social influence of the doughnut shop: they themselves evolved into symbols of American entrepreneurialism as the country struggled to its feet. I guess that’s why we have a special place in our hearts for them despite the fact that they continue to be associated with the slovenly and gluttonous (my hero Homer Simpson par example).

I can’t say my curiosity is completely assuaged with regards to doughnut shops but at least I can sleep at night knowing that in an uncertain and ever-changing world I can, apparently, count on their presence.

Indie Light!, Ink on paper

Preposterous, Ink on paper

By “colitis” you are in fact touting the virtues of high-quality industrial grade hemp, and not referring to the inflammation of the large intestine right? I just want to be clear.

Again, case in point, what kind of alcohol-serving hotel establishment doesn’t have wine on hand? Especially since California accounts for nearly 90 percent of entire American wine production. That should have been your first clue not to stay there don’t you think?

Was it one of those cheesy romantic themed hotels? That would explain the pink champagne and mirrors I suppose. But then why is it in the middle of nowhere? Seems like the kind of place that would attract a more urban population. Perhaps the owner wasn’t aware of the importance of choosing a location not only in terms of reaching a target demographic but also in terms of workforce availability. I guess that’s why there’s plenty of room there.

What kind of beast are we talking about here? Apparently it was either really big or your knives just weren’t steely enough. But the bigger question I guess is why this establishment has beasts running around in the first place.

Was this hotel profitable? Because it seems to me they clearly had a problem with people checking out but then sticking around forever. This could be easily remedied by changing the locks. Or hiring some better security, assuming there’s even any to start with. The next step would be to get the authorities involved if you ask me.

A rousing game of smiles and frowns of course!

SMILE: I am dog parent! I can finally justify going to dog parks. Am no longer the creepy bystander. Bonus: Oscar loves to cuddle

FROWN: Have to train Oscar to NOT eat art supplies, bike tires, and anything else not found in his (overflowing) dog toy bin

SMILE: Wine rack full again after trip to store!

FROWN: Snowboarding season quickly dwindling. Haven’t gone once this year

SMILE: Skipping class tomorrow. That’s right, I take full advantage of little known miss-one-class-without-penalty policies buried deep within syllabi

FROWN: Ticket from accidentally running red light should be coming in mail soon, despite attempts to hide my face from the intersection camera

SMILE: Fever Ray, Them Crooked Vultures, Moving Units, and Laura Marling slowly transferring to my iPod

FROWN: Have to wait 3 weeks for 120 film processing

SMILE: Freeze dried marshmallows taste so damn good. If you don’t have the patience to pick through a box of Lucky Charms then I recommend buying the instant hot chocolate that comes with a packet of them. Divine.

FROWN: We don’t have any more marshmallow packets left

SMILE: Sunny this week!

FROWN: Can’t decide what color to paint kitchen. Ochre? Clay?

SMILE: Oscar. Oscar. And more Oscar.

Bon Nuit

A convo from long ago:

Mom: “You know, when your Aunt dies, she doesn’t want to be buried or cremated.”

Me: “Uuuummmmm….so what does that leave exactly? Being cast out to sea? Being mummified and put on display? Donating her body to science?”

Mom: “Kind of. She wants to donate her body to The Farm.”

Me: “What is The Farm? And why exactly are we even talking about this?”

Mom: “I’m just making conversation. You’ve never heard of The Farm?”

Me: “Clearly not.”

Mom: “Well, I don’t know if there’s just one, but it’s basically a big open field where they dump your body to see how it decomposes. You know, like for the police to get better at forensics and stuff.”

Me: “Eeewww. That’s kind of horrifying. They just throw you out there and wait for the bugs to come?”

Mom: “I guess so. They just let you liquefy until they’re done with you.”

Me: “That’s so disgusting! What else?”

Mom: “I don’t know, I guess they might let animals eat at you too, but I could be wrong.”

Me: “That’s horrible! Tell me more.”

And so on and so forth.

My morbidity is not something I really advertise. Apparently it’s not cool to be interested in post-mortem photography, 16^th century headstones, or possible cases where people may have been buried alive (however mildly). And I’m sure not too many people have rented Wisconsin Death Trip twice from Netflix nor purchased a rare book about the Hart’s Island cemetery off Long Island Sound.

Based on this information one might think I was Goth in high school and listened to the likes of Rammstein among other musically necrotic gems. But one would be mistaken. Far be it from me to fit that mold (although I did go through a phase in junior high where I worshipped high fashion, and thus wore head-to-toe black in an attempt to look gloriously chic. As you may have guessed, my attempts failed). I simply have an affinity for the dark side of things in some ways.

But could I actually fit into the sub-culture known as Goth? According to www.ice-princess.net, the self-proclaimed internet educator of all things Gothic:

Goths tend to have a dark and perverse sense of humor, a love of history, literature, and music, and far too many articles of black clothing.

(Gasp! That’s meeeeeeee!)

But trying to slot Goths into orderly little sections is pretty much impossible. The spectrum of interests, styles, and activities is far too broad. Sometimes the clothes can be a clue, but not always. Just look for that appreciation of darkness–that’s the most reliable indicator.

(Another Gasp! And furthermore….)

We do tend to have some kind of artistic leanings, but we’re not all musicians making glum music, pretentious painters, or freakish comic book artists. Some of us do those things, of course, but others sew, make jewelry, write everything from novels to humorous essays, cook, sculpt, take photographs, garden, do stained glass, dance, make films, design games, or engage in any of hundreds of other creative endeavors.

According to a critical analysis of gothic subculture by sociologists (Goth: Identity, style, and subculture, P. Hodkinson – 2002 – Berg Publishers)

Those likely to become interested in Goth and remain involved in it will usually possess most of the following characteristics and traits: individualistic, reflective, artistic, creative, introspective, emotionally focused and driven, sensitive, non-violent, moody. They are likely to have a distaste for authority, and possess above average intelligence. Most are interested in the beautiful, the mysterious and the supernatural.

Like lookin in a gol durn mirror.

I should maybe be horrified at how neatly I seem to fit into the apparently wide spectrum that encompasses Goth culture, a group I normally associate with satanic rituals and black lipstick. But if so called “experts” on Gothic culture define membership, so to speak, with the traits listed above, then sign me up mofo.

(And maybe it’s not even such a taboo anymore anyways. The popularity of the wretched Twilight series seems to have brought out a little Goth in everyone. Philistines).

– Friend who served me undercooked pasta with tomato sauce from a jar

“Don’t worry about how much I drink. Since I’m half German and half Irish, I can handle my liquor”

– Falling down drunk man at bar

“My skin is so tan because I’m 1/8 Cherokee”

–Friend just back from tanning salon

Ahhhhh yes. The familiar nationalistic justifications made by my (5^th, 6^th, 7^th generation) American friends. I’ve always bristled slightly when my friends try to tell me they contain “x” percentage of a certain nationality and then try to use said percentage to justify their actions or genetics.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think knowing where your ancestors come from is fascinating. And one can certainly make the argument that America’s relative youth makes the possibility of one’s ancestors coming from another country all the more likely, and that’s probably why many Americans seem obsessed with it. But to use your family history to make yourself sound more interesting, immune, exotic, gifted, or non-American baffles me. How does where your great-grandfather was born have anything to do with who you are?

And yet another confusing facet of the nationalistic argument is contained in the percentages themselves. For example, a friend whose paternal great-grandfather was born in Ireland (coming to America at the age of 5 mind you) will claim ½ Irish ethnicity. I’m not the best at math but wouldn’t that actually make her (assuming we are going to use the ridiculous notion of percentages at all) more like 1/16^th Irish? Or in other words, not very “Irish” at all. The argument might hold more water if homegirl came from a family that truly celebrated its Irish roots via culture, food, music, values, trips “home”, whatever. But when that isn’t the case, isn’t claiming to be Irish a little like saying you “always go” somewhere when in fact you’ve only been once? You know what I mean.

Some people may take issue with my irritation and argue that there isn’t anything wrong with celebrating a culture. I would agree. The preservation of culture is important to carry on. But I would also question why one must be an “ancestor” of a certain place to partake in its cultural offerings, to appreciate its unique flavor, and so on. I might also take it one step further and argue that the idea of strongly claimed cultural heritage might, if not perpetuate, then certainly align itself with the ideas of the “scourge” of nationalism. I mean, should we not assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation as Howard Zinn asserts?

My distaste for the whole “heritage-as-identity” thing actually doesn’t stem from any of the above arguments but rather from the idea of needing an identity in and of itself. Why is it so important for us to consistently define ourselves as “something”? What got me thinking about all this was an article I came across an article by Raj Persaud in The Independent. The article detailed the relationship between sports fanatics, namely European football hooligans, and the need for belonging and identity. It seems that many caught up in the riots and violence have no previous history of violence and, all things considered, are peaceful individuals, and instead are galvanized into action by a sense of solidarity which emerges suddenly and powerfully, as a direct result of the crowds. The line I found most noteworthy: “Our need to belong is so strong and deep, we are vulnerable to the intervention of darker forces.”

(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/raj-persaud-football-hooligans-politics-and-the-need-to-belong-732333.html)

I guess if we really stop to ponder how much our need for identity shapes our decisions it should give us pause. It’s given pause to plenty of human identity theorists who argue that one of the most common types of conflicts are conflicts over identity. These conflicts occur when a person or a group feels that his or her sense of self–who one is–is threatened, or denied legitimacy or respect. One’s sense of self is so fundamental and so important, not only to one’s self-esteem but also to how one interprets the rest of the world, that any threat to identity is likely to produce a strong response. Typically, this response is both aggressive and defensive, and can escalate quickly into an intractable conflict.

One such theorist put it this way: “Identity is the primary issue in most racial and ethnic conflicts. It is also a key issue in many gender and family conflicts, when men and women disagree on the proper role or “place” of the other, or children disagree with their parents about who is in control of their lives and how they present themselves to the outside world.”

When I was a graduate student in San Francisco I found the identity theories of international conflict to be the most interesting because I could relate. Nations enter into violence because psychology, culture, basic values, shared history, and beliefs are threatened? Certainly makes sense on a microcosmic level. If the identity theorists are right then people get pretty pissy when identity is threatened in some way, however small. Identity, apparently, means a lot.

But you wont see me hitching my wagon to the “anti-identity” train what with my salad bar of identity-related insecurities, so don’t think I’m preaching here. I’m as guilty of trying to define myself as anyone. I’m just saying it’s scary what that shit can do. And I should know, I’m 2/5 Swedish and the Swedish mentality is known for being careful and wise.

“Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.  I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.  Criminals are outgunning law enforcement officials. Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible.”

Love it.

Specifically, when Clinton refers to weapons being smuggled into Mexico to drug cartels, this is what she’s talking about (as beautifully summed up by a recent CRS report):

Arms purchased here or otherwise acquired and smuggled into Mexico equip the cartels with anti-tank weapons, military hand grenades, and high powered sniper rifles. International smuggling also equips the cartels with high-tech equipment such as night-vision goggles, electronic intercept capabilities, encrypted communications and helicopters. In addition, some of the groups, such as the “Los Zetas” (former military who have become the enforcement arm of the Gulf Cartel), have received specialized training in weapons and tactics. Municipal and state police, and even the military, are ill equipped to confront such well armed and trained forces.

Mexican trafficking organizations and drug cartels have been around for a long time, but they’ve recently come to the forefront of the trade with the U.S. thanks to the demise of Colombia’s Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexico now dominates the drug market in the United States (thanks to our demand for their drugs). And Mexico is now armed like never before.

Of course the global arms trade doesn’t just affect Mexico….

According to recent figures, there are 639 million small arms and weapons in the world today and eight million more are produced each year. The arms industry is one of the world’s largest, and it has been estimated that over 1 trillion dollars are spent on military expenditures and arms worldwide on an annual basis.

The global creation and sale of arms both small and large is not a new phenomenon. Weapons have been traded and sold both legally and illegally all over the world for hundreds and possibly thousands of years. However the frequencies and quantities involved in the global arms trade today far outnumber anything the past has ever seen.

During the Cold War weapons manufacturing and sales were accelerated as the arms race between the Soviet Union and the US created an insatiable thirst for nuclear weapons and long-range missiles among other varieties of arms. Arms exports by these two superpowers were also used to gain influence and prestige in other nations, especially those in the Third World. It was during this time period that the weapons trade truly began to spread to poor countries which did not previously not have the kind of access to arms that they do today.

But the end of the Cold War didn’t necessarily bring with it a decrease in the intensity of the arms trade. The US and Russia in particular had begun a profitable system whereby selling weapons to smaller Third World countries resulted in certain rights and benefits being given to them in said countries. For example, US foreign policy interests in the Middle Eastern region have for a long time been guaranteed by its supply of small arms, airborne warning defense systems, and other forms of defense technology to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is only one of many examples whereby the militarily advanced industrial world has benefited from the selling of arms to other nations.

The events of September 11^th and the subsequent “War on Terror” initiated by President Bush has helped fuel the global arms trade in recent years. This new heightened focus on the fighting of terrorism has meant that the US is now more likely to sell or donate weapons to countries who have agreed to help fight terrorism by taking certain domestic measures. According to the Center for Defense Information: “Since Sept. 11, the United States has made billions of dollars worth of arms deals to strategic countries, including a $1.2 billion sale of fighter jets and missiles to Oman and nearly $400 million worth of missiles to Egypt. Countries identified as fighting terrorist groups are also set to receive large shipments of military aid, including $92 million in weapons to the Philippines.”

These recent factors, coupled with the recent wave of integration via globalization, have contributed to the state of the arms trade today. According to a report released by Amnesty International: “Globalization has changed the arms trade. Arms companies, operating from an increasing number of locations, now source components from across the world. Their products are often assembled in countries with lax controls on where they end up. Too easily, weapons get into the wrong hands.”

The US, of course, is not only the current leading exporter and supplier of arms but that they have been so, on average, for at least a decade. And most of the weapons we make are sold or sent to developing nations.

And who in particular is in possession of these arms and weapons? Although not all arms sold or delivered to countries are small arms, which include most guns able to be operated by one or two people on the ground, such as handguns, assault rifles, and shoulder-fired rocket-launchers, there are approximately 639 million small arms in the world today and nearly 60 per cent of small arms are in civilian hands.

There are several governments which claim that the domestic arms industry is an integral part of the economy, providing jobs and revenue.  Indeed the arms trade is a significant portion of international trade, making up over $21 billion USD, however it is not a large enough portion of the economy to justify the time and energy invested by countries exporting massive amounts of arms each year.

More likely it is the forging of military alliances that drives a large portion of the arms trade. Governments can indirectly support countries involved in conflict or conquest by supplying them with weapons. Opposition groups are also often supplied as a means of supporting the overthrow of an unpopular leader.  For example, since the 1980s, the US administration has provided vast shipments of arms and military assistance to government and armed opposition groups in Afghanistan, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Somalia.

This practice has become more apparent since the September 11^th attacks and subsequent Iraq War in the policies of the US in particular.  The “War on Terrorism” that was declared by the Bush Administration increased the amount of arms it exported and even broke sanctions with some countries in an effort to ensure that “friends and allies to acquire U.S. military equipment, services, and training for legitimate self-defense and for participation in multinational security efforts.”

According to Human Rights Watch: “The United States is more willing than ever to sell or give away weapons to countries that have pledged assistance in the global war on terror. And in order to do this the United States has revised the list of countries that are ineligible to receive U.S. weapons so that a significant number of countries … are now receiving military aid that would have been denied before Sept. 11.”

The effects of this increase in the arms trade in recent years are many. One of the major effects cited by human rights organizations is that increasingly arms are fueling greater numbers of conflicts. “The proliferation of arms facilitates the proliferation of armed violence. In an ever-downward spiral, the availability of arms can create a climate of fear: insecure groups and individuals arm themselves for protection, and their actions are perceived as a threat by others, who respond by arming themselves, and thus a demand for yet more weapons is created.”

But it isn’t just governments who push to export arms: the corporations who manufacture the arms have a role to play themselves. They tirelessly lobby for government subsidies and are often successful for a variety of reasons.  In most European countries as well as in the US arms industry executives sit on federal advisory commissions at the Commerce, Defense and State Departments dealing with arms export policy issues, ensuring that their preferences are well known to administration policymakers. In addition, the industry provides hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to Congressional campaigns, ensuring that their lobbyists have access to Members of the House and Senate. They also pump cash into Presidential campaigns, ensuring access at the very highest levels. As a result, weapons manufacturing corporations receive enormous tax breaks and tax payers end up subsidizing arms sales.

And of course the arms industry also gets an extra push from black market sales.  According to Transparency International, the arms industry is the second most likely to involve bribes: a report from the US Department of Commerce claimed that the defense sector accounted for 50 per cent of all bribery allegations. Bribery and corruption are rampant within the arms industry and this is a key driver of the proliferation and spread of weapons worldwide.

Arms brokering is another important way by which arms move across the world: “Brokers, supported by transporters and financiers, are middlemen who arrange transfers between sellers and buyers. Arms brokers, transporters, and financiers have been implicated in supplying weapons to the world’s worst-affected conflict zones and human rights crisis zones, including those subject to embargoes by the UN – Afghanistan, Angola, DRC, Iraq, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and South Africa, to name but a few”.

This is a nicely put together chart that explains how arms brokering works using the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 as an example:

Through the combined effort of governments and corporations weapons are easily produced and transferred to any country desired. The sale of weapons on the black market or illegally through arms brokers also helps to put weapons into more hands, including those that are considered to be grave threats to the rest of the world (terrorist groups anyone?)

So, what are the effects of the mass quantities of weapons in existence today?

Well, first there are the economic consequences of arms trading. According to many sources arms are one key factor in facilitating, prolonging, and intensifying conflict and armed violence.

Thus, in areas where weapons play a large role in fueling or prolonging conflict, there are many negative economic effects suffered. For example, trade and production are disrupted, tourists stay away, and state management of infrastructure and national resources may be disrupted.

Studies have shown that prolonged conflict reduces foreign direct investment and causes those most educated in a society to flee for safer places to live and work. Other studies have shown how the black market sale of weapons is detrimental to national economies. For example, a study exists linking the collapse of the Thai Baht in the late 1990s to inflows of “illegal profits from weapons merchants who used the stock and property markets to launder their proceeds.”

And finally the use of resources to finance arms and military purchases reduces the ability of countries to promote development and build up infrastructure, weakening the economy over the long haul.

The global arms trade can have a large impact on geopolitics as well. As previously mentioned, alliances can be secured or strengthened through the sale or donation of vast quantities of arms. Conflict is also fueled through the sale of weapons to a state engaged in domestic or international fighting. And probably most significantly, the arms race is sped up when billions of dollars worth of weapons are put in the hands of governments and citizens alike.

According to the Arms Trade Insider, the development and sale of larger and larger quantities of both small and large arms creates a cyclical pattern of even more arms proliferation:

“A pattern is developing wherein U.S. weapons exports and new weapons procurement are driving each other. After, and occasionally even before, new weapons roll off the assembly line, they are offered to foreign customers. Each overseas sale of top-line U.S. combat equipment represents an incremental decrease in U.S. military superiority. This gradual decline in military strength spurs politicians, the military and the defense industry to press for higher military spending to procure increasingly sophisticated equipment superior to weapons shipped overseas. This latest technology is again offered to foreign customers, and the cycle begins anew.”

But of course the impact on human life is the most important aspect to examine. According to Oxfam: “The uncontrolled proliferation and misuse of arms by government forces and armed groups takes a massive human toll in lost lives, lost livelihoods, and lost opportunities to escape poverty. The death and injury of such large numbers of people, many young, have profound consequences for development like reducing the number of people entering the work force, diverting family and social resources into the care of those disabled by gun violence, and forcing governments to redirect funding from social services to public security.”

I would argue that it’s not just the developing world that suffers from the proliferation of arms trading but global security as a whole. Today nations are being armed in ways the previous century never saw. The total number of arms manufactured world wide in both quantity and price has almost quadrupled since the 1960’s. The widespread availability of weapons in nearly every country has played a role in increasing the number of conflicts experienced worldwide, particularly in the developing world. The overall stability of nations engaged in conflict is decreased which in turn promotes poverty and unrest.  According to even the Pentagon and White House, the greatest dangers today are instability in the developing world which, clearly, the arms trade is helping to fuel. And let’s not forget that technology often ends up in the hands of “enemies”. This happened to the United States in particular in the 1980s in Iraq and Panama, in addition to the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, many of whom are now supporters of al-Qaeda.

And for the U.S. in particular, probably the greatest danger emanating arms transfers and military aid programs is not in the numbers, but in the potential impacts on the image, credibility and security of the United States. Arming repressive regimes in all corners of the globe while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign for democracy and against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States in international forums and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues.

In terms of addressing the massive problems caused by the global arms trade, most argue for a combination of public pressure on lawmakers and the sympathetic response of governments as a method of facilitating change. However most governments are unresponsive to the call to change practices when it comes to arms trading Not surprisingly, the world’s largest producers and exporters of weapons (who greatly profit from the trade) have shown little interest in participating in negotiations related to stronger arms control or more defined international law related to it.  Essentially, the bottom line is that the arms trade is not regulated globally. Although work will soon begin on the drafting of a treaty which addresses the global arms trade, as it stands there is a very weak legal framework surrounding the issue which many claim compounds the problems associated with the trade including corruption, bribery, and the furthering of political agendas.

For now some of the impacts of arms proliferation can be seen in our own backyard as Mexico’s violence continues to destroy lives. That’s not to say that the violence is entirely the fault of the U.S.   Far from it. There are of course many other factors involved and Mexico must take responsibility for its part in the drug violence. But I think Clinton hits the nail on the head when she talks about shared responsibility for this problem.

I sincerely hope this attitude becomes a hallmark of the Obama administration’s handling of other foreign policy matters.

“Universal Joy”, Acrylic on Canvas, 16×20

This morning, as part of my two week pre-move sabbatical from the working world, I paid a leisurely visit to the San Jose Museum of Art, cultural gem of the Silicon Valley. I really enjoy this museum in part because it’s so unexpected. Living in the shadow of the cultural mecca that is San Francisco, San Jose seems to understandably put little effort into the arts scene. But the SJMA actually houses a pretty decent collection of all mediums of art. They also have some really cool exhibitions and installments that come through. And it’s less busy and much quieter than most museums, which for me is essential.

As I wandered through the Warhol exhibit thinking about how much I hate and don’t understand the draw to pop art, I overheard two individuals who can only be describes as “assholes” discussing the finer points of abstract expressionism. On and on they went about the honest and bucolic brushstrokes and the symbiotic relationship between color and structure and so forth. I don’t fully remember what they were saying but I do remember gagging and throwing up in my mouth a little bit.

These were art snobs of the highest order. Museum pass-holders and everything. It made me imagine unleashing of a pack of feral dogs on them and laughing ghoulishly as they were assaulted. It’s not that I have a problem with those who deeply enjoy a subject and want to know everything about it. I also don’t mind individuals in this category who are over-zealous about sharing that knowledge. No, what I can’t stand is bullshit. You know, made-up stuff that makes little sense, is unverifiable and overly-subjective, and is disseminated only to impress others? Come on.

I think what is so irritating about this kind of snobbiness is the fact that it takes away from the real enjoyment you’re supposed to get from things like art: enjoyment that comes from genuinely liking something regardless of what it may say about you or your knowledge.

I like art because most of it is either pretty or interesting, be it a Willem de Koonig or something mass produced and sold at Pier One. There is a great deal of art I think is ugly or boring, although I don’t base my opinion of these on things like “the lack of integrity of intention” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean). If I like it, I like it and if I don’t, I don’t. My reasons are personal and I in no way make value judgments on what constitutes “good” or “bad” (at least not in the realm of art). But I won’t pretend that my opinions are the result of a superior knowledge or greater appreciation. I won’t pretend to be sophisticated for the sake of doing so, as though art is only for those who exist on a higher plane of artistic understanding.

You might say I feel the same way about drinking wine. I drink wine because it tastes pretty good and it’s a cheap, classy way to get drunk. There, I said it. Sure, I love wine tasting trips and the BevMo 5-cent sale. And I enjoy some wines more than others for the obvious reason that the different varietals vary in taste, but I probably couldn’t tell the difference between a $100 bottle and Two Buck Chuck. And I certainly don’t pair wine with food for godsake. It makes no difference to me if I’m drinking Zinfandel or Cabernet with my pasta fagioli so long as I like what’s being poured. I accept that there are some people out there who genuinely have well-developed palates capable of discerning the nuances of wine. And as long as it’s authentic then it’s fine with me if they want to be selective. But if you’re putting on a show at dinner by describing some ridiculous “delicate cumin middle aroma” found deep within the “acid melon frame” then I feel sorry for you. Because while you’re choking down an expensive glass of wine that you may or may not even like, I’ll be living it up at the other end of the table, getting drunk off of wine that simply tastes “good”.

; )