Helping Haiti (and effective disaster relief)

     The damage inflicted upon Haiti by Hurricane Matthew is the worst since the 2010 earthquake – not a friendly comparison.

     Rampant death, destruction, and disease aren’t even the full scope of the country’s worries.  Devastated infrastructure and, at least as daunting, uprooted crops mean Haitians must endure this disaster for much too long.  Hunger and isolation loom like a new storm.  Haiti still hasn’t overcome the 2010 earthquake… who knows how many more years recovery will take with these compounded consequences?

     We want to help.  How can we provide impactful assistance?

     Donating to the Red Cross is probably not the best bet.  In 2015, a joint report by ProPublica [1] and NPR [2] condemned the Red Cross’s management of the $488 million raised for earthquake relief in Haiti.  Citing statements in the original report, other publications (such as Time, CNN, The Independent, etc.) then ran with variations of the unfavorable headline, “Red Cross Spent Half a Billion Dollars to Build Six Homes in Haiti” [3]. 

     It was at the same time that Reuters reported, “the Red Cross spent at least 17 percent of funds on expenses in Haiti, despite the U.S. group and international federation stating 91 cents on each dollar goes to humanitarian programmes and services” [4].  In other words, the Red Cross’s claim of spending only 9 percent of donations on overhead costs was under contention.

     The Red Cross was quick to respond to these accusations of mismanagement.  Labeling them as ‘myths,’ the organization asserted figures in support of its efforts.  However, the amount of people the Red Cross claims to have provided housing for fluctuates between 132,000 [5] and 135,000 [6], while another statement declares having moved, “more than 100,000 people out of make-shift tents into safe and improved housing… fulfilling our promise to ensure tens of thousands of Haitians are back in homes” [7].  Without dates on these numbers, it is difficult to determine whether they are indicative of progress in Haiti or proof of the organization’s discord.

     To make matters muddier, even these projections may have been manipulated.  A Red Cross assessment of the housing solutions provided to 132,000 people also has a dubious 'Shelter Category' regarding 'Neighborhood renovation/development', which focuses on improving infrastructure (e.g. roads, utilities) [8].  Within the accomplishments of this category is described “repairing and retrofitting homes” – even though there is already a separate category titled 'Repair/Reinforcement, Retrofit, Relocation, Rental Subsidies & Construction'.  There is the possibility that many people were repeatedly listed in multiple categories, inflating the summation.  Couldn’t the people who benefited from repaired homes also have benefited from repaired roads?  Why are repaired and retrofitted homes listed in two separate categories?  Why is there a category for infrastructure in a report regarding housing solutions, anyway?  Whatever the case, the lack of clarity does little to instill confidence.

     As for the accusations of spending more than 9 percent on overhead costs, the Red Cross flat-out denied them.

     The controversy around the Red Cross’s response to the 2010 earthquake has been echoed in recent headlines regarding the Hurricane Matthew aftermath.  Published on October 9^th, an article in The Independent reads, “Haitians are urging people not to give money to American Red Cross” [9]. 

     From my personal experience working in Haiti I can confirm the widespread disapproval towards international relief agencies.  Shortly after reading The Independent’s recent article, I sent an email to my Haitian friend, Josue, mentioning the poor publicity.  He responded, “the Red Cross is worst but most of the NGO don't make durable thing.” 

     When I first went to Haiti one of the many amazing people I met was Matt Bush, who at the time had just started a new orphanage, All Things New.  Matt recently wrote two lucid blog posts detailing why you should donate to small, local organizations instead of large ones like the Red Cross; in fact, he also requests that you don’t donate to his orphanage for the purpose of disaster relief, since that is not the function of his operation.

     In Matt’s first blog post [10] he gives an overview of the situation in Haiti and lists two organizations who would make the best use of donations: Hope for Haiti [11] along with KORE [12].  He issues a very specific warning against donating to large international relief agencies, saying, “do not give to the Red Cross. Do not give to organizations who have huge amounts of overhead, who have no connections in the affected area, and who will bring in aid from America and other countries (though some of this is necessary) rather than doing their very best to purchase aid locally.”

     In his second post [13] he discusses why.  Large international organizations have a likewise larger number of hoops to jump through and employees to pay, meaning less of a dollar donated through large organizations ends up getting to the intended recipients.  Additionally, these agencies arrive when they are needed, only then making contacts and relationships on the ground.  Many of these relief workers don’t speak the language and aren’t trusted by the locals.  Finally, these organizations often bring in supplies from foreign countries.  This can be detrimental because it undermines the local economy; for example, in the 90’s President Bill Clinton coerced Haiti to drop taxes on imported U.S. rice, making it cheaper than any competitors and destroying the market for domestic rice [14]. 

     All of these are reasons why small, local organizations like KORE or Hope for Haiti are more effective service deliverers.

     Now is just as important a time to donate as it was days after the hurricane.  Unlike a developed country which can patch itself up quickly in the wake of disaster, Haiti lacks the infrastructure and resources to get back on its feet.  Supporting Haitian agriculture, construction and materials businesses, and medical facilities is critical for revitalizing damaged areas.

     Support doesn’t end with these sectors, either.  For long-term solutions it is important to invest in the Haitian people and their environment.  Donating to orphanages, like Matt Bush’s All Things New, helps prepare a new generation to address its nation’s challenges.  Education can give people the ability to forge their own future.  Other efforts work with people and plants to recreate a holistic ecosystem.  Another organization I encountered in Haiti, CODEP [15] (which was mentioned in a recent New York Times article [16]), plants value-added trees from hilltops down to secure watersheds, improving soil and reducing flooding.

    Though Haiti is by no means alone in its urgency for disaster relief, its recent exposure and proximity to the United States make it a neighbor we should consider helping.  The Red Cross and other international relief agencies aren't bad options, though neither are they the best.

     It is not only our responsibility to provide assistance to those in need, but also to provide assistance responsibly.

Thank you for reading.

Sources

1. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes
2. http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
3. http://time.com/3908457/red-cross-six-homes-haiti/
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-aid-haiti-redcross-idUSKBN0OL17020150605 
5. http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/13-Facts-about-the-Red-Cross-Response-in-Haiti
6. http://www.redcross.org/about-us/our-work/international-services/haiti-assistance-program/donations-at-work
7. http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/American-Red-Cross-Responds-to-Recent-ProPublica-Report-on-Haiti
8. http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m51740178_American_Red_Cross_Housing_in_Haiti.pdf
9. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/haitians-urging-people-not-give-money-american-red-cross-how-to-help-hurricane-matthew-aid-cholera-a7352681.html
10. http://allthingsneworphanage.com/hurricane-matthew-how-you-can-help/
11. http://hopeforhaiti.com/
12. http://www.korefoundation.org/
13. http://allthingsneworphanage.com/hurricane-matthew-disaster-relief-explained/
14. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/11/bill_clinton_s_trade_policies_destroyed
15. http://www.haitifundinc.org/
16. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/who-will-speak-for-haitis-trees.html?_r=2

Past Pluto's Post (III of III)

Past Pluto’s Post

The Plea for Political Plurality

By: Al Spaulding

Part III of III

“There are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true sources of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the nation, distracting its councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.

     And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers."

- Benjamin Franklin

Myth Matters

     Before we go any further, first ask yourself: what is a wasted vote?



     What is a wasted vote?  



     When might you consider your own vote to have been wasted?

     How would you respond to someone who had told you that you were wasting your vote?

     The most immediate objection to the notion of supporting someone outside the two-party system is that of the 'wasted vote'; a vote outside the two-party system can’t change anything.  Such a vote takes support from people who actually matter.  

     You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.  You can’t urge people of the importance of voting, wax eloquent about its foundational power in a democratic nation, you can’t encourage people their vote matters, but then tell them they’re wasting their vote if they don’t elect Democrat or Republican.  Such critics claim your choices in life make you free, but only if you choose between the options they recognize - otherwise, you are wasting your freedom.

     If your opinion isn't already widely supported, then it isn't worthwhile.  It isn't significant.

     You can have any color you want so long as it’s black.






     So what is a wasted vote?

     A technical definition of a wasted vote is any vote that doesn’t directly elect a candidate.  Any vote for an unsuccessful candidate, even any extra votes past the margin of success are wasted.  In 'First Past the Post' systems there are many wasted votes.  If Candidate X receives 20 votes and Candidate Y 15, there are thus 19 wasted votes (Y’s 15 plus the 4 extra votes past the 16 necessary for X to win).

     By this technical definition, the majority of votes are wasted.

     Let’s look at another example.  Candidate A gets 49 votes, B gets 45, and a third candidate, C, gets 5.  The number of technically wasted votes is 53.

     A counterproposal to the idea of a wasted vote is that the people who voted for Candidate C wasted their vote.  C never had a chance of winning. Indeed, C voters could have chosen B, possibly changing the results of the election.  In this example, A and B voters chastise C voters for wasting their votes.  This an act of popular coercion, peer pressure to discourage voting outside of the duopolistic party system.  This is a suppression of individual beliefs.  This argument bullies-out accurate representation.

     What is a vote, really?  A vote is simply an exercise of preference in a social context.  A vote is an expression of confidence.  You waste your vote when you exercise your choice for something you don’t actually prefer, when you vote for something in which you lack confidence.

     Actually, electoral fraud can also waste your vote, but is less immediately within your influence.

     We only have to vote for “the lesser of two evils” because we have a dissociated, fractured system.  If we were allowed to express our preferences in a righteous and democratic system, our actual beliefs would be better represented.

Fecund Feasibility 

     Perhaps now you are convinced that a two-party system is not in your best interest, nor the interest of any citizen.  You probably already have a good idea of how to move forward.  Let’s state it again for the record.

     To have a more fair political system we require:

A.    Better representation through the electoral system.  No ‘First Past the Post’ voting system.  

B.     Better representation through electoral districts.  No ‘Gerrymandering.’  

C.     Better representation of political candidates.  The media oligopoly is not conducive to (relatively) objective information.  

D.    Better representation of political ethics.  No duopolistic ‘two-party system.’  

     What does this require?

A.    An updated electoral system.  There are multiple alternative voting systems preferable to 'First Past the Post'. 

a.       CGP Grey seems to recommend the ‘Single Transferable Vote.’  

b.      There are groups, like the non-profit Fair Vote, campaigning for alternative voting systems in the United States.  

B.     Don’t allow incumbent politicians to create voting districts.  Independent agencies are a better option.  

a.       Wikipedia gives a comprehensive assessment of how to form voting districts. 

C.     Your research.  It’s fine to watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX for some news, but make the effort to pursue other sources of information.  Interactive media is superior to passive media.  

a.       In academics it is unfathomable to have a basis of one source of information.  It is necessary to have a variety of inputs, preferably as independent from each other as possible.  

D.    Value diversity, engage politically, and vote for third parties or independents.  

     This point of diversity and plurality is, I believe, the crux of the issue.  It seems the current two-party system and its inherent representative shortcomings have allowed the wealthy and powerful to create a system that serves them better than it serves the average person.

     The current wealth gap in the United States is as substantial as it was right before the Great Depression.  

     Don’t the rich and the politicians have a vested, mutual interest to maintain their success?  To achieve financial or political success requires significant intelligence and ability; why is it that the political candidates we’re presented with speak so simply, favoring emotion over logic?  Have demagogues and plutocrats become the deciders in the United States, exactly as the Founding Fathers feared?

     My point being, this level of inequality and disproportionate representation can not and should not be sustained.  With the Founding Fathers as my inspiration, I assert that power, money, and politics are the Devil’s threesome, and parties are the beds in which they lie.

     The Founding Fathers would have wanted nonpartisan elections.  And countries around the world exist without parties.  Still, supporting third parties is a step in the right direction.  What is required is political plurality, not political dichotomy.  Any vote exercised towards political plurality is a message of confidence, a message declaring the need for better representation.

Don’t Pay the Ferryman

     Many political discussions are charged with a sense of immediacy.  Hopefully, I have presented a purposeful argument without falling victim to urgency.  I don’t believe anything terrible will occur in the next election.  You may believe that political plurality is a worthwhile cause, though not practical in the current voting cycle.  I understand that it may take time for a greater diversity of representation to be actualized.  In the meantime, let’s not fall victim to a sense of deadline.  It is important to avoid a reactionary mindset - let’s be proactive.  If we agree that electoral reforms are necessary and the two-party system needs improvement, we can take steps towards a long-term goal.

     One of the greatest actions you can do to initiate change is to bring attention to the options.  Support political plurality as a valid notion and share it in relevant discussions.  Regard with suspicion any entity that seeks to repress variety and expression.

     Who benefits from maintaining the status quo?

     More than anything, eradicating the two-party system requires belief that it is possible.  Remember the injection of ancient Greek political philosophy into the nascent United States.  Think of the Montgomery bus boycotts and Gandhi’s peaceful demonstrations.  These tactics were ludicrous at the time, yet a camaraderie of confidence made it totally possible to fix broken systems peacefully and rationally.  Despite the differences, practical applications can be derived from alien situations.  

     If you are committed to improving the American government, it is necessary to move beyond the two-party system.  Indeed, this discussion has implications for limited systems everywhere.  

     Diversify your portfolio.  

     Are we willing to resign ourselves the inertia of this incumbent duopolistic system? Are we resigned to a political pendulum between party factions, from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama?  For real change to be enacted requires more than common dissatisfaction.  It requires actual dissent.  For there to be a change in our environment we have to be willing to change our beliefs and behaviors.  Voting for the same old system will only perpetuate said system.  



     Voting for political plurality is your way of making a change for the better. 

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.
     All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
     However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

- George Washington

Further Resources

CGP Grey's breakdown of political problems and possibilities: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638

Options for electoral reform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_the_United_States

Many political reform ideas are centered around the vote: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/idea-must-die-election-edition/

Most people think the presidential campaign is too long (and want the system to change):  http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ayw7ira9yg/tabs_OPI_primary_20150304.pdf

Alternative voting systems decrease 'wasted votes' and increase voter participation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

The USA has the greatest wealth and the greatest inequality:

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/ 

and

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ 

The detrimental effects of 'monoculture' (and lack of diversity) on human-ecological systems:  http://www.ipes-food.org/images/Reports/UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf  

     Thank you for reading.

Past Pluto's Post (II of III)

Past Pluto’s Post

The Plea for Political Plurality

By: Al Spaulding

Part II of III

"Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.”

- James Madison

Factional Faults   

     We feel like we have poor choices for political candidates.  This is advantageous to a two party system.  It is advantageous to make elections simple for you.   

     Why would a two party system, a “duopoloy,” want to restrict your political options? 

     The candidates more loyal to their party than their constituency are the most viable choices for the party.  The duopoly guarantees this loyalty for itself from candidates, and power over citizens, with First Past the Post (FPTP or FPP) voting systems.  FPTP means voters give a single vote for each political position and whoever receives the most wins the election.  However, during the presidential campaign the United States does not use a system where each vote goes directly towards electing a candidate.  During the presidential primaries and caucuses (when we are trying to decide which individual will represent the entire party) the votes are routed through delegates, party members who can decide whether or not to listen to the voting body.  In addition to that, the final presidential election is routed through the Electoral College; again, other people who are intermediaries between your vote and the outcome of the election.  

     I did not know this until recently, but there is more than one type of voting system.  FPTP is not the only way to hold government elections. What if you could rank your top three choices, instead of just your number one?  This kind of alternative voting system greatly changes political outcomes.  

     There must be some reason the United States uses FPTP, right?  

     Allow me to present Wikipedia’s section on the benefits of FPTP:  

     “The benefits of FPTP are that its concept is very easy to understand, and ballots can be easily counted and processed. Alternative systems such as rank-based voting require far more work or processing power to tabulate results than a single choice.”   

     That’s it.  It is easy.  Easy to understand and easy to count votes.  

     (The ACE Network gives a more comprehensive assessment of FPTP.)

     But is it really that simple when party delegates and the Electoral College enter the equation?  

     Furthermore, electoral fraud is occurring at every level of the FPTP voting system.  From the voters, to the voting machines, to the human vote counters, even this supposed benefit isn’t working in our favor as well as we’d like.   

     To be fair, electoral fraud is a potential issue in any democratic election, not only FPTP.  What isn’t an issue in every kind of voting system is 'tactical voting.'  You can probably figure out what this means from the name alone.  Tactical voting is when you pick a candidate not because you consider them the best candidate, but because they are the lesser of two evils and you think they have a significant probability of winning.  Tactical voting is partly why presidential elections are displayed in the news for well over a year, with state primaries occurring for months.  Even the order in which states hold their primaries is controversial.  

    Can you imagine?  Other countries that have moved beyond FPTP don’t have to spend so much effort wondering who is voting for who.  They vote for the candidates they think will best represent them.

     Another self-propagation technique the duopoly system employs to ensure its continued existence is 'gerrymandering.'  Gerrymandering is when incumbent politicians arrange voting districts so their party’s voters make up the majority of the district’s voting bloc, while simultaneously diving up the competition’s into minorities.  It is terribly difficult for opposition party candidates (and almost impossible for third party or independent candidates) to gain a foothold in a gerrymandered system.   

     Once more, this may seem like an inevitable shortcoming of politics, but in reality is ameliorable.  

     There is a video series on YouTube that vividly depicts the issues with FPTP, tactical voting, and gerrymandering.  The creator, CGP Grey, gives lucid insight into the shortcomings of these practices and the benefits of their alternatives.  He makes a compelling argument and I highly recommend you watch the five video series, which can be viewed in half an hour.

     CGP Grey: Politics in the Animal Kingdom

     To fully appreciate my argument of political division and diversity in the context of political institutions, I would designate this video series as mandatory viewing.  CGP Grey deftly explains FPTP, tactical voting, alternative voting systems, gerrymandering, and political representation in general.   

     Both CGP Grey and Wikipedia make it clear that alternative voting systems compared to FPTP can count a longer list of benefits: less/no tactical voting, less/no gerrymandering, fewer/no 'wasted votes', less/no manipulation, less/no bullying of minority parties.  

     I believe the FPTP voting system undermines representation, and thus, the true democratic foundation of our country.  There is no “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” unless we people can freely express our voting rights.  

     The electoral process is inextricably tied to honest representation.  The Founding Fathers knew it, which is why they got so worked up about “taxation without representation.”  The just and virtuous government can only be validated through legitimate representation.   

     The fair representation foundational to an honest democratic process extends beyond the voting public: the diversity of candidates must be represented, as well.  In other words, the information presented to the citizens should not be arbitrarily limited.  American politics has not yet caught up with the internet, the greatest bastion of knowledge ever created.  The vestigial influence of passively consumed media (newspapers, radio, television) still controls how the majority of Americans get their news.  Despite having access to more information than ever, the majority of voters are still being told their options in a traditionally restricted manner.  Conventional news sources inadequately and inaccurately display political options.  Perhaps media have always been susceptible to fad-like behavior, but no conventional news source is fair or accurate in how they discuss politics.  From limited word space to limited airtime, the news has been forced to condense the information it broadcasts.  All news sources are competing for the same thing: your attention.  They have to be as sensationalist as they can get away with (appeal to pathos) while under the guise of a balanced presentation (appeal to ethos).  It may seem anchorwo/men are giving it to you straight, with their expressionless faces and affected speech, but what information and how they choose to exhibit it is a sleight of hand difficult to spot.  News should be an objective representation of reality - it has developed into impassioned entertainment.    

     Ask yourself: why do celebrities hold such prominence in the news?  

     Do news sources report specific political candidates more than others because they hold greater support among viewers?  Do we support certain candidates more because they hold greater support among news sources?  

     Is it true there is no such thing as bad publicity?  

     Which is most likely to attract attention when ‘news’ is framed as entertainment, rational discourse or emotional declarations and outlandishness?   

     Why do political candidates hold debates in arenas?  The kind of arenas usually utilized for music or sport?  How is a screaming fanbase conducive to calm, objective discussion?  

     It is evident that exposure is vital to have a chance in an election.  The cause and effect relationship of media exposure (similar to the cause and effect of how parties choose positions on issues) is probably a two-way street.  It is the limitation of news sources we should be wary towards.  We may feel cosmopolitan in the digital age, but keep in mind there are only six companies responsible for 90% of the media consumed by Americans.  

     Information, wealth, power, ownership.  These things are closely related.  Honesty is among the supreme virtues because it relinquishes power and ownership in favor of truth.  We expect our education institutions to forsake entertainment in pursuit of truth.  It doesn’t seem we have the same expectation of information medium services.  

     Who we vote for and what issues are relevant require significant amounts of information.  We can’t afford to make democratic decisions lightly, especially when there is such a dearth of values.  We need and deserve accurate information to make informed decisions.

Dim Planet

     The two-party system is an inaccurate representation of the political spectrum.  Because here’s the thing: politics is not a spectrum.  Politics is not a gradation along a single axis.  If you believe all political ethics fall somewhere on a line, you have been ill-informed.  

     Let’s look at political stances and relationships through a geometry analogy.   

     A single entity in geometry is a point.  It is one thing in isolation.  Let’s take the Republican Party as our point.  As we have discussed, the Republican Party does not exist alone.  If a separate point, the Democratic Party, is established we then have two points.  The relationship between two points is a line, a one dimensional spectrum: right, left, and a bunch of points in between; shades of red or blue.  Now, let’s throw in a third perspective, a third point, the Libertarian party.  Libertarians aren’t quite Republicans, but they aren’t Democrats, either.  They must be some kind of purple, correct?  If that were the case, then the Libertarians would be the party of the moderates… but they’re not.  They are, let’s assume, equidistant from the Democrats and the Republicans (sharing values with either party), but they are not ‘in line’ with them (having independent values).  They are not between the left or the right.  In geometry this third point creates a plane – you might easily think of this three-way relationship as a triangle.  Red, blue, and yellow.  Instead of speaking in regards to a political spectrum, we should now reference a political landscape, a political palette.   

     Imagine if we had a fourth separate political party, the imaginary Grey Party.  The Grey Party is as far removed from all three previous parties as is the Libertarian Party from the Republicans and Democrats.  These four incongruous points will then form 3-D space, a political sphere if you will, an increasingly accurate depiction of our reality.   

     A demonstration… If there are three issues and you can be ‘for’ or ‘against’ each, then there are eight possible combinations of values.  Two political parties simply don’t cover this variety of beliefs.  

     There's a whole world of possibilities.  For the sake of our collective well-being, we should not limit our conception of representation.  

     “It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able to adapt to and to adjust best to the changing environment in which it finds itself” is a common summary of Darwin’s evolution.  Through his naturalist perspective, success is measured by longevity.  An individual or species can only exist if they can survive despite struggle.  The ability of resiliency determines success in the test of time.  This is a fundamental axiom in biology and ecology.  Resiliency in the face of adversity is what determines success in an individual or ecosystem.  There is a highly predictive determinant of resiliency in a living system: biodiversity.  Biodiversity is the variation within individuals and populations, and between species in an ecosystem.  In terms of resiliency, the more biodiversity the better.  An ecosystem is like a temple and the biodiversities are the pillars with which it is constructed; when time or catastrophe weigh in, having more pillars helps keep the temple standing.  

     While we should be careful when applying scientific principles to familiar circumstances (see: social Darwinism), it is worthwhile to look at the political ‘ecosystem’ in terms of diversity.  Diversity, political plurality, is not only more representative of the eclectic nature of our country, it also fortifies us against the consolidation of power among the few.  

     This is not mere philosophical musing.

     My previous post introduced the advantage of the German political system.  Germany's voting arrangement, Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP), has not been fundamentally altered since it was enacted after World War II.  Such resilience has proven attractive.  In 1996, New Zealand implemented a similar MMP system in their Parliament, the branch of government equivalent to the legislative branches in Germany and the USA, largely because "the MMP system has not shown any great drawbacks in Germany."  Before electoral reform, New Zealand's voting system was almost identical to the USA's: two established parties continuously vying for dominance.  The 1996 reform altered this incumbency.  MMP ousted FPTP, and with it the two-party system.

     That doesn't mean there haven't been growing pains.  Over the past two decades, there has been turmoil as the status quo shifted.  MMP did not provide the kind of political consensus that was expected.  A multi-party system did not disperse factional competition.

     Does New Zealand's increase in the number of parties in Parliament demonstrate any benefit?  Twenty years may be too short a time to provide a holistic assessment of the reform's ramifications.  Still, there stands one result unambiguous: "Parliament has certainly become more diverse and representative of modern New Zealand society."  The rotation of party influence is no longer limited to a duopoly.

     Wikipedia confirms this conclusion. "Prior to the switch to MMP, New Zealand largely had a two party system...  After the 1996 election, there were six political parties...  The transition to MMP has caused disproportionality to fall."  Despite the tumult caused by political reformation, New Zealanders are satisfied with the change.  In 2011, voters strongly affirmed their support for the new system.

     What about the progenitor?  The longevity of Germany's MMP has allowed fuller evaluation.  Again, Wikipedia: "Time has proven that this voting system mainly allows for a proportional distribution of seats, stable governments, change of governments, the possibility of new parties joining the parliament", along with a comparatively capable legislature.  In other words, Germany has uprooted the 'winner takes all' concept.  Unlike the USA, in Germany's MMP it has never occurred that "one party wins an absolute majority of the parliamentary seats on a minority of the popular votes" (again, ACE Network).  Opposition stances are righteously voiced, not suppressed.

     No more need Germans fear a single party taking too much control, doing too much damage.

     Reduced is the threat of overwhelming government.

     Can we boast the same confidence?

     The bipolar nature of American politics is replete with paranoia.  We vote based on the notion of the 'lesser of two evils.'

     Is the 'evilness' of government a function of its lack of government, the number of parties it houses?  If a one-party dictatorship is the most abhorrent form of public control, is a two-party system then half as evil?

     Could a dispersement of parties curtail corruption?

     The reality is much more complex than my one-legged rhetoric indicates.  Yet, that's the point.  We want to simplify the situation to understand it, to address it, but in doing so eliminate salient variables.  Yes, our civic duty requires that we take action against injustice; we must choose between thinking and doing.  Faced with necessity, we can't be hobbled by extraneous inspection.  Nevertheless, narrow perspective is a heedless, rocky approach.  We must balance our charged motivation with due recognition.  Allowing for a variety of considerations encourages an informed choice.

     So we are willing to defend our life and liberty, so we must be willing to pursue the happy intricacies.

     We must respect the perspectives and values of others while still having the courage to voice our own.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

- Thomas Jefferson  

Past Pluto's Post (I of III)

  

Past Pluto’s Post

The Plea for Political Plurality

By: Al Spaulding

Part I of III

"The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

- George Washington

     The arena of election in the United States is likely quite different from what the Founding Fathers envisioned.  They realized politics is a gladiatorial battle royale for power, and thus strove to create a system that prevented demagoguery.  They wanted a free-for-all, discouraging powerful alliances in favor of popular persuasion through individual, self-affirming logic.

     Unfortunately, the free-for-all quickly congealed into two warring sides.  Two opposing political parties quickly became the norm in America and have fervently persisted.  

     Were the visionary creators of a truly innovative government uncharacteristically naive in regards to the institution of political parties?  Is this seemingly fundamental aspect of our democratic republic truly representative of liberty, justice, and the will of the citizenry?  Are we forever entrenched in the battle between Republicans and Democrats?

     Despite the apparent conflict between Republicans and Democrats, an exclusive two-party system is desirable for both to the detriment of the citizenry.

A More Perfect Disunion

     Dividing stances on topical issues and making clear (although imperfect) distinctions allows politics to be comprehensible and approachable.  It’s us or them.  In rational discourse, this is called a ‘false dichotomy’: reducing a multi-faceted issue into a binary.  In other words, ignoring a host of variables to inaccurately force a “yes or no.”  The average person can’t afford to scrounge through all the facts and opinions regarding every issue, facilitating this false dichotomy.  Who can blame us?  Politics and platforms are convoluted, prompting the attraction of a clear choice.  Most of us don’t feel passionate about every issue.

     It is not difficult to imagine how an ambitious party takes a political stand on a novel issue, prompting the opposing party to assert a contrary position.  Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction.  A political platform is thus formed as a series of issues are addressed.

     While it is kind of ‘chicken-or-the-egg’ as to how the dichotomy is made, it’s the making of it that is favorable for both parties. This is when the "house divided" quote becomes relevant.

     Neither party need fear the other’s perpetual incumbency; as soon as any negative effect occurs, popular support will shift away from the former majority party.  Thereby the political pendulum is established.  Either party can pursue expansive legislation and power because, yes, this will sour the public opinion, but they need only be patient until the rivaling side does the same and brings the moderate voters flocking back.

     Let’s break it down hypothetically, keeping in mind that a simplistic reduction of politics does not encapsulate all of its nuances:

     Group A gains popular support and a position of power.  They do what they can until either (1) they go too far, or (2) Group B gains support due to a novel stance on a topic.  Group A then loses a majority of the public’s support, so Group A responds with a smear campaign and a strong, opposing stance on the topic.  Thus, Group A eventually regains popular support and the pendulum swings again.

     This is why voters commonly say picking a “better” candidates is really just going with “the lesser of two evils.”

     I would like to encourage you to dispose of this choice between two evils, this duopoly.

     The two parties don’t want any more parties on the scene… at least, not a party that draws away moderates or loyal constituents.  More parties would divide up the real estate of power, diminishing holdings.  That’s one reason why Republicans dislike the Constitution Party, Democrats dislike the Green Party, and why both dislike the Libertarian Party.  Libertarians very legitimately draw voters away from the two established powers… just not many moderate voters (more on this later).

     The political pendulum may sound par for the course; however, don’t be lured into thinking the norm is what’s ideal or even inevitable.  The simple, dichotomous divide is artificial. It is not – despite what incumbent politicians, pundits, and other vested interests may proclaim – the only way.  

     For a functional alternative, let us turn our eyes to the Federal Republic of Germany.

          

     Germany has six political parties with seats in its Bundestag (the equivalent to the U.S.' House of Representatives).  Yes, these parties have joined forces at times to form coalitions, but the alliances have been temporary.  Voters in Germany’s government, as in any multi-party system, have a greater array of choice than their American counterparts.  

     And Germany is by no means alone.  There are at least 76 explicitly multi-party countries in the world, with many additional nonpartisan countries.  

     While the effectiveness of having no political parties is up for debate, keep in mind the Founding Fathers espoused a nonpartisan system.  A nonpartisan nation is one in which no political parties exist.  I imagine there was much heated debate among the creators of the Constitution on this point, but by establishing the rights to free speech and assembly it then would’ve been hypocritical to make parties illegal.  Though it is technically permissive of a multi-party or nonpartisan government, the United States is in reality a bipartisan system.

     The multi-party system is still an artificial design, but it is a more accurate representation of the public’s diverse beliefs and priorities.  Counterarguments can be raised regarding inherent differences between other countries’ politics, cultures, demographics, etc. when compared to the United States, but they don’t detract from the very real possibility viability of a different system in the U.S. 

     The Founding Fathers did not develop a new government in isolation – they borrowed heavily from past philosophies and practices.  It is easy to dismiss the idea of potential change when comparing governments, citing significant differences.  However, we would do well to remember that the fledgling American Constitution was far removed from its inspirations.  For example, ancient Greece: the tall white columns of our governmental buildings are testament to this influence.

     A government is created out of the necessity to bring together a variety of locations, beliefs, and systems under a common set of rules.  It is not the duty of a government to eliminate every outlier into a planetary alignment of perfect conformity.  Excessive restriction of expression and action is not simply immoral.  It is impractical.  Monocultures tend to have deleterious effects.  We therefore should mold our government to our benefit.

     As an institutionalized community, we must collectively strive to balance our similarities with our differences.

     If you are interested in learning more about the shortcomings of our political system, I highly recommend the CGP video series, "Politics in the Animal Kingdom".  These short, comprehensive explanations regarding systems of representation greatly inspired me to address this topic.

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

- John Adams  

Taiwanese Trash Nocturne

     Through the chorus of traffic and cicadas a cheerful lilt catches the ear:  a melodic rendition of Beethoven's "Für Elise" echoes around building corners.  People leave their homes and congregate under street lamps, chatting up the neighbors in easy anticipation.  Though the evening swelters, they are not out in pursuit of an icy treat (as the American palate whets in response to the jingle); instead, these folk are wielding bags of various materials.

     The source of music pulls into view, a convoy of two sizable vehicles.  At the vanguard is a garbage truck.  The people approach and the first bags of the night are unloaded, blue, full of useless trash, tossed into the maw of the compactor.  Simultaneously, the garbagemen unload large bins, which the eager audience then queues up to attend.  Over these bins the bags are upturned and emptied, revealing their contents: food waste, either to be composted or used as swine feed.

     At this point attention is turned to the second truck.  Less messy than its predecessor, it is full of compartments.  The gathered people bring their bags of plastics, metals, and various recyclables to a diligent sorter - that is, only after passing the watchful eye of any enterprising citizens who guard the path to the truck, appropriating the most valuable good for themselves.  In some areas, these scrappers will take the bags from busy residents, divvy of the goods, leave the sorted materials for the collectors, and take the best stock as payment.  Their prizes can be sold to nearby recycling centers.

     As they finish their orderly embarkations, the Taiwanese attendees say their formalities and disperse.  Having unloaded their disposables to the the city and their dramas to the neighbors, they return to their dwellings, their civic duties satisfied.  The bustle of the moment fades with the crowd.

     The convoy, complete in its humble processing, resumes its lullaby and takes off around the bend to visit further diligent citizens.  Tomorrow will invite the evanescent carnival's return.  Until then, the music of cicadas and taxi horns again denotes the atmosphere.

     Only the cleanliness of the street is left to extol this peppy procedure.

To Health

I realize this begins as a bit of a self-centered post, but as far as a information goes I think it is important to incorporate my philosophy into an approach to health and nutrition.  The specifics I mention have been researched to varying degrees, and I must apologize that I am not going to link everything.  Coming from an undergraduate social/agricultural science background, I've only done minimal actual research in anything, though I am well versed in the need for sourcing (which is why I apologize for not linking anything).  My concept of health extends holistically, incorporating community and environment.  I'm a hippy at heart, so I suppose you might factor that into your evaluations of my practices.

Multiple people have mentioned Tim Ferriss a number of times in regards to living successfully.  He has recurred in conversation among so many people I respect, I can't think of why I don't listen to his podcast more.  My go-to podcast is Joe Rogan.  From him, I have learned of people like Jocko Wilink (a former SEAL who I go to for motivation), Dr. Rhonda Patrick (who I go to for nutrition), and Aubrey Marcus (a Tim Ferriss analogue, focusing on holistic health).  When these people (and others) have appeared on Rogan's podcast, they have brought up topics such as ketogenesis, curcumin anti-inflammation, fasting, etc.  I think there is a lot of overlap between Ferriss and Rogan.

To return to the hippy comment... I believe the best way to incorporate nutrition is to do so via natural forms, since that is how we evolved.  I believe anything we can do to mimic the lifestyle of hominids that came for hundreds of thousands of years before us is the best standard for health.  Of course, modern medicine has improved drastically upon a huge number of things; I simply seek out my health through the most raw means possible.  That means I'll spend an hour in sunlight instead of taking a Vitamin D pill.  I don't think there's anything wrong with taking pills, per se, it's simply not my preference.  I believe vitamins from fresh produce are more bioavailable than in synthesized pill form.  When I say believe, that means it's my own philosophy not necessarily substantiated by anything I've read.

By the way, I don't really follow the paleo or any specific diet.

NOW... to the nitty gritty of my approach to nutrition.  I'll list the components I value and how I get them.


Nutrition

Antioxidants: tea, high% chocolate
-- this speaks for itself.  My grandparents drink a glass or two of wine every night and they are sharp as tacks at around 90.  I don't drink small, consistent doses of red wine, though I might if I have the means.  As for tea, I start my day with red/black and transition to green.  I don't currently drink white tea, but it seems suitable for late afternoon.  After that I drink herbal tea (namely chamomile), which I know doesn't have the same antioxidant properties.  Also, something something something roobios?  I've heard it mentioned among keto people.

Fiber: legumes (lentils), flax seed, daily greens!!!
-- in a recent analysis of a very popular fitness app, it was discovered the people who best achieved their health goals all had higher levels of fiber intake.  I think I just found a great source of fresh milled flax seed, which I'm super excited about.  I have a little market near my flat where I go to get fresh greens everyday.  The other day I was eating what look to be sweet potato greens.  I washed them (sometimes add vinegar/oil) and eat them raw.  I'm blessed with a resilient digestive system and have had no problems so far.
-- http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/

Nutrients/Vitamins: daily greens!!!, fresh produce, sprouts/microgreens
-- there really is no substitute for fresh produce.  Besides greens, I buy fresh tomatoes, bananas (which no one will every convince me to part with), and whatever other vegetables are in season.  I am just beginning to grow my own sprouts and microgreens in my apartment from legumes and maybe some grains.

Protein: eggs, legumes, sprouts, fish (raw tuna)
-- this is one of those things I should have sources on, but I've read that a high protein diet helps with stored bodily fat reduction; however, I know an excess of protein is unhealthy. I have an egg for almost every meal; my grandfather eats two eggs for every breakfast and is about 90 (of course, genetics are important).  Egg yolks are also relatively abundant in lecithin.  Having only recently realized what they are at the Asian markets, I now exclusively consume duck eggs.  In the future, I plan on getting my eggs from the nearby Organic Farmer's Market on weekends.  Regarding legumes, my go-to are lentils.  Fresh fish is tricky, but I've yet to have a problem with supermarket tuna, which I consume raw... goodbye sushi!

Omega 3: fish, flax seed, nuts
-- I know walnuts are best for O-3s, but they are expensive.  As an aside, I don't currently eat much chia, but that may change.

Probiotics: "kefir" liquid yogurt, kombucha
-- another thing I should have sources for... I have read that natural probiotics help in relation to fiber consumption, though I can't remember how.  The most readily available probiotic source where I am is what;s called "kefir" in the USA, which I see here most abundantly as under the brand 'AB [liquid] Yogurt'.  Two things about liquid yogurt have recently been called to my attention... (1) mass-produced dairy implements enormous quantities of antibiotics, which may negatively effect my chronic inflammation, gut microbiome, etc., and (2) mass-produced dairy may also be bad for hyperthyroidism, which I am at great risk for.  I only have a sip of yogurt at meals, so hopefully the effects aren't too bad.
-- I am in contact with someone with a kombucha business here in Taipei.  He is on vacation, but will return in a couple weeks.  Kombucha is a fermented tea; there is little research on it, but it could have all the benefits of tea, vinegar, and wine (it tastes like a blend of the three).  Plus, I love it.

Anti-inflammatory: turmeric (with black pepper and milk/fat), ginger, garlic
-- actually, there are a number of other things I use to combat my genetic, chronic inflammation, but these are the main focal points.  It is important to note that curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric, may be exponentially more effective when paired with freshly ground black pepper and fat.  I make a delightful ginger, turmeric, black pepper, milk tea with no sugar.  It's probably distasteful to many people, but I relish it.

Sleep: valerian, chamomile
-- someone recently asked how important sleep is to me.  Sleep is absolutely, undisputably essential to well-being.  Chamomile tea an hour before bed along with a valerian supplement enables quick, deep, restful sleep.  Evidently, hops are also good.  No wonder I sleep so long after a night at the bar.

Other: some vinegar, EVOO, garlic, onion, ginger
-- vinegar... a little to preserve my prepared food, since I don't use salt.  Also, may help with blood sugar.
-- Extra Virgin Olive Oil... yay oleic acid!
-- garlic...  I incorporated raw garlic years ago on a whim and found that my skin became totally clear.  When I do it consistently, I get comments about having "glowing" skin.  Garlic is metabolized similar to alcohol, so it comes out the pores and kills the bad stuff in the dermis.
-- onion... I began eating raw onion during my Europe backpacking trip on days I didn't have enough money for food.  I eat it raw or cooked in just about everything.  Feels good, man.
-- ginger... digestion.  May help me to sleep.  Testosterone benefits, perhaps?
---- many of these items have anti-microbial properties.  May promote a health gut microbiome, too.

Unsure: quinoa, coconut oil
-- I flip flop on quinoa.  I've found a cheap organic source, so I may use it sparingly.  Coconut oil I've never committed too, especially with so much talk about inflammation.

Soon to incorporate:
-- bugleweed for hyperthyroidism, which is prevalent on both sides of my family
-- milk thistle for a healthy liver


Lifestyle
An overview to how I approach holistic health.  Gonna speed up here

- no added sugar, minimize sugar (can't stop bananas)

- fresher = better... nutrients decompose over time

- nut butter... I use my blender to make butter from flax, peanuts, sesame, walnuts, you name it.  A delicious smoothie base starts with ice, banana, nut butter and you can add anything, especially greens.  Yogurt if too thick.

- no salt/sodium... I have pre-hypertension, my father has severe hypertension as did his father, I am genetically predisposed.  Vinegar instead of salt.

- minimal red meat... this is mostly for environmental reasons due to the impacts CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operation) and mass-produced husbandry have on the environment. I read somewhere that lentils are the most protein-resource efficient food, meaning lowest input (water, fertilizer, etc.) to highest protein output.  Also, I'm wary of antibiotics for inflammation and gut microbiome reasons.

- "cook" less... heat destroys nutrients in food, eat raw when I can

- exercise... this is where I start transitioning away from food.  Exercise is essential to nutrient incorporation and rejuvenating sleep, among so many other benefits: cardiovascular, brain function, longevity, the list goes on forever.  Like Elliot Hulse says, it's not the method of exercise that matters, it's the habit.  He recommends a minimum thirty minute walk every day, quarter of an hour out, quarter of an hour back.
-- on a Tim Ferriss article about ketosis, the "Habits for Highly Effective Living" highlight daily exercise/movement and meditation
-- http://fatburningman.com/tim-ferriss-what-ketosis-does-to-your-brain-why-hes-not-doing-crossfit-and-how-to-evaluate-your-husband/

- meditation... the benefits from meditation can be similar to exercise in many ways (though obviously nothing to do with nutrient consumption).  These include improved sleep, improved mental health/functioning/longevity, overall vitality and alertness.  There is so much research out there now, it is really amazing.  I have done it off and on for years, initially to help me sleep.  For the last month, I have done a 30min sit six out of seven days.

- weekly fast... the newest addition to my arsenal, but potent.  I started it for discipline reasons, but found that when paired with meditation its like an espresso epidural throughout the week.  To answer the potential question, fasting hours include sleep (that's why it's called "breakfast"... break fast).  My 36 hour fast, inspired by John Romaniello and Aubrey Marcus's company 'Onnit', starts conservatively a half hour after breakfast on Sunday and ends after my post-workout protein shake on Monday night.  Tea gets me through the days.  I'm personally wary of purported benefits of any fasts lasting less than 24hr.

- binaural beats...  again, I started for sleep reasons and am expanding it from there.  I'm not totally sold on this practice yet, but it's good white noise when there is a lot of distracting activity around.  Supposedly can help for any level of alertness you desire.

- healthy socialization... across all cultures that have the longest living people, the biggest factors for longevity are fresh food, exercise, and a strong social network.

- creativity.. to promote brain health and purposefulness (another huge factor in longevity), I write and perennially try to learn the guitar.


There you go. an overview of how I approach a healthy life.  Got a bit rushed at the end, so I'm always happy to answer questions.


Thanks for reading!

"Shaun of the Dead" as a metaphor for Self-Actualization

Warning: spoilers


     The zeitgeist (zeitzombie?) film "Shaun of the Dead" not only sticks its tongue out and puts its arm around the shoulders of the horror genre, it conspires to portray achievement over the contemporary creative struggle for fulfillment.  Writer/director Edgar Wright and writer/lead Simon Pegg have collaborated to use time-honored storytelling techniques to both entertain and encourage.

     The film opens on a shot of Shaun (Pegg) gazing vacantly into the camera while The Specials' "Ghost Town" plays on the jukebox of his favorite pub, The Winchester, thus establishing Shaun as the central character who's life is stuck.  This scene ingeniously establishes the framework of both the film's style and its use of metaphor.  Shaun is taking a sip from a freshly pulled beer while the bartender shouts for last call.  From Shaun we are then introduced to his girlfriend, Liz, his best friend, Ed, and Liz's dating roommates, Dianne and David.  Each of the characters represents an archetype or aspect of the psyche; the group's discussion regarding Shaun and Liz's stale relationship is akin to chattering voices in Shaun's head, the hero wanting to become a hero but paralyzed by his weaknesses.  Using Shaun as our axis of the 'Self', let's examine the influences of the other characters.

     Liz is Shaun's call to action.  She is tired of falling into a routine of returning to the same dreary pub with the unwanted companionship of the other characters.  Liz is the dreamer within the hero, the one who wants to become the best that the one true Self can be.  She aspires to break free of the drudgery, but she can't do it without Shaun's ability, the hero's free will.  She recognizes the other characters, the vices, for what they are: obstacles... even if they can be charming.

     That brings us to Ed.  Shaun and Ed are constantly together, which annoys Liz.  Ed is comical, yet churlish, childish, and egocentric.  Ed represents Shaun's immaturity, as the life-long friends love to get drunk, play videogames, and listen to old music.  Ed is Peter Pan - an antiquated, illusory ideal.  The Self wants to hold on to an easy life without responsibility and work.  The hero can't develop until he lets go of the past.  There is an inherent tension in the girlfriend-bestfriend relationship that tears the hero apart, which is employed to showcase the mundane comfort that Shaun clings to while still yearning for the difficult commitment needed to become the Higher Self.

     Dianne is a "failed actress" and her boyfriend, David, is a critic of sorts (who apparently has some affinity for architecture).  Dianne wears gaudy makeup and clothes, making her a caricature, a bastardization of the actualized Self.  While cheery and seemingly harmless, she contributes no real worth, has no real substance.  She is a wannabe artist/hero.  Dianne is probably a comment on the real Simon Pegg's occupation as an actor.  David is a wimpy, whiny, hanger-on who is constantly second-guessing and undercutting Shaun, representing the Self's doubt.  This doubtful figure naysays the hero without ever taking positive action.  David is unyielding in his rebukes of Shaun, constantly dragging the hero down and holding him back.

     The bickering of heads culminates with Shaun promising that he will make a change so that things will be different, even with the scene ending exactly as it began: Shaun again taking a sip from a new beer, staring vacantly as the bartender shouts that time is up.  The Self wants to make a change but is still stuck in the old routine.

     The scene snaps to the opening credits, an upbeat tune playing while we observe cuts between various groups of people.  People doing repetitious activities in the service industry, people waiting at the bus stop, people uniformly nodding their heads to the la-la melody.  We will see many of these briefly observed characters later in the film when they appear again as zombies.  We therefore establish the analogy of the zombie: slaves to the system, the mindless masses who have fallen into the trap that endangers the hero.  Because guess what?  Shaun begrudgingly rides the bus to his job as an appliance salesman, often reminiscing of his university days as a DJ.

     It's at this point that we meet Pete, the third roommate in the house with Shaun and Ed.  Pete has a successful office job, yet is easily enraged.  Pete has succumbed to the cultural norm and is frustrated because of it, easily annoyed by his roommates.  While Ed sells weed and plays videogames, Pete works long and hard hours, and the two are constantly at odds.  Shaun is a kind of synthesis of the two; the house is where the Self lives, the divided Self.  Each of the roommates represents a failure for Shaun: Ed the flippant, unmotivated flop and Pete the overly-serious submission to external expectations.

     It's worth mentioning the small role that buildings have as a storytelling device.  Buildings can confine people, they are often imprisoning institutions within culture, though they can also be necessary expressions of residence.  The messy, chaotic house is the untamed brain.  The Winchester pub is the Self's sense of comfort and conformity.  The unopened shed in the garden is where latent traits of the Self can be stored without being completely discarded.  The single line that mentions David's love of architecture speaks to how doubt yearns to wall up the Self.

     As zombies start to appear, Liz's call to action requires a choice by the hero: to progress to Self-Actualization or become a brainless drone.  Shaun blindly stumbles through his routine, eventually running into Yvonne, an old friend.  Yvonne has moved into a nearby neighborhood, actually buying her own place.  She has the kind of success that Shaun wants, not Pete's.  Yvonne is an empowered fusion of Liz the dreamer and Shaun the decision-maker (Shaun the Self, the acting body, the one who pulls the trigger).  Yvonne is a guide, the Higher Self, implemented in the story to illustrate Shaun's shortcomings, yet spur him on to greatness.

     As Shaun becomes consciously aware of the zombie threat, he rushes to save those close to him.  He must first save his mum, Barbara, who is married to the undesirable step-father, Philip.  Barbara is flighty, showcasing the influence passiveness has on the Self.  Philip, on the other hand, is bossy.  Shaun perceives him as domineering and undercuts him.  Philip represents authority and the hero is loathe to submit.  Luckily for Shaun, Philip gets bitten by a zombie.  The death of Philip means Shaun can now internalize his authority and man-up to responsibility.  His demonizing of Philip and external pressure was only an excuse to hold himself back.

     Shaun now travels on foot with Liz, Barbara, Dianne, David, and Ed to the Winchester.  They are passed by Yvonne's crew (who are comparatively better prepared) and eventually make it to the pub.  With the electricity out, the group begin to bicker again, David trying to assert leadership.  Shaun barricades himself within this comfort zone while having to quell the loud voice of doubt.  The group, looking for levity, compels Ed to do his famous orangutan impersonation.  He resists and resists, eventually shouting, "I'm not a performing monkey!"  It's at this point that the electricity returns and the lights come on.  Light is repeatedly used as a device to illustrate enlightenment.  Shaun is coming to terms with his meaningful, internal motivations.

     The return of power becomes a double-edged occurrence as attention is called to the pub and the zombies begin invading.  Barbara, David, and Dianne all fall to the influence of the zombies, leaving Shaun, Liz, and a bitten Ed to retreat to the last bastion of the pub: the cellar.  It is in this deepest, darkest place they are closest to destruction.  With two bullets left, Shaun nearly uses them to eliminate Liz and himself, hope and choice.  However, the illumination from a Bic lighter shows another way out:  they can escape certain doom by leaving the familiar comfort zone, breaking free of the small enclosed space, getting away from the place of comfort Shaun has always returned to, and venture forth into the open, unknown world.  To do this Shaun must abandon Ed, abandon the past that holds him back.  Shaun makes the decision, and arises out of the cellar.  Right as he and Liz brace themselves to face the horde, to work their way forward, floodlights burst on and the military begins to destroy the walking dead, the troops arrive to save the day, called upon thanks to Yvonne, the Higher Self having come to save the hero.

     This is the central thesis.  If we choose to leave behind our weaknesses and instead partner with our hopeful dreams to commit to our personal work, then our Higher Self will emerge to achieve a true life.

     The epilogue of the film shows Shaun and Liz living happily together in Shaun's now tidy and appealing house.  Shaun has actualized his success.  The hero is happy.  He even allows himself to visit the garden shed where he houses zombie Ed.  He has appropriately compartmentalized his youthfulness and the story comes to a satisfying conclusion.

     "Shaun of the Dead" is a thoroughly entertaining movie.  Its quick wit and cleverness belies the deeply motivational message that makes this a timeless story.  This piece of fried gold is worth re-watching.



It wasn't easy work reading through this essay, I'm sure, but hopefully it was as rewarding for the audience as it was for the writer.  Thanks!