As the papers daily remind us, there is an ongoing Republican primary. Romney has slipped up a bit this week and some on the right are even imagining a deadlocked convention. But that seems unlikely to me. Though unloved, Mitt will duke it out and be the candidate. I think other, more popular Republicans – Christie, Daniels – stayed out of the race sensing an inevitable Obama victory. At this point, though, they may be thinking they should have gone for it. Obama looks vulnerable in this economy.

So naturally he’s been happy to see halfway decent job numbers for several months in a row. If that kind of thing continues, he will be tough to unseat. There has just been a small uptick in Obama’s approval ratings, to 46%, which may or may not be a historically significant level.

Meanwhile, the banks have just signed what looks to me like a speeding fine with a bit of community service. For their warehouses full of fraudulent documents, robo-signed by the thousands at ten dollars an hour, the five big boys mentioned will give up a total of about $5 billion in cash. The rest will be in principal writedowns that will cost not the banks, but the big money they got to invest in mortgage backed securities, namely the mutual funds, pensions and IRAs, i.e., us. To top it off, it would seem that those who have been diligent in paying their bills and lucky enough to keep their jobs will get nothing from this deal, while those who have been wrongly foreclosed on will get about one month’s rent. Will America buy Obama’s story on this? What will the Republican line be?

Does anyone think it’s a bad idea that “someone” is assassinating civilian nuclear scientists in Iran? (The Junta knows one person who thinks it’s a very good idea, indeed). I have to agree with Glenn Greenwald that these are clearly acts of terrorism, so we can get into that if you want. (And check out this very interesting angle on both Rudy Giuliani’s and Howard Dean’s active material support for “terrorism”.) I don’t like the increasing media drumbeat I’m seeing about how Iran is a mortal threat. Syria is also a potential target for those with the war itch, as al-Assad is gunning people down. Clearly it’d be better if he left, but that doesn’t mean clandestinely supplying arms through Turkey is a good idea.

All of these things and more will be part of the discussion, and the wine will flow. Meet us in the back room.

• Andrew Moon Bain
• Andrew Graham
• Devin Powers
• Emet Sosna

The Junta starts the party early. Before the masses show up for the gallery affair, we have the opportunity to discuss the works on display with the artists who created them. The open bar starts at 7pm with the discussion, and the full party and gallery opening begins at eight. Drinks are on the house, but if you are so compelled, donations to support the arts (and the booze) are welcome. No obligation.

Venue: Culturefix, 9 Clinton St, LES, Manhattan
Date: Friday the 13th of January, 2012
Time: 7pm sharp

“Unlike other man-made psychedelics such as LSD, synthetic DMT takes many users to the same ‘place,’ where they report meeting elfish, clown-like, and insectoid beings who frequently extend the same warm and welcoming message: ‘We’ve been expecting you.’”

If science is beginning to look seriously into psychedelics for health benefits, they are only trying to put into words what some indigenous people know instinctively. Sometimes a good dose of acid is just what you need to straighten your head out.

Things can get truly weird when these drugs are involved, and no one knows that better than the Ashaninka tribe of the Peruvian Amazon. A couple of years ago, Alex Zaitchik trekked deep into the jungle and befriended these people. He requested of his hosts to partake of their sacred tripping ceremony, and the elders nodded their assent.

The shaman, Noemi Vagus, was like no octogenarian I had ever met. Her jet black hair, nimble barefoot stride, and straight-backed squat reminded me more of a teenage gymnast than her elderly counterparts in American cities, with their four-legged walkers, slouching postures, and debilitating arthritis. Then there is the fact that she habitually consumes more elite psychedelics than every parking lot ‘shroom dealer at Burning Man put together.

This woman brewed a bubbling, magic potion for Alex and a few others, taking the whole day to boil roots and plant leaves into a simmering stew. He drank of her cup and laid down to rest on the earthen floor, and soon the jungle spirits were beckoning to him:

We lay quiet for some time, listening to the rushing river to our left and the teeming jungle to our right. Then, gently but swiftly, the Madre spirit announced her arrival and mine. She did this with a sound as natural to the jungle as the taste of the vine. The noise of the river rushing over rocks began to merge with that of the buzzing rainforest to form a warm insectoid hum. It was as if waves of bugs as big as rodents were swarming from every direction; as if the river was full of prehistoric flying insects. Yet somehow this wasn’t frightening or even creepy. The enveloping sound did not threaten us; the forest and its many creatures were our protectors.

I shut my eyes and breathed deeply. The jungle drug was taking hold.

As Alex freaked out in the tent, the tribesfolk outside started singing, the whole village in harmony. They sang songs that are thousands of years old, and have the effect of tying together everyone’s hallucinations. They bring everyone in tune with the Great Vision, the oneness that people feel when they take psychedelics. In the Peruvian jungle they call it the Ayahuasca Madre, a mother spirit who guides her children into the light and relieves of them their burdens. It’s a beautiful vision – not just for day-glo freaks – and it’s a powerful one. It could be put to good use, and a few scientists today are trying to prove it, for the benefit of everyone.

***

Come and enjoy a conversation with us about all of this, and other things, at next week’s meeting of the Junta. We’ll be at DOC Wine Bar, 83 N. 7th St. in Williamsburg (Cash bar only). Tuesday, November 8th, 8:30pm. All are welcome.

Alexander Zaitchik has been writing about these experiments and others as the government has been loosening restrictions around them. Join us and discuss with Alex what he’s found about their progress on Tuesday, November 8th, 8:30pm at DOC Wine Bar in Brooklyn.

This question of good behavior dominated a good portion of the evening’s proceedings. It seemed that most attendees accepted that one of religion’s core tenets was the imposition of rules upon society; but questions remained as to whether moral codes arose out of religious belief structures or out of practical necessity. Did humans originally condemn killing because “God commands it”, or because society functions much better when the default position is to restrain ourselves from hurting one another?

Of course, the “rules” do not always forbid killing. There is war, there is the death penalty; there are honor killings, the murder of Osama Bin Laden, and other “justified” ending of life. While some argued an innate understanding of morality, most were skeptical. “Look at the behavior of children,” one participant said. “They often act like sociopaths.” We need to be taught how to behave toward others. Religion is remarkably consistent in its teachings: it usually boils down to the Golden Rule. So did each religion crib this from a common and ancient human understanding, or is religion necessary to create morality? I’d argue you don’t need God to tell you hurting others is wrong, and too often we’ve seen people justify the hurting of others based on the teachings of some deity.

Maybe higher belief is just a cop-out. If it’s too taxing to contemplate right and wrong in an infinite universe, just avoid it completely and lay it all on God. One doesn’t have to worry about the consequences of his actions if he believes his god holds all responsibility. On the other hand, consider the luxury of religion versus the necessity of religion. It’s easy to decry the fundamentalist who uses religion to deny the rights of others, or ridicule the man for whom “spirituality is just something you use to pick up chicks.” A religious community that provides real support to people who are in dire straits is much harder to attack. I have nothing against anyone who finds solace in their beliefs, even if we disagree – but skip the proselytizing, please.

Ed, an agnostic, posed a question to Trevor, an atheist. Isn’t atheism just as strong a belief system as any religion? An atheist believes that there is no god, as strongly as an evangelical believes there is; it is the expression of doubt on the question which marks the agnostic. I recalled our conversation with Pete from three years ago, when he put forth the case for atheism. The burden of proof, he asserted, rests with those who say god exists. Trevor upheld this, and said that, much like Christopher Hitchens, he reserves the right to change his mind should he see some persuasive evidence. Yet stubborn belief in the face of all reason can be something to admire. “Belief can be a powerful force for good,” said one participant, and he meant the conviction to carry on even when no one else believes in what you’re doing. Revolutions are made thus.

“I am really surprised there isn’t more outrage from Americans over the  Wikileaks releases,” said Joah. He meant the Apache helicopter video in particular. The soldiers in the video technically did follow the rules of engagement, but that’s just the point: war is by definition a suspension of the rules. War brings destruction, no matter how man tries to civilize it. “I believe,” said Trevor, “that video should be required viewing for every war supporter in the country.”

Iain piped in. “Diplomacy has required secrecy for thousands of years. It wasn’t just invented by Hillary Clinton. It goes back to the creation of the nation-state and even earlier. It is practically human nature. It is part of human culture. The really surprising thing was that more countries weren’t pissed off at the United States for allowing this info to leak.”

Is WL anti-statist? Are they anti-American?

“WL is for ‘us’,” said Russ. “It isn’t going to change anything in America.” In other words, these leaked documents are for the intellectual elite to mull over in their comfortable, wine-soaked evening discussions. Most Americans either don’t care or aren’t really aware of them.

“It is completely presumptuous and very arrogant for [Julian Assange] to think he knows better than career diplomats and foreign service personnel what ought and ought not to be classified,” said Pete. When questioned whether this wasn’t placing too much trust in the government, Pete emphasized the distinction between non-elected State Dept employees making careers in diplomacy, and unctuous politicians trying to get elected, blissfully unaware of the real workings of statecraft. “I would never trust an elected politician to make the right decision on any of this stuff,” he clarified. But things that can be revealed by these leaks, including the manner and method of US diplomacy, and the structure of the State Dept, are valuable and should be protected.

What about injured American pride? Isn’t there a sense of violation here, that our dirty American laundry has been hung out for the world to see? I think that is certainly part of the reason for the backlash against Wikileaks.

There must always be a balance between security and transparency. Between centralized power and democracy. Between honesty and lies. My own personal feeling is that, for too long, the balance has been skewed toward too much secrecy, and that a dose of exposure is necessary to right the balance. The media has been pathetic for at least a decade – and likely much longer – at acting as a check on government abuse of power. Wikileaks is upstaging them, and in the process showing them what is possible in investigative journalism based on primary source documents.

Jeremy said that we are entering a new era of transparency. Or perhaps a new era of journalism? Greg Mitchell, a writer at The Nation, has been live-blogging everything Wikileaks for nine weeks. He has also just put out a book, The Age of Wikileaks, which sounds like it’s about exactly this point.

Before the evening’s discussion split into its separate paths, Iain raised a question which I intend to explore in future posts: Can we stack the actions of Wikileaks, and the results of its releases, against the goals and ideals of the organization, and what will that show? It’s still early days, but I myself am looking forward to seeing how that question is answered.

Tuesday, February 1st, 8:30pm
DOC Wine Bar, 83 N. 7th St. in Williamsburg. (Cash bar only)