h.buck

Day 7: Closing remarks

2011-09-18T20:24:00.000-07:00

Well, here we are, folks – last day of the Challenge. It’s been radio silence on my end for the past few days while I spent some quality time with Coop celebrating our anniversary. Food’s a huge part of our recreation together, and we went out for a decadent meal at Bar Agricole. Incidentally, Jake Gyllenhaal was also eating there that night, and I got so stupidly star-struck that I could hardly finish my entree – which felt even more wasteful than usual. Plus Coop was totally upstaged.

I knew I’d definitely be cheating the Challenge for at least our anniversary, and had planned on compensating by going back on my diet of mostly PB&J’s and spaghetti this week. But I fell off the wagon. Hard. Not on Thursday – on Wednesday. I embarrassingly only made it half way.

First there was coffee. Then dinner at Pauline’s with a close friend I hadn’t seen in a while – lots of greens and all the garden-fresh produce I’d been forgoing. On Day 1 I was determined to stick it out, but stress had other plans for me. And after a rough week trying to cram everything on my to do list into 3 days, I could justify a little treat – acknowledging that my threshold for "rough week" is totally different than that of someone who actually has no fallback, no safety net, and faces an uphill battle to meet even their most basic needs. And granted, cheating ain’t an option when money’s tight. You can’t stress-eat or binge when you have just enough to last you through the week. But I was quick to fall into my usual habits after the initial sticker shock, spending nearly a whole day’s food stamp budget on espresso and a week’s budget on a meal.

Giving up coffee affected me more than I’d anticipated, and left me fatigued on top of being a bit overwhelmed at work. That latte (yea, I know, it *had* to be that) was consolation, and I savored it, being conscious to not take it for granted like I usually do. I’d forgotten how coffee suppressed my hunger, and I didn’t need to eat lunch until later in the afternoon, unlike Monday and Tuesday when my stomach had started growling at 11. It made me think about the connection between stimulants and hunger, and how cigarettes have the same effect and must be an even more potent drug for someone who’s not getting the nutrition they need.

Even after just 3 and a half days eating super processed foods and zero fruits and vegetables, my body was (and is) pissed at me. I’ve got rashes and a cold sore – a telltale sign that my resistance is low – and I’m barely staving off a sore throat. This diet has got to be hell for anyone with food sensitivities. And forget it if you want to try loading up on leafy greens and raw veggies to detox and calm an angry digestive system – unless you grow it, have some cheap source of bulk produce, or you’re getting it from pantries supplied by the Food Bank.

In some ways, I feel like my utter failure to live on this budget is a more effective personal lesson and message than if I’d passed with flying colors. It’s damn hard, and now I have some tiny sliver of experience and concrete proof of just *how* hard it is.

Without a doubt, I’m unbelievably privileged to have the option to spend such an absurd amount on the out-of-this-world food our city has to offer. 3 days off of the Challenge, I’m still blown away by the amazing food I have the luxury of affording and marveling at checks when I eat out or shop at a high-end grocery. I don't think the feeling will wear off right away. And my hope is still that that stark, vivid contrast of inequality will be a driving force that motivates me – along with anyone who took the Challenge or knew someone who took the Challenge – to do the long-term work to change the underlying causes of hunger in our community while making sure in the short run that hungry families have access to healthy food.

Day 2: More like Hanger Challenge

2011-09-12T22:53:00.000-07:00

I’m fading fast at 11pm on Day 2, belly full of way too many salty refried beans – huevos rancheros hit the spot but left me in a lardy fog:

I probably wouldn’t be feeling so spacey and headachey I’d had more than a couple packets of oatmeal and a PB&J that COULD NOT be contained by two airy slices of lightweight 75 calorie Safeway brand Wonderbread:

I could’ve gone the more sensible labor-intensive lentil stew route, but my logic was go with fast and easy, minimal prep since that’s probably more authentic and representative of the experience of someone who has zero leisure time and little energy for cooking. The result has been that I’ve almost always needed to double suggested serving sizes. Especially last night. Behold, the spaghetti basket:

I made the mistake of leaving the house to go see a play last night without filling up first, and had to drool over a burrito Cooper ate for dinner, though I snuck a lick. Gross, yes. He also offered to buy me a beer before catching himself and realizing it was VERBOTEN).

I was a hot mess by 10pm, hangry and lashing out on the bus ride home. I don’t cope well with fluctuating blood sugar. By the time I got some pasta in my belly, I was remorseful for the 5 minutes before I was knocked out by the carbs coursing through my veins. It was the first time I’d been full all day.

Today was mercifully more mellow, with work to preoccupy me, plenty of oatmeal, and when afternoon rolled around and I toyed with sneaking a handful of pretzels from the office stash or buying a piece of candy off a coworker for a nickel with my fellow Hunger Challenger and boss, Madeline (though she doesn’t like to be call that, too much like “the man”), at least I had someone to strategize/commiserate with. Like when I was on an elimination diet trying to isolate a food allergy, this “diet” has been all I can talk about. It was dull then, but at least there’s a deeper purpose to this than treating eczema. Hot!

Some observations I made today – and really some of these feel so petty and naïve given that I’m certainly not *really* hungry, and this is such a pinhole view of how it actually feels to struggle with hunger all the time. But maybe there’s some broader truth to these experiences:

I was really cold all morning. I mean, sure, I’m always cold, but I just couldn’t warm up.
My sense of smell is super heightened. Like that one time I was hiking and hungry – stopped myself from saying starving there, feels especially hyperbolic – and half panicked because I thought we might not get to camp before dark and I somehow smelled a distant fire.
The people I’ve talked to about the Challenge (outside my office and the Food Bank) have for the most part fallen into two camps: 1) the folks that dismiss it as routine – “oh yea, I usually don’t spend anything on food.” and 2) those who have a personal connection with it – either because they’ve taken a similar challenge, or they themselves have been on food stamps or have experienced hunger.

My parents had the former reaction initially, but now that they’re taking the Challenge, they’ve had a different experience. I’ll see if I can post my mom’s diary here. A lot of people I’m close to – family included – have revealed their own experiences with hunger and struggling to get by on a fixed income, and I’m grateful that the campaign has helped open the door to conversations that otherwise probably wouldn't have happened.

You know I initially didn’t really like the Feeding America bus stop billboard ad campaign – “Hunger takes this bus too.” I guess I saw it in a new light with McDonald's as a backdrop, as I absent-mindedly did the math of buying 20 chicken McNuggets for $4.99 and somehow making them last 5 days. Yea. SAVING THEM. And sure, I'm still not convinced it’s the best way to frame their message. But I appreciate the sentiment that it’s this silent struggle that goes completely unnoticed unless we bring it out in the open and write about it and talk about it to try and remove the stigma.

Day 1: Privilege is a headache that you don't know that you don't have.

2011-09-11T12:13:00.000-07:00

So after months of planning with the San Francisco and Marin Food Banks and hours of writing emails to convince people to sign up, I made the last-minute decision to put my money where my mouth is and take the Hunger Challenge this week. I'm going to try to stick to a food stamp budget -- only $4.72/day -- and revive my long-dead semi-embarrassing college-era blog to write about my small glimpse into what it's like to be hungry. And hopefully I’ll raise some awareness about hunger and the need for the Food Bank along the way.

I didn’t sign up because I wanted to prove that I could survive – that seems ignorant and self-indulgent – or because I'm contractually obligated as the Food Bank's online fundraising consultant to participate (kidding!). It's that I’ve never been hungry a day in my life, and this is so far from my daily reality that I felt like it was a responsibility to educate myself and gain a fuller understanding of the experience of 1 in 5 of my neighbors who don't know where their next meal is coming from.

I have the honor of working on this cause as part of my 9-5 – and I’m a long-time donor and true-believer, not shilling here – but I hope this experience will inspire me to do more outside of work. And beyond that, I hope it’ll inspire others to give to the Food Bank out of compassion for those who don’t have enough to eat and out of outrage at the injustice of living in a place so flush with gourmet food that's out of reach for 237,000 of our neighbors.

That’s what I’m doing here. If you’re here, and you want to take the Challenge too, there’s still time to join me – sign up here: http://www.hungerchallenge.com

Now, for the interesting stuff: what food I’m buying, what I’m eating, and what’s been unexpected so far – with loads of pictures.

The biggest challenge so far has been the mental work and stress around meal-planning and budgeting – it’s all-consuming and exhausting. I’ve had the luxury of getting preoccupied with choosing from too many food options every day – lunch in the Financial District, takeout of every cuisine imaginable, fresh produce from Alemany Farmer’s Market. There’s some decision fatigue that happens – ahem, first world problems – so I thought there might be some reprieve in having a proscribed menu. But clearly I take the convenience of pre-prepared foods and fresh ingredients for granted, since so far it’s only been nerve-racking. And I haven’t even eaten my fifth peanut butter and jelly in a row yet or had dizzying cravings.

I made my first failed attempt to spend the $33.04 at Good Life, my neighborhood grocery store on Cortland in Bernal Heights. It’s small but well-stocked, and I pay a premium for being able to walk to and from the market without scaling the hill. I made it this far before I hit the $26 mark and realized I was shit out of luck:

Instant espresso was the first luxury I sacrificed (though I know that’s not an option for a lot of my fellow habitual coffee drinkers). But those cage-free eggs – $2.99 for a dozen – turned out to be a steal, cheaper even than what I found at Safeway last night. Walgreens at Mission and 30th had lower quality eggs for $2.19, so I got lucky.

Safeway was my savior, especially with a Club Card – any shopper can get one for free.

The menu, plus some highlights:

BREAKFAST: Instant maple oatmeal, probably two packets at a time ($2.50 for a box with 10 packets)
LUNCH: It’s all about the PB&J – decent natural peanut butter with no additives for $3.49 and jelly for $3.89. Alternating that with grilled cheese, supplemented with tortillas and salsa to fill me up.
DINNER: I’m planning on alternating between huevos rancheros (using a dozen handmade tortillas for $2.99 from the mercado at Cortland and Mission, cheddar cheese for $2.50 and a can of salsa verde for $0.59) and spaghetti with marinara ($0.99 and $2.00).
A loaf of wheat bread without HFCS for $2.49 was a total score.
Who knew Smuckers’ “Orchard” line was also made with real sugar?
A mammoth can of Rosarita refried beans (9 servings) cost me only $3.09, and should be more than enough.

After ruining a couple poached eggs yesterday, I realized every morsel is going to be precious, I’m coveting every dab of egg yolk and sliver of butter – no screw-ups and nothing wasted. It’s all going straight into the munching cave.

In retrospect, the decision to gorge myself last night at Blue Plate was maybe not the greatest, since my stomach is now expecting that level of fullness. But here was my modest breakfast:

A tortilla tided me over for some heavy-lifting helping my friends move in the afternoon.

As with booze, the first casualty of low blood-sugar for me has been sound decision-making. Had I not been shaky after yoga and lifting furniture, I probably wouldn’t have run the two blocks for the bus, slipped on dog shit, and shattered my phone on the sidewalk. I’m sure it was a sight for anyone with the fortune to be walking on South Van Ness at the time. I’m fortunate enough to have a very loving supportive partner who grilled me a cheese and cleaned the poop off my shoe the minute I walked in the door, down-trodden and smelling like shit. The grilled cheese was my hero, crumbs and all, I ate it too fast to capture its glory on film, though I’m learning to savor.

I’m skeptical about this three meals a day thing.

Most emailed NYT article: Women on women workplace aggression

2009-05-11T22:36:00.000-07:00

I tend not to put too much stock in the most emailed articles from most mainstream news sources; typically it's the fluff, the cute animals and oddities (not that I don't enjoy my fair share). Case in point: the BBC's #1 most popular story of the moment: "60-foot penis painted on roof." Awesome.

The New York Times audience seems to tend toward sharing slightly more substantive articles, like the one written by an American expat loving life in the Dutch social welfare state, featuring in last week's Times Magazine (incidentally, worth checking out, if only to swoon at the provisions of the Dutch government's universal health care: ~$400 covers a family of 4, no copays, and dental included, day care is covered to the tune of $14,000/child annually, and legal barriers for midwives are lifted -- home birth is a longstanding tradition).

But getting back to promoted articles: I looked at the most emailed articles on the NYT homepage this morning, hoping readers would be pointing to an equally engrossing read, and here's what I get:

Backlash: Women Bullying Women at Work

Anytime a writer invokes Susan Faludi in the title of an article that points to women as the culprits of our own oppression, you know you're in for a treat. Get this: there's more office bullying during tough times, and some of those bullies are women.

It’s probably no surprise that most of these bullies are men, as a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute, an advocacy group, makes clear. But a good 40 percent of bullies are women. And at least the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.

In the name of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, what is going on here?

Just the mention of women treating other women badly on the job seemingly shakes the women’s movement to its core.

It is what Peggy Klaus, an executive coach in Berkeley, Calif., has called “the pink elephant” in the room. How can women break through the glass ceiling if they are ducking verbal blows from other women in cubicles, hallways and conference rooms?

Women don’t like to talk about it because it is “so antithetical to the way that we are supposed to behave to other women,” Ms. Klaus said. “We are supposed to be the nurturers and the supporters.”

So let's recap: you've got your essentialist notions of the masculine and feminine (men=aggressive, women=nurturers), and your basic feminist name dropping/attempted movement discrediting. It would be comical if so many people weren't forwarding it, some of whom probably bought into these stereotypes.

Author Mickey Meece fails to consider how stereotypes feed discrimination in the workplace, though for an instant he seems like he's on the right track. He speculates about structural inequities that could be at work and hits upon the lack of women at the top (to say nothing of the pay gap) before one moment of clarity, with the help of Catalyst research:

Leadership specialists wonder, are women being “overly aggressive” because there are too few opportunities for advancement? Or is it stereotyping and women are only perceived as being overly aggressive? Is there a double standard at work?

Research on gender stereotyping from Catalyst suggests that no matter how women choose to lead, they are perceived as “never just right.” What’s more, the group found, women must work twice as hard as men to achieve the same level of recognition and prove they can lead.

The article minimizes the gendered hurdles that women face outside the realm of office politics and instead puts the onus on us to "hug it out," with researchers lamenting the fact that women won't operate purely based on their shared identity as women, rather than as independent, ambitious, people. And since when is it news that women are competitive and strive to excel as individuals?

Now I'm all for solidarity and cooperation among women and underrepresented communities. But the reality is that women are pitted against one another from the womb by powerful media messaging from those who stand to benefit from a divide and conquer strategy. And based on the sources Meece has chosen, he seems pretty transparently bent on disregarding feminist social critiques and instead making the case that nothing stands in women's way but women themselves:

“As we get into the corporate world,” Ms. Cirocco added, “we’re taught or we’re led to believe that we don’t get ahead because of men. But, we really don’t get ahead because of ourselves. Instead of building each other up and showcasing each other, we’re constantly tearing each other down.”

Conclusion: women bear responsibility for our upward mobility, end of story. Easy to point fingers, if you're not owning your responsibility as someone with the privilege and platform to be heard and amplified by readers across the country. The most popular stories do provide some interesting insight into an audience and how narrow viewpoints seep into the discourse on equality.

UPDATE: Cross-posted on feministing!

Fwd: Off the chain

2008-09-28T11:56:00.000-07:00

It's pretty astounding -- and a little frightening -- how much of our political discourse has been happening, unfettered and un-fact-checked through peer-to-peer channels like chain email over the last decade. You end up with whoppers like those questioning Obama's religious identity and "Americanism" that have seeped insidiously into public consciousness via deliberate plants by Republican operatives -- and have largely succeeded in otherizing an otherwise unstoppable candidate.

It's rare that I'm included in one of these forwards, but (shocking!) I find it hard to resist responding when I am, and I try to do so in a way that's inclusive and doesn't alienate the sender -- not always an easy task when you're faced with Islamophobic or anti-immigrant blather.

Last week, I had the pleasure of getting an entirely grassroots email forward generated by pro-choice progressives who were soliciting donations for Planned Parenthood "in honor of" Sarah Palin. It was a pretty welcome change from the standard stuff I usually get from the gun-toting conservative uncle/spooked former music teacher from Alabama conting. Then this morning I got this one:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? .....

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic,
different.'

Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first
black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration
drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a
Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator
representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the
state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spe nd 4 years in the
United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while
sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the
Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs
committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council
and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months
as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified
to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2
beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.

If you teach responsible , age appropriate sex education, including the
proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other
option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen
daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city
community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values
don't represent America's.

If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age
25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska
from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

It was surprisingly well-informed (suprising not because of the sender, but because of the fact that typically these things lack any substance and are just vessels for fear-mongering), and it laid bare the hypocrisy of the Republican ticket's talking points.

I wouldn't gone on with my day at that point, but then I saw this response attached:

You already know how I feel about politics and therefore politicians. You know I don't consider myself Liberal or Conservative. I hate labels, so I define myself a Constitutional Protectionist. Neither side seems to concern themselves with that or what's really wrong with this country. They spend too much time worrying about the personal lives of the opposition. While some of the things that go on, or have gone on, in ones live may be considered a window into their lives, we've all seen that it does not necessarily effect one's ability to lead though it obviously affects our opinion of them as human beings. The problem is both sides lie long enough to get your vote, then do what they want anyway. So, folks please forgive me if I choose place my focus on other things regarding these people and their ability to lead us out of the mess all the previous "leaders" regardless of party, have gotten us into. But, having said all that, I do vote, always have and will, and have never advocated not voting despite seemingly always having to deal with the lesser of two evils. That responsibility as an American citizen is the only thing that gives any of us the right to complain. In all honesty I am not really enamored with any of these people, finding some good and some not so good in all of them. I'm not confused, just annoyed. I don't get caught up in what the media says because I have the same opinion of talking heads that I do of most all politicians. Thanks for the opportunity to read and respond to this but I won't be spending any more time reading or responding. I really do hate politics and the media.

...and I thought, alright, I'll bite, because if no one responds, the debate is DOA. And then why not use it as an excuse to post, since it's been a while since I've written something that was purely for the sake of politicking and intellectual masturbation:

The response to this forward was a bit disturbing to me...especially since I think many Americans share this disillusioned, disenfranchised attitude. Not that there isn't plenty to feel disillusioned about, but a less than surface examination of the candidates' policy positions would reveal that the decision isn't between two very similar candidates or the lesser of two evils. Neither are perfect in my book, but there are very clear cut differences here, ones that you'd discover upon circumventing mainstream network news media, instead of withdrawing from the dialogue.

Pat's forward is exposing the distortions we're getting from talking heads and from campaign spin -- it's essentially affirming those cynical frustrations that many express about opportunistic politicians and sensationalist talking heads. Only the response misses the key point that the distortions are originating from one side in particular.

Rather than just writing off "politics and the media" -- without which, we wouldn't have a democracy or a Constitution -- if you're a self-described Constitutional Protectionist, you'd want to be certain that the next adminstration we elect isn't of the same ilk as one that's shredded the Constitution as gleefully and with as much reckless abandon as the current one.

It's this kind of misplaced -- though understandable -- apathy and surrender to the worst elements in American politics that landed us with the last 8 years. The more that intelligent members of the reality-based community throw up their hands, the easier it will be for these forces of distortion to capture the minds of the more impressionable folks who are more susceptible to the kind of fringe viewpoints that seek to priviledge the very few at the expense of the rest of us. It's our civic duty to prevent that from happening again.

I really think it's important to engage these folks and meet them where they're at, so I 'spose if if this conversation happens to be via email forwards, then I'm game.

Harvey comes home.

2008-05-27T21:45:00.000-07:00

San Francisco paid a long overdue - though never more appropriate - tribute to one of its unsung heroes last Thursday with the unveiling of a bronze bust of Supervisor Harvey Milk . The Hall was regaled in rainbow balloon anemone chandeliers. Old Glory was dressed in her best tie-dye, draped over the balcony of the second story, The Sisters in white, veiled and bejeweled. It had all the pomp and circumstance of a corporate sponsored gala, State Senators stumping. Sure Milk was a visionary, sometimes prophetic - portending his martyrdom - but could he have imagined the movement he was part of being mainstreamed to the point where (to put it as Cleve Jones did) Smirnoff and American Airlines targeted his community as "just another marketing demographic"?

Milk's voice was echoing in the rotunda, booming ominous and ethereal and indecipherable with the acoustics of those coffers, as if he were speaking from some great beyond - though I doubt that'd be his style, because he couldn't have banked on the afterlife if he gave so much of himself to the living. He predicted his own murder, his sacrifice to the movement, giving his life so we - all those queer and questioning and fluid and anything but mainstream - could be public and live openly and with dignity, without fear from the tyranny of regression.

There were other voices - Newsom's was hoarse, and maybe I imagined it, or some part of me wanted to hear it, but I thought I heard him say something about San Francisco values and "eat your heart out, middle America." Tom Ammiano's soprano soared in sharp relief - a pointed "SHUT UP" for anyone who ever wanted to stamp out equality.

Going alone, I thought I'd just play casual observer - mostly to soak up inspiration for writing - but people are drawn to distance. Two women asked if I knew whether Sean Penn was making an appearance, another assumed I was a reporter and thought I was old enough (gasp) to have been around when Dianne Feinstein made the shell-shocked announcement on TV that Milk and Moscone had been killed. He lamented the lack of direct action, the complacency that capitulated, "it's enough to build a website." I bristled a little, said the lack of media coverage made it a losing tactic, and that people had turned to making media of their own. He himself had given up on mainstream media, the tenant of objectivity that "gave voice to crazies".

There was one man that made the decision to get off at the Civic Center station worthwhile on his own. He announced himself by gently teasing me about my back - too young to be aching from standing. A self-described San Francisco native, a man swilling a celebratory bourbon, he sidled up next to me while I was doing my best self-composed fly on the wall. He told me about the Milk he knew - a man he wouldn't have known but for the grace of PBS and "The Times of Harvey Milk" when he was "just a kid in the Bronx". We shot the shit - talking about the fight in November, how 2008 is it - finally it - and how insular San Francisco is, and how somehow short of moving inland, we've got to channel our political energies there. I couldn't help but feel proud to see Victory Fund's logo in the sponsor slideshow. He told me how Milk cut his hair, but he didn't conform - he just simulated the mainstream, and worked from the inside - never losing his principles.

Then there was the grand finale - GSA kids, out at 14, 15 - climbing the marble stairs, pulling back the silk drape, all flashbulbs and a chorus of happy birthday that moved me to tears. Home at last, to ordain the marriages of same-sex couples.

On the way home, a woman wielding a petition outside pleading for 30 sec of my day made me a little sheepish - my profession, but done outside the comfortable confines of an office, the anonymity of ghostwriting behind a screen. It had seemed hard enough to turn out after the 9 to 5 for this event and it made me wonder guiltily whether I still had the fortitude to do the canvassing thing. Made me even more grateful for the hard won victories of our forebears.

Oy gevalt, no matzo?!

2008-04-21T22:15:00.001-07:00

It's true, there definitely was a shortage in SF over the weekend. My housemates and I had to resort to eating our haroset on whole wheat table water crackers.

On an unrelated, totally unkosher note, I indulged in some other types of deliciousness over the weekend, including a burger and fritto misto at Magnolia Brewery, spaghetti and meatballs at Emmy's, and poached eggs with buttermilk biscuits and sausage gravy at Universal Cafe. Light, I know.

(If this is starting to look like a food blog, that's probably because eeting is my primary form of recreation. And if it looks like a photo blog, it's because I'm too lethargic from all the eeting to write.)

Photo creds to virgined , rsun78, and eirecubdc.

Job's theme song, on cello.

2008-04-14T20:31:00.000-07:00

What could be better?

h/t to diane :)

That's how we roll.

2008-04-08T14:43:00.001-07:00

My co-workers and I were "those people" riding around the city a couple weeks ago in Go Cars. Think fumes, squirrelly-handling, incapable of going in reverse, and sometimes they need a push to make it uphill. At least mine did. You're the most hated thing on the road when you're driving them, so luckily people stay away from you. If it weren't for that fact, and the fact that they're taxicab yellow and you can't miss em, I'd say they really shouldn't be street legal. Though I have heard tales of people getting drunk and driving them around...perfectly safe.

It started raining while we were tooling around the Richmond district, and one leaked while the other wouldn't start after sitting for a few minutes.

All in all, though, it was a blast.

Summing up that last post in comic form

2008-04-07T09:50:00.001-07:00

I heart xkcd.

That really got out of hand fast!

2008-04-06T13:38:00.000-07:00

In college, I couldn't resist taking the bait and responding to breathtakingly stupid opinion columns in the Daily Nexus. Case in point. As my readers (all three of them) can attest, I'm just a wee bit stubborn and have a hard time backing away from a political argument--er any argument, for that matter--even if it's a losing battle between two polarized ideologies that can only result in stalemate. Or ad hominem attacks (communist v. racist, anti-semite v. Islamophobe).

But after graduation, I didn't have another outlet for these wonderfully productive pissing contests. There was a serious shortage of self hair-rip or eyeball-gouge-enducing political fodder.

Then my endorsement of Edwards on Facebook precipitated an ongoing debate thread with a high school friend who also studied globalization but ended up on the opposite end of the spectrum. We took a long hiatus after the dialogue seemed to reach fever pitch around a "clash of civilizations"-type argument, and now we're back to electoral politics. He says he'll vote for Obama--he likes his counterterrorism expert--but he needed convincing that all this talk of populism is just to appease labor, and that he's really a free trade champion at heart.

I thought I'd share my response, since our conversations haven't gone beyond the confines of Facebook messages, and it's honestly the closest thing I've written to an editorial in a while, albeit an at times shrill antagonistic one. But that's how our conversations usually go--a jab here and there, but mostly gloves above the belt. I've kept it anonymous, though in the unlikely event he actually reads this, I'm happy to name names. For now we'll call him...Milton.

Oh Milton, trying to get my goat with some populist-baiting. Alright, I’ll bite.

No use losing sleep over Obama’s trade policy – rest assured, behind closed doors, he leans laissez faire. Yep, he’s just pulling the wool over the eyes of those poor jobless schmucks in the Rust Belt, the folks that have been hung out to dry time and time again by the race to the bottom. The proof is in the pudding (I'll let The Nation do the talking):

"...an Obama aide told Canadians not to take seriously the Illinois senator's criticisms of NAFTA"

"Obama backed the recent Peru Free Trade Agreement, and his 'movement' on globalization issues has seemed to be influenced more by presidential ambition than the commitment to workers here and abroad that motivates fair-trade crusaders like Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Maine Congressman Mike Michaud--neither of whom has endorsed anyone in the presidential race"

And if that doesn't ease your mind, know that George Will has praised Obama's economic advisor.

Obama’s no Edwards, much to my chagrin, though I could see where you might feel like he’s taking a page from the populist playbook with his recent watershed speech. He talked about unity, which has always made me nervous because it smells a little too much like capitulation--trying to shake hands across the aisle with an unbending opponent. It also reminds me of Pollyanna sunshine and lollipops notions of colorblindness that wash over the very real experience of racism. But I digress…

Instead Obama’s speech was nothing short of a paradigm shift in the way he encouraged a frank discussion of race, bridging the gap by promoting unity against a common socioeconomic threat: “a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.” He placed corporate greed squarely in the crosshairs. I could see how that might make some nervous.

If Obama’s just spouting supposed populist claptrap about improving people’s lives, then I suppose it’s no different than the obligatory Republican deception that the GOP has middle class Americans' economic interests at heart. And I doubt Obama's just doing it to pander to labor. You know, it’s amusing to hear the free trade faithful decry the unfair influence of “big labor,” as if labor could somehow compete with corporate power in influencing politics. Last I checked, only 12% of the workforce is unionized, and Americans have a more favorable view of WalMart than unions, ferchrissakes. And anti-statists act as if they’re some embattled minority? Ha. For as much as free marketeers fancy themselves empiricists, they’ve always sounded a lot like another “embattled” faith-based force in American politics that holds onto a tired orthodoxy with religious fervor.

Phew, tangent.

Is it all empty rhetoric? I’m skeptical too, but unlike cynical fundamentalists who would conflate democracy with markets and would have every politician in their pocket, I’d prefer to think that we have a candidate who is genuinely interested in this “nonsensical” desire to address the needs of the many.

You’ll really have to make this decision on your own. And honestly, what choice do you have, since Republicans have failed to produce a worthy candidate? The American people have seen the impact of deregulation and privatization with the mortgage crisis and the catastrophe in Iraq, and if all this talk of “change” is any indication, hopefully this election will act as a referendum on the relentless corporatist trade policies that have steamrolled homeowners and robbed American troops and Iraqi civilians alike of their lives and livelihoods.

Aaand I'm spent. This ended up taking more time than I intended. But it's been a while since I've sparred with anyone on this stuff. Got me fired up -- thanks.

-Heather

P.S. About The Economist -- I no more believe that it’s an objective agenda-free publication than I believe that Pinochet's Chile was an “economic miracle.”

The blame game, ad infinitum

2008-03-30T10:49:00.000-07:00

Though it's become the centerpiece of the Beltway argument for troop withdrawal, it still never fails to nauseate me:

The only way to get the Iraqis to accept responsibility for their future is by no longer extending them an indefinite blank check, intensifying diplomacy and withdrawing our troops swiftly, responsibly and safely.

-Lee Feinstein, national security director for the Clinton campaign

Jens Lekman @ Bimbo's 365

2008-03-25T20:47:00.000-07:00

Oh, there was many a hipster, to be sure, donning plaid just like the headliner, and their "very unique hairdos" (as David sarcastically sniped). They were out in full effect, professing their "man crushes" and demanding their favorite songs. One was met with an uncharacteristically firm rebuke from Jens: "No. You can't get everything you want in life." But he couldn't keep a straight face long enough to be make his annoyance believable. This guy is too sanguine, too sweet to be cold -- dancing giddily around the stage with his band, all in matching outfits with matching keys around their necks, arms outstretched like airplanes during an electronic instrumental interlude.

No, the hipsters couldn't dissuade me. After all, with a"boyfriendable baritone" and "deadpan style of singing" reminiscent of Stephen Merritt*, what other musician is charming enough to make even the most mundane minutiae lyrical? Seriously, who else can pull off a line like this:

So you pick up your asthma inhaler
and put it against your lips
and oh those lips I've loved

or this

I was slicing up an avocado
when you came up behind me
with your quiet brand new sneakers

or my favorite,

Oh, I still remember "Regulate" with Warren G.
Could that have been back in the sweet summer of 1993?

Hell, he made a song out of Google Map directions!

Wasn't really expecting him to be a comedian, though I guess those witty lyrics had to come from somewhere. He related a story of telling his audience in Florence how he marvelled at what a beautiful city they lived in, and learned his lesson after the show when some fans cornered him and angrily insisted it was a shit hole. So he did a little reverse psychology -- "I hate San Francisco, with your rainbows, and your tiny tiny hummingbirds, and your cute boys and girls...fuck San Francisco. This song's for Oakland." Cheers all around, natch.

He played Sweet Summer's Night on Hammer Hill during an encore, violin and cello subbing for the horns like at this show in Italy:

Reminds me of clapping on a street corner in Santiago...

*Talking smack about hipsters and then linking to Pitchfork...no, the irony's not lost on me.

Grist outdoes itself

2008-03-21T16:14:00.000-07:00

Young McHipster has a farm, e-i-e-i-o. And on her farm, she has organic produce, e-i-e-i-o. With a CSA here, and a trucker hat there, here a market, there a Pabst, everywhere an urbanite. Young McHipster has a farm, e-i-e-i-o!

Reminds me of one of those "overheard in San Francisco" moments I had with my housemate at Dolores Park a while back--couple d00ds of the hipster persuasion were sitting near us guzzling (of course) Pabst, and this is their prototypically perfect exchange:

Hipster 1: You're not rockin' the fixie today, man.

Hipster 2: Nah, too many hills.

photo by Tizzie P.

Didn't know they had a name for it...

2008-03-20T10:06:00.001-07:00

Overall Shot of San Francisco Protest
Originally uploaded by mattmills

More brilliant reporting from the Chronicle:

The rhetoric Wednesday was not as heated. Direct Action coordinated this year's protest but seemed aware of what has been called the "Code Pink conundrum," in which the activists are so shrill and unpleasant that even those who agree with them are turned off by their tactics.

Update: From the ANSWER Coalition flyer--

BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW
END COLONIAL OCCUPATION
IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PALESTINE, HAITI
MONEY FOR JOBS, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE & SCHOOLS, NOT WAR
STOP U.S. INTERVENTION IN IRAN, VENEZUELA, CUBA, PHILIPPINES...
NOT TO RACISM & ANTI-IMMIGRANT ATTACKS,
DEFEND CIVIL LIBERTIES

I've heard of casting a wide net, but wow...that covers just about everything.

...but I thought empanadas were the new cupcake?

2008-03-12T22:34:00.000-07:00

So I know I said I'd blog about our office cupcake tasting, but then I found the post that might've served as inspiration for the day that almost ended in tragedy...delicious, iced tragedy.

I was completely torn between Kara's Cupcakes and That Takes the Cake, but ultimately my chocolate bias won out and I gave the nod to Kara's because of the Fleur De Sel. With that said, I think That Takes the Cake has the most original cupcakes in terms of flavor combinations and cake textures.

My thoughts exactly. I can't believe we did this the week of Thanksgiving. Oh wait, yes I can. And did I mention my housemates and I are hosting a cupcake party soon?

You know, Nosheteria (best food blog name evar) says cupcakes have become passe, but it's gonna take a helluva lot more than them falling out of fashion for me to stop fiending.

The mother of all markets

2008-03-12T22:31:00.001-07:00

Back when local food was more necessity than movement:

Alemany Farmer's Market, 1953
Originally uploaded by Telstar Logistics

ch-ch-ch-changes

2008-03-12T22:18:00.000-07:00

Seems every time there's some sort of significant shift in where I'm at, I rename the blog. So it's been almost 6 months since I moved to "The City"...long overdue, but maybe now that I've got a purty new masthead and links to boot I'll have more of an incentive to post.

Required Reading: "The Face of Feminism" Edition

2008-03-11T21:51:00.000-07:00

Thought I'd share a coupla things I read over the weekend that struck a chord.

>>Jessica Valenti on "The Sisterhood Split" -- this captures a lot of what I've been feeling about the dialogue around Clinton's candidacy and reactions from mainstream feminsim:

...Herein lies the reason so many of us are loath to discuss intrafeminist problems publicly. We know that Clinton supporters are taking heat from sexists--whether at home, at work or from pundits who relish talking about Clinton's "shrill" voice or whatever thinly veiled misogyny of the day is on cable news. We don't want to provide the backlash more fodder. We also know how hard our feminist foremothers fought to be here and how important the moment is--and we want to be a part of it. I certainly do. But not at the expense of what I believe is best for women, and not just because a movement that assumes it knows what's best for me tells me to.

This is refreshing after reading Astrid Henry's "Not My Mother's Sister" -- a book reviewed on by Feministing's "Not Oprah's Book Club" with a cover more befitting "Ya Ya Sisterhood" than a somewhat dense scholarly deconstruction of the generational lines in the sand drawn between 2nd and 3rd wave feminisms. And by dense I mean that the footnotes and bibliography were as long as half the text itself, and my head just isn't in the game anymore when it comes to academic writing. Too much writing for email, where there's a premium placed on punchy prose (and did I mention aliteration?). But I'm rambling...I like that Henry is trying to get at the roots of intergenerational infighting in order to shore up the movement and refocus energy outward, but I think I prefer Valenti's approach:

...feminists make a mistake in prematurely calling for unity. Instead of glossing over the problem with the rhetoric of sisterhood or having an elite group declare the dispute settled, let's own the conflict and use it to make real progress.

>>On the topic of global feminisms, Alternet's Joshua Holland asks "Is Islam Really Stuck in the 12th Century on Women's Rights?" A lot of what I've read from him has challenged the "clash of civilizations" contingent and called out Islamophobia and Western ethnocentrism, and this was no exception:

The bottom line here is that increasing women's civic, political and economic participation is a good fight, and an incredibly significant one. Focusing primarily on the status of women in Islamic countries to rid ourselves of the stigma of our own inequalities or to justify Western hegemony over the rest of the world is not.

I had to read this at least five times before it really registered:

Portuguese women got the vote in 1976, Swiss women in 1971.

No. Words.

Mission Mural Tour

2008-03-02T16:58:00.001-08:00

Where I work, the last Friday of every month is reserved for "Final Friday Funday" office fieldtrips -- er, off-site meetings? So on leap day, a coworker took us on a walking tour of the murals in the Mission.

Check out all the photos here -- particularly the Megatron-esque gentrification monster. Most photos were taken in Balmy Alley and Clarion Alley by Mark F. and myself.

Silhoutte portal reveals a previous incarnation
of constantly repainted Clarion Alley

Precita Eyes is a community-based mural arts collaboration that offers weekend tours and curates many of these pieces.

Stuff White People Like

2008-02-27T15:27:00.000-08:00

Tell me you've seen this.

(I'm sipping water from a Sigg bottle right now, I might add.)

"Cheers--top of the food chain."

2008-02-25T23:36:00.000-08:00

Just watched Alex Koll do this routine at the Punch Line, and thought it was definitely share-worthy:

He did deadpan improv like I've never seen at the Dark Room earlier this month. Ooo, look at me, name dropping San Francisco comedy joints, whoopedy-doo.

OMG she's alive...

2008-02-24T10:58:00.001-08:00

...and well. Haven't written since moving to San Francisco, and for lack of a better place to begin, I thought I'd start by sharing some of the more recent activities that have been keeping me gleefully preoccupied, and work backwards (read: SF cupcake tasting still has yet to be chronicled).

Please, try to contain your excitement, hb.

Yesterday: SF Freeze flash mob, at the Powell St. cablecar turnaround. Stood still in the rain, nose running and tears streaming for five minutes while unamused shoppers pushed past. My housemate and her brother had planned to pose jousting with umbrellas, and I ended up holding mine out as a shield. Passersby got increasingly annoyed--"what is this?" "get out of the way" "fucking move"--and I started asking myself: Really? Are you really willing to get poked in the eye with an umbrella spoke for the sake of a performance art? Er, no. Definitely outside the comfort zone, and not something I would've done on my own, but ultimately was glad to be a part of it, risking loss of sight notwithstanding.

Here's a really well composed photo, and some low-res video below. Neither capture this punk/Victorian-esque style couple that stood nearby me, frozen in a kiss for the full five minutes beneath an inside-out umbrella.

SF freeze
Originally uploaded by Marco Sanchez

Next up: Last week's release party for “Not Quite What I Was Planning: Six-Word Memoirs by Writers Famous and Obscure” - inspired by Ernest Hemingway's "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

A few choice memoirs:

No shit I'm critical - you're flawed. - Elizabeth Koch
Friends all Jewish. I'm merely neurotic. - Brian Mahon
Most successful accomplishments based on spite. - Scott Birch
Big heart protected by sharp tongue. - Kris Kleindienst
Adopted? Are you fucking shitting me? - Darius Logan
Happiness is a warm salami sandwich. - Stanley Bing
Mormon feminist loves husband, hates patriarchy. - Caroline Kline
Never really finished anything, except cake. - Carletta Perkins
Fight. like. hell. for. the. living. - Susie Bright

Was inspired to write a couple less clever ones of my own:

Hated perpetual motion, now can't stop
Privileged social activist: contradiction in terms?
Mellow actor, scattered activist: seeking balance

And finally: Just so I don't look like a shill for Laughing Squid, there's McDonald's in Chinatown for the New Year's celebration.

They were out in full force with a hidg-ous float and colossal puffy happy meal box-shaped tent, complete with flags advertising their offensive "i-am-asian" sitelet. They've actually trademarked the phrase. Mmm, have some cultural appropriation with your Big Mac. Oh, and don't miss their tagline: "i aim to be the best." It's okay to perpetuate the "overachiever" stereotype, cause it's not racist if it's a compliment, right guys?! McVom.

pic courtesy of David's phone

Champion of consumer rights leaves the Chronicle

2007-07-27T10:23:00.000-07:00

"Investigative business columnist" David Lazarus is headed to the LA Times.

Since coming to the Chronicle from Wired News in 1999, David Lazarus has been one of the most prolific, and influential, writers at the paper. His coverage of the energy crisis in 2001 earned him the Journalist of the Year award from the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California chapter. He continues to butt heads with corporate executives and write stories that unambiguously take the side of consumers.

In his final column, he calls for the reawakening of a dormant consumer movement, with muckraking reporters on the corporate watchdog beat leading the charge alongside advocates.

It's a point he made repeatedly during our conversation - that the biggest difference between now and then is that the media have lost interest in consumer advocacy as both a story and a calling.
This, in turn, leaves the consumer movement to a great extent voiceless.
...Still, I attend a lot of public events and I can say with confidence that most consumers haven't given up when it comes to defending their rights. They're frustrated - that goes without saying. They often feel that companies are dedicated solely to outmaneuvering customers.
But people aren't hopeless. They just want to be treated fairly.

...There was a time when businesses believed the customer is always right. That's an exaggeration, of course, but there's a grain of truth in it. Businesses understood that if you treat customers right, they'll keep coming back.
...These days, the shareholder is always right. Businesses focus almost exclusively on placating investors by delivering steady growth quarter after quarter. And to maintain a consistently robust bottom line, many companies reduce overhead by repeatedly cutting back on service.

Lazarus said he never envisioned himself launching a "one-man consumer crusade against corporate malfeasance."

I don't think there's any mistaking that my work is fairly populist in its sentiment. The rap on what I do is that I'm anti-business -- that's what my critics like to say most often than not. I see myself more as pro-accountability. ... Corporations should be accountable. And if you're going to do something, especially if it affects thousands or millions of customers, you should be able to defend that policy...

I was excited to hear that the organization I work with (the Consumer Federation of California) recognized Lazarus with its Journalist of the Year award in 2004. This year SF Weekly named him the city's best columnist:

With the Chron's business section too often serving as a bulletin board for industry press releases, Lazarus brings a healthy dose of skepticism to the notion that corporate America knows best.

The touching farewell:

Not that long ago, my young son finally got around to asking why Daddy's picture appears in the newspaper.
"Well," I replied, "that's because I try to help people and protect them from bad guys."
My son stewed on that for a moment. His eyes lit up.
"Daddy!" he exclaimed. "You're Batman!"
I'm going to miss Gotham. But Metropolis should be fun, too.

I'll be watching for him in the LAT.

Side note: Lazarus is in very good company as a Crossroads alum.

The truth about "socialized medicine"

2007-07-25T10:27:00.000-07:00

With SiCKO ranking in the top 5 grossing documentaries of all time, millions of Americans are unleashing a healthy sense of moral outrage over our inadequate and exorbitantly expensive system of private health care. Bush and his fellow insurance industry apologists are running scared, pushing back against the rising groundswell in favor of revolutionizing our health care system.

Chronicle columnist David Lazarus points out that Bush should be the last person to deride government-run health care, with taxpayers having just foot the bill for his colonoscopy. What's more, Bush's argument for why he'd veto Congress' bill to provide care to millions of uninsured children mischaracterizes what health care reform really entails:

Bush wasn't being entirely accurate when he derided the notion of government-run health care for every American. That might make for a fine little sound bite, especially among those who fear the specter of "socialized medicine," but it's not really what's at stake.
Rather, advocates of health care reform are seeking government-run insurance for every American, leaving the health care part to those who know best - doctors and nurses.
This is a crucial distinction at a time when 47 million Americans lack medical coverage and, according to researchers at Harvard University, about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on health care in this country is squandered on bureaucratic overhead.
"Cuba is socialized medicine," observed Dr. Kevin Grumbach, who heads the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF. "The government employs all the physicians and owns all the hospitals. That's not what anyone is talking about for this country."
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.

As for those long waiting lines? Paul Krugman spells it out:

It’s true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there’s a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

That’s right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that’s what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding — end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.

Michael Moore took CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta to task for a similar attempt to obfuscate the issue of health care reform (which Gupta has since recanted).

Health care policy wonk Ezra Klein has also done his part to encourage a shift from red-baiting to substantive debate in discrediting the Walter Reid/Veteran's Administration talking point:

Klein: Let's talk you about the socialized system. We have the VA.
Kudlow: I don't think the VA works in spots. But since you asked me, what we learned about the VA is that certain of those hospitals have completely run down in care and need to be replaced. Klein: Are you talking about Walter Reed?
Kudlow: We have number one.
Klein: Walter Reid is part of an army hospital, not part of the VA.
Kudlow: With regard to the prescription drug program, you can't get the drugs you need.
Klein: Here's what I don't understand. Rand Corporation ranked VA highest on quality. The Internal Medicine ranked it highest. The New England Journal ranked it had highest on quality. They keep health care costs down and they have slower spending. I don't understand what you don't like.

Single-payer advocates have the facts on their side. Opponents only have diversions.

Putting the specter of terrorism into perspective

2007-07-01T22:06:00.000-07:00

Olbermann talks about the "myth of the omnipresent enemy" and provides a platform for the voice of reason on this overblown non-story.

We saw about three years ago, General Richard Meyers, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say that the threat of terrorism was the greatest threat we face in this country, in the U.S., since the Civil War. And what we know factually is that fewer than 50,000, not just Americans, but all people worldwide, have died from international terrorism since 1968. We lose 50 million people plus in WWII and we have someone like General Meyers saying that this is the greatest threat? It’s a threat, but we need to put it in its proper perspective and go back and remember the words of FDR—it’s the fear! If we allow the fear to conquer us and drive us to do things like allow Guantanamo, like allow torture, we ourselves become victims of the very things that we say we’re trying to fight. You know, I think big deep breaths, remain calm, and let’s stop with some of the alarmist behavior. --Larry Johnson, counterterrorism expert

And let's not legitimize xenophobes by breathlessly reporting that the perpetrators are of Middle Eastern descent, or make unsubstantiated allusions to Al-Qaeda. The BBC doc "The Power of Nighmares" and Seymour Hersh both view Al-Qaeda as a convenient fiction--in reality little more than a looseknit "phantom of the U.S. national security apparatus." As Jason Burke, author of "Al Qaeda" contends in the film:

The idea—which is critical to the FBI’s prosecution—that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.

Without a simple, distinct enemy, there'd be no conduit in which to channel hatred and fear. Unprocessed political realities are often much too complex and abstract for this. Buzzwords are more accessible and successful in arousing the type of emotion needed to promote warmaking. It's this kind of soundbyte-ready fearmongering and cable news complicity that Al Gore assails in the first chapter of The Assault on Reason. Started it today--definitely a timely read.

Blame the Victim: Democratic Presidential Candidate Edition

2007-06-20T11:32:00.000-07:00

I keep harping on politicians' quickness to fault the Iraqi people themselves for the chaos wrought by invasion and occupation. It's an abhorrent excuse, and its bipartisan popularity is sickening.

This morning Hillary Clinton was booed by the "hard left" (nice touch, ABC) at the Take Back America conference for passing the buck on Iraq:

"The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government, which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people."

Andre Banks points to the racist underpinnings of this rationale:

Her story of a successful military operation rendered a failure by the intransigence of Iraqis who don't love democracy like we do relieves the American conscious from the guilt becoming a war of terror. And in its place she leaves a racist stereotype our nation is accustomed to: a lawless Brown person who deserves to be abandoned to their uncontrollable vice.

I'm not surprised to hear Clinton use the same ignorant rhetoric employed by her fellow hawks on both sides of the aisle. But from Edwards?

In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving.

It's extremely disappointing to hear this unaccountable beltway rationalization echoed by the only candidate who has taken responsibility for a war authorization vote, the only "first tier" Democrat to boldly deconstruct the logic behind the fabricated "war on terror," the only one to issue substantive diplomatic foreign policy solutions aimed at regaining the confidence of the international community, and one who isn't afraid to confront racism head on. Such misdirected tough talk is out of character given this record of courage and leadership. Edwards' candid admission that his vote for the war was wrong positions him as the candidate best able to lead us out of Iraq by taking responsibility and making reparations. But he's squandering this opportunity by toeing the line.

I understand that it's important for politicians advocating withdrawal to dodge the backlash that would ensue from admitting that the reality is a U.S. failure. But rhetorical arguments for withdrawal cannot be couched in terms of punitive measures for those that have already experienced unimaginable suffering. This is not just irresponsible, but morally reprehensible.

If Democrats want a justification for withdrawal that is both honest and politically viable, they should talk about withdrawal as an opportunity for the Iraqi people to at last claim their inhibited right to self-determination, wrested from imperialists and despots that ruled the country since it was loosely conceived as a nation state. This is the language of empowerment, not the coward's "blame the Iraqis" tack.

The U.S. is not leaving as punishment (in fact prolonging the occupation would be just that), but because Iraq is their country--not the base of future U.S. military operations in the Middle East, as neocons would like. The U.S. has no more right to stay and decide Iraq's future course than it did in invading, no more right than Germany did to decide the fate of post WWII Europe.

Assertions that the Iraqi people brought this chaos upon themselves or that Iraqi lawmaker's lack of political will instigated the country's descent into failed state status are abhorrent. And the notion that Iraq can become a sovereign nation within the bounds of foreign occupation is laughable. This is just another manifestation of the backwards "Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" line. The occupation must end before the Iraqi people have the opportunity to self-govern, not vice versa.

Jonathan Steele sums it up in the Guardian

...the essential point about the Iraq tragedy remains what it has been since April 2003. Bush and Blair bear the prime responsibility for the chaos their ill-conceived invasion unleashed. The problem of sectarian violence can only be solved by Iraqis. National reconciliation, if it happens, has to be Iraqi-led. But the US and Britain are not innocent bystanders, good Samaritans, or neutral guarantors against a civil war. There have been too many occasions already - from the so-called transfer of sovereignty in June 2004 to the inauguration of the first elected government in May this year - when they have said "it's up to the Iraqis now" while remaining in ultimate charge. Only when they leave Iraq will sovereignty truly revert.

File under "this is what's wrong with the movement"

2007-06-12T11:11:00.000-07:00

When College Ends, So Does Activism
Why selling out is a depressingly rational choice for many graduates

I'm headed south to my alma mater to see my best friends graduate this weekend, and happily this article doesn't apply to them--I'm confident that they'll both make successful careers out of their commitment to the larger progressive movement. And I've been really fortunate myself to find a job that's in line with my ideals.

But I think we're the exceptions, not the rule. In the last year, I've seen too many peers--truly dedicated activists--left with no choice but to take less fulfilling, higher-paying, no-experience-required jobs in the corporate world to offset the cost of living, student loan debt, etc.

Adam Doster addresses some contributors to the private sector siphon on the progressive movements' young, energetic base:

- Outsourcing organizing campaigns to centralized intermediaries, a la Grassroots Campaigns

Under this canvassing system, young organizers become contingent labor, susceptible to low pay, long hours, no benefits and no training in the real skills necessary to succeed in building local power. In some ways, the model cultivates a culture of deprivation; young people are taught to think that sacrifice is a prerequisite for progressive change and thus they tolerate exploitation for the sake of the movement.

- Strapped with debt from the ever rising cost of education, students don't have the luxury of taking lower-paying positions.

These financial burdens disproportionately affect students of color and those from less secure economic backgrounds, whose need for job stability is generally more pressing than that of their classmates. “It’s always been hard to attract class diversity in the progressive movement. It’s largely been dominated by people who have family backgrounds that enable them, for whatever reason, to take a lower salary, particularly if they are just starting out,” says Draut. “I think the problem is that now it’s become even more challenging.” All of these factors lead even the most socially conscious graduates away from progressive politics toward less-fulfilling career fields.

As someone who falls into the category of young progressives that has the privilege of freedom from debt and a soft landing back at home, I've been afforded the optimal situation. Nonetheless, even from this best case scenario vantage point, I feel the strain of having fewer options--the shortage of entry-level positions, the majority of groups searching for candidates with years of experience, and a lower salary cap for young people who opt to dedicate their career to peace and social justice. My background is in community radio, and I'd hoped to continue in that field, at least as a journalist. But the reality became apparent all too quickly after college--I'd have to drastically shift the standard of living I'd grown accustomed to if I were to take that track. Even then, it would be unsustainable to live in the Bay Area. And burnout gets us nowhere.

Young conservatives have the luxury of a support system--paid internships, job networks, etc.--endless free lunch for the free market faithful. I'm reminded of this every time I get a glossy mailer from The Fund for American Studies.

It boils down to this--non-profit is just that. We're not going to be able to compete with the private sector because we're not in the business of competing. We're not even in business. We have a hard enough time finding sources of funding, much less marketing our ideas.

I wish I had something more reassuring to say...this has been a running theme for me this past year, transitioning from a vibrant campus community to a desk job. Should we just be resigned to the idea that working for change will remain ('scuse the Rumsfeld reference) a long hard slog for young people of conscience? I'll leave on a positive note, with some inspirational remarks from a commencement address delivered last year at the New School:

I'm scared about many things. I'm worried that I will lose my clarity of vision, and the sense of urgency I feel now. I fear that I will lose my inspiration. I fear bureaucracy. I fear the grind of going to work 9 to 5.

But when I look at you all today, at the sheer number of us, at our excitement, at our determination, I feel so inspired. We must keep each other accountable to accomplish the things we dream of doing, of revolutionizing the things we plan on changing. It's up to us - no complacency, no apathy, we're going to do it. And we will do it with style, grace, determination and dignity.

The needs in our world are overwhelming, yet we live in hope and seek to make a difference.

Blame the victim

2007-06-03T20:09:00.000-07:00

Caught the tail end of Meet the Press yesterday, and this utterly indefensible argument by Republican strategist Mike Murphy:

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Absolutely. Nixon’s spinning in his grave. We used to be the very competent guys that run wars. Now I—my view is, our magnificent military and the Bush administration won the war, the Iraqi people have lost the politics and the peace, and now we’ve got to figure out a way to protect American interests and move on. Very big...

MR. RUSSERT: You’re blaming the Iraqi people?

MR. MURPHY: Yeah! I think it’s the truth.

MR. SHRUM: I mean, they don’t keep the troops there.
MR. MURPHY: No, but the troops are there for security so they can grow up and have a democracy, and that’s what they’re horrible at.
MR. CARVILLE: Are we—but, Mike, are we surprised that we found Iraqis when we went there?
MR. MURPHY: The war is...(unintelligible)...they light up.
MR. CARVILLE: Were we shocked when we found Iraqis when we went to Iraq? We didn’t know there were going to be Iraqi people there?
MR. MURPHY: No, no.
MR. SHRUM: Some of them don’t like us occupying their country.
MR. CARVILLE: They’re intelligent.
MR. MURPHY: Well, yeah, but we didn’t feed them the democracy, and that they’re having trouble.
MS. MATALIN: Well, what all Americans do not like is Democrats saying or anybody in this country saying, even those who are anti-war, do not like when Democratic leaders say, “This war is lost.” We are determined people. We cannot believe that this enemy that stones women and sends 12-year-olds out to behead innocents are people that are better than us.
MR. SHRUM: Mary, we’re going to stay and stay and stay and stay.
MR. CARVILLE: Correct.
MR. SHRUM: And when is it going to, when is it...
MS. MATALIN: You’re going to stay on Iraq.
MR. SHRUM: Give me some indication...
MS. MATALIN: What is your...
MR. SHRUM: Give me some indication of when persisting in a failed policy is going to yield success.
MS. MATALIN: Give me some indication of what your foreign policy positions against this 21^st century enemy, what is the Democratic plan?
MR. SHRUM: Mine would be, mine would be a lot closer to the current secretary of defense who said we got to draw down the troops next year...
MR. CARVILLE: Right.
MR. SHRUM: ...to send a very clear message to the Iraqis that they have to get their act together, they have to make the government work.

Shrum legitimizes Murphy's despicable claim by using similar language, framing Iraq's collapse as the result of its peoples' irresponsibility--not the fruit of U.S. invasion and occupation. But don't hold your breath for hawks to own up to these fatal mistakes. What matters most to them is preserving their own reputations; admitting fault and accepting defeat is politically out of the question.

It's this hubris that paved the way for the despicable "blame the victim" strategy. I wrote about it last November, as did Thomas Ricks & Robin Wright from WaPo. Since then, the argument has reared its ugly head much more frequently. Too few are defending Iraqis and placing blame where it's due.

Rolling Stone columnist Matt Taibbi lays it out:

I can do without having to listen to American journalists, as well as politicians on both sides of the aisle, bitch and moan about how the Iraqi government better start "shaping up" and "taking responsibility" and "showing progress" if they want the continued blessing of American military power. Virtually every major newspaper in the country and every hack in Washington has lumped all the "benchmarks" together, painting them as concrete signs that, if met, would mean the Iraqi government is showing "progress" or "good faith."
"President Bush will not support a war spending bill that punishes the Iraqi government for failing to meet benchmarks for progress," was how the AP put it.
"Among the mile markers that should be used to measure Iraqi progress is a finalized revenue-sharing agreement on current and future oil reserves," was the formulation of the Savannah Daily News.
Still other papers, like the Baltimore Sun, cast the supplemental as a means of exercising "tough love" with the lazy and ungrateful Iraqis, who to date have failed to show interest in governing their own country. "The talk around Congress," wrote the Sun, "was of putting together a bill with (probably nonbinding) benchmarks, designed to hold the feet of the Iraqi government to the fire -- or at least near the fire."

As Juan Cole put it,

"I see. The US invaded their country, abolished their army, gutted their civil service, occupied their cities, and now it is the Iraqis' fault."

I'm an Inside/Outside progressive

2007-05-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

In These Times reports on political scientist Michael Heaney and sociologist Fabio Rojas' research on the progressive "Party in the Street"--a term they coined to describe the "Inside/Outside" phenomenon, in which "many left-leaning Americans navigate between social movements and the Democratic Party."

“I see Inside/Outside as absolutely essential,” says Bill Honigman, PDA’s California state coordinator. “There are going to be times when the party needs to be shook up a little, and the only way to do that is from the outside. By the same token, you can’t do it all from the outside. You have to be involved in the party to change things when it’s going the wrong way.”

Demonstrating examples of movement-partisan groups that engage both in direct action and legislative advocacy, the article profiles Progressive Democrats of America, CodePink, the Aurora Project, and MoveOn--noting that it earned the ire of antiwar movement for its dismissal of the Out of Iraq Caucus' withdrawal bill.

The piece discusses the challenge of striking a balance between free-rein grassroots mobilizing that has the capacity to bring radical new ideas into public discourse, and the more pragmatic political approach, which ultimately legislates change.

The author cautions against "allowing Democratic electoral victories to become ends unto themselves," and highlights the value of "formulating a strong progressive platform that addresses the concerns of middle- and working-class Americans." The danger of political obscurity in attempting to shift the Democratic party to the left can only be overcome through "sustained, local mobilization and leadership development" with the goal being to "shift away from issue-based pressure groups that have dominated left politics since the '70's."

Air America host Laura Flanders makes a crucial observation--organizations like PDA must also “work outside of its comfort zone.” Aurora Project head Bill Fletcher, Jr. notes “a recurring problem in progressive circles, where they come to be dominated by what can best be described as white economic populists. But when it comes to issues of race and gender, there’s a soft peddling in the way of bringing us all together.” This is a source of great weakness for groups like CodePink.

I've had countless conversations with activist friends on the agency of the Inside/Outside approach--it's a favorite topic for Tizzie-P and me. I definitely wore both hats in college, as a Campus Dems officer and organizer in a couple local and statewide campaigns, and as a member of an antiwar group and newscaster on KCSB, the university's independent radio station that proudly proclaimed the motto "bringing the revolution to your radio." When I would table for the Dems, fellow DJs would jokingly ask me if I'd lost a bet. In officer meetings with the Dems, it was difficult to get some of the more cautious officers on board in taking a stance against the war, and taking to the streets, and more lefty peace and justice groups and activists were often maligned in quiet conversation. But the club's power was undeniable, with one of the largest memberships of any political club on campus, if not the largest, and it was certainly the group most responsible for the success of the Associated Students campus voter reg drives (hat tip to Hill). Like a microcosm of the larger party, it was the matter of convincing the middle-of-the-road folks to accept new ideas.

For some on either side, with the exception of those that straddled the line and shared the "Inside/Outside" identity, you're either selling-out or a crazy hippie. I don't see why you can't do both--it can only make the progressive movement stronger if we act in both capacities, standing firm on principle and unafraid of dramatic--though smart--tactics, while acting pragmatically through the right legislative channels. As PDA National Director Tim Carpenter says, “Every great social movement begins in the street. But it ultimately ends in the halls of Congress.”

Propaganda in translation

2007-05-28T20:32:00.001-07:00

Currently one of the most dugg political news items on Digg: "Wiped off the Map - The Rumor of the Century." It links to an article on Antiwar.com that details the dangers of heresay in foreign policy.

Somehow our media turned Ahmedinijad's benign statement "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated." into the menacing "Israel will be wiped out". Our media also conveniently ignored the statement by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We will never start a war."

I first heard this challenge to hawks' manufactured conventional wisdom on Iran last May at a forum organized by a friend in UCSB's Center for Middle East Studies. Panelists said the phrase "wipe off the map" doesn't even exist in Farsi. They cited Professor Juan Cole, who'd previously called attention to how this statement had been seized upon by neocons drumming up support for launching attacks on Iran:

The phrase is almost metaphysical...It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.

Prof. Cole also debunked the myth of Ahamdinejad's clout:

Of course Ahamdinejad does wish Israel would disappear, but he is not commander of the armed forces and could not attack it even if he wanted to, which he denies.

Guardian columnist Jonathan Steele joined Prof. Cole in disputing the dubious translation:

The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.

Good to see the story has regained some traction--too many still take it as a matter of fact. The only reason it remains at all controversial a year later is that intellectually lazy anchors and conservative pundits can't seem to mention Ahmadinejad without this catch phrase in the same breath. In doing so, they persistently reinforce the false notion that the Iranian president is politically powerful and poses a threat, framing talk of preemptive attack.

Progressive prognosis

2007-05-01T15:14:00.000-07:00

The American Prospect had a debate on whether Hillary Clinton is an undercover progressive, or a centrist hamstrung by her liberal reputation. The argument in favor rests on her gender--Clinton is uniquely positioned as the lone woman on the ballot to take a leadership role in defending freedom of choice and in ending the war. This treats Clinton as a token--despite her record, an inherently liberal candidate because she is a woman. The argument against her electability is far more convincing:

Of course, a candidate who appeals to the Democratic base because of a long record of leadership on key progressive issues or unusually liberal policy positions is someone to be welcomed, even if her positions make centrist outreach that much more necessary. Clinton, however, doesn't fit the bill. Rather, she is, on the merits, the least progressive of the major Democratic candidates in the race, and also the one with the least appeal to moderate and independent voters -- the exact reverse, in short, of what liberals should be looking for in a nominee.

...

The psychodrama that is Clinton's long fight with the right -- and with deep-seated forces of sexism and ignorance in the country -- has tended to blind too many people to straightforward assessments of her actual views and political record. (A recent Mother Jones cover story spent 4,500 words ruminating on the various roles Clinton has come to play in the culture -- "the Eleanor Roosevelt Hillary," "the Lady Macbeth Hillary" -- without discussing her record or stated political views at all.) Now that primary season is upon us, and some choices have emerged in the Democratic field, such assessments are overdue. And they demonstrate that Clinton's record is, in fact, fairly unpalatable from a liberal's point of view.
...

She has not...stood out as a leader on any major progressive causes during her time in the Senate -- she was not a central player in congressional Democrats' make-or-break fight against Social Security privatization, for example, and has declined to use her name and platform to make any significant issue a signature. One area in which she has stood out from the Democratic pack is in adopting socially conservative rhetoric and positions, whether pushing a bill banning flag burning, attempting to "reframe" the abortion debate, or calling for an increased federal role in video-game censorship. She has also famously engaged in a series of high-profile team-ups on various issues with hard-right Republicans, including Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, and Newt Gingrich. The political benefit to Clinton in such gambits has been considerable. But liberals should presumably find nothing to applaud in any of this unless they expect something real -- and progressive -- in return.

And there's the rub. Clinton's national reputation as a liberal is pervasive, and it means that even beyond her apparently genuine centrism, she's uniquely hamstrung in staking out any boldly liberal stances on a major issue. At the same time, her national reputation as a liberal is so firmly entrenched that she will likely find it extremely difficult to broaden her appeal to the electorate.

Liberal Democrats should want a nominee who is, in fact, a liberal. And liberals and moderates alike have should want a nominee who's seen as a moderate by the median voter. Clinton, however, is a moderate who people think is a liberal. This is a terrible combination of qualities from almost every point of view -- except, perhaps, for the faction of her advisers whose views are probably too right-wing to be associated with the Democratic presidential nominee, unless they can latch onto the one candidate both blessed and cursed with an undeserved reputation for liberalism. Well, bully for them. But liberals should open their eyes.

John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton, is the true progressive candidate in this race. He was the undisputed victor at the CA Democratic Convention in San Diego last weekend. His speech changed minds, for sure--eloquent and full of passion and substance, offering up clear plans for providing universal healthcare, defending workers' rights to organizing and to a living wage, ending the occupation of Iraq, restoring America's reputation in the international community, and dealing honestly with structural racism. Listen to his address here.

MoJo Blog cites an interesting development from a new Rasmussen poll:

Obama and Clinton are the frontrunners, but Edwards does best in general election match-ups. He leads all GOP hopefuls and is the only Democrat to lead the Republican frontrunner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Read, read on.

2007-04-24T10:19:00.000-07:00

most of all the world is a place where parts of wholes are described
within an overarching paradigm of clarity and accuracy
the context of which makes possible
an underlying sense of the way it all fits together
despite our collective tendency not to conceive of it as such
-The Books, "Smells Like Content"

"Sample-folk" duo The Books performed at the Great American Music Hall last night.

Experimental violinist Todd Reynolds opened for them, his style what the NYT has described as "impassioned violin soliloquies." He used the same live track layering technique Zoe Keating does to create intricate soundscapes. One of the most memorable parts of his set was "Outerboroughs"--his soundtrack to filmmaker Bill Morrison's old edited public domain footage of a cable car going over the Brooklyn bridge. He recommended Morrison's nostalgic Decasia--old film being played for the last time while being burned into oblivion by a light projector.

When The Books took to the stage, Paul brought out what looked like the hollow shell of a cello--he dubbed it the "celleton." Gorgeous. And travel-friendly, too!

from Pitchfork

They did a cover of Nick Drake's "Cello Song," one of my favorites to along with play at home. The visuals were stunning--for a new song entitled "8 Frame" included in their newly released DVD Playall, the video was timed so each frame lasted for a quarter note. At the very end of the song, they did a gradual time lapse of a water balloon bursting into a thousand shimmering water droplets. Breathtaking. Their music and images are so meticulously coordinated that even the slightest hiccup in rhythm or intonation forces them to start a song over. At one point during "Smells like Content," Nick hit a flat, stopped, and apologized, explaining that if they kept going, everything would be off, and it would be "really bad." We were happy to oblige.

I think what's even more striking than their precision is their ability to create something that is at once provocative, innovative and still accessible, with universal emotional charge.

Pitchfork review writer Mark Richardson nails it:

...the Books have plucked sampled voices from their original context and arranged them inside simple compositions for sliced-and-diced guitar, banjo, and cello. They've taken moments of contemplation-- when one understands something on an emotional level but can't quite articulate his thoughts-- and dressed it up in a melodic frame
...
[It's] a fantastic reminder of the musicality of the spoken word, an idea that lurks constantly inside the music of the Books.

The Books' achieve this sound through their own wholly independent production:

We do all of our own sample collecting, composing, writing, recording, mixing, and mastering in our home studios using pc's running cheap software and the ragtag equipment that we've pieced together over the years. What you hear on our records is exactly how it left our hands, with no producer, engineers, or sweetening in between. We are completely independent, beholden to no corporations and we have funded all of our music entirely ourselves.

Some videos from last year's tour, at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia:

Cello Song

An Owl With Knees

The Classy Penguin--about Nick's brother Mikey

"I want all of the American People to understand, that it is understandable that the American People cannot possibly understand." --The Books, "An Animated Description of Mr. Maps"

Is this solidarity mutual?

2007-04-23T11:04:00.000-07:00

from SFGate DIP

Alternatives to sensationalism & scapegoating

2007-04-19T18:17:00.000-07:00

Some significant dialogues that mainstream outlets have sidestepped in order to deliver their breathless, sensationalist coverage of the tragedy at Virginia Tech:

Let's not make this about race. Already Korean-Americans (or Asians in general since the many races are often lumped into one category), are anticipating the backlash to come. When teenagers shot up Columbine and when Timothy McVeigh bombed babies in Oklahoma City did we blame white males?

Does race play a role in all that goes down in this country? Of course. Discrimination, cultural values and norms, race is one of many things that contributes to who we are, the good and the bad. But there are actual substantive issues to deal with here, issues that don't lead us to easy, bigoted conclusions.

DKos: A Setback for the Blame Islam First Crowd

In the first hours after the Virginia Tech shooting, the internet was rife with frothing speculation about the "Asian connection" with Islamic jihad, as in the following typical instapinion:

First it was Johnny Muhammad, now it was Cho Sueng Hui aka Ismail Ax. Precisely how many mass shooters have to turn out to have adopted Muslim names before we get it? Islam has become the tribe of choice of those who hate American society.

Alas, the "tribe of choice" may have turned out to be ... well, let's just take a look at today's Bloomberg headlines:
Virginia Shooter Compared Himself to Christ in Video
By Nick Allen

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- The Virginia Tech university student who killed 32 people in modern America's worst mass shooting compared his own impending death to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

"I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people," Cho Seung Hui, 23, said during a rambling video message that he mailed to NBC News after killing his first two victims.

Somehow I don't think we're going to see a lot of speculation from the same sources in the coming days about whether Jesus Christ is a Rambo role model and Christianity is the "tribe of choice of those who hate American society."

Perhaps the dynamics of a tormented mind are little more complex than being reduced to a simple religious categorization, yes? Perhaps we can hope for a little more restraint – and information – before we leap to sweeping "evil doer" conclusions in the future?
(Note on breath: Don't hold.)

BoingBoing reader comments

I agree with BoingBoing reader Doyle's comments about predicting the religion of the shooter. Speculating him as Muslim, based on the finding of wording "Ismail AX", leans toward the islamophobic thoughts. The character Ismael belongs not only to a single but to various Abrahamic religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc, and most of these religions predates Islam. More news is surfacing about the shooter's social interactions, which could lead to the fact that he was a psychotic, and may not have had much religious influence at all. Perhaps he just took the story of Abraham in a mythological way (even if it is remotely related). Has anyone thought or come up with a non religious explanation of 'Ismail AX'? It is amazing to see how people quickly connect anything bad with one religion. It's like they are looking for an excuse, not the answers.

And finally, Juan Cole provides some international perspective:

The profound sorrow and alarm produced in the American public by the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech should give us a baseline for what the Iraqis are actually living through. They have two Virginia Tech-style attacks every single day. Virginia Tech will be gone from the headlines and the air waves by next week this time in the US, though the families of the victims will grieve for a lifetime. But next Tuesday I will come out here and report to you that 64 Iraqis have been killed in political violence. And those will mainly be the ones killed by bombs and mortars. They are only 13% of the total; most Iraqis killed violently, perhaps 500 a day throughout the country if you count criminal and tribal violence, are just shot down. Shot down, like the college students and professors at Blacksburg. We Americans can so easily, with a shudder, imagine the college student trying to barricade himself behind a door against the armed madman without. But can we put ourselves in the place of Iraqi students?

UC's corporate bedfellows

2007-04-09T12:42:00.000-07:00

From the LAT Blog--"Mixing Business with Government":

But now, there is more criticism over an agreement between the University of California and BP, the oil-producing giant. BP has committed to spending $500 million on alternative fuels research at UC Berkeley. Jennifer Washburn with the New America Foundation says it's a bad deal that "dispenses with numerous traditional safeguards designed to protect the university's independence. It grants BP unusual control over the institute's research agenda, makes no mention of peer review, downplays commercial conflicts of interest and contains provisions on publication that would violate UC's written policies."
"As such, the alliance would undermine the university's academic freedom, its ability to perform independent research and broadly disseminate results. And, possibly, it might undermine the public's trust. ... In short, for $500 million, the plan would allow BP, a company valued at $250 billion, to turn an academic research institute into its own profit-making subsidiary."
Schwarzenegger has done several events that have burnished BP's image as environmentally conscious. The UC agreement, announced by Schwarzenegger on Feb. 1, could provide a cautionary note as regulators begin implementing global warming legislation under AB 32. California business has a huge stake in the regulations, and just how embedded they become with government will be closely watched.

BP and Schwarzenegger are both experts at greenwashing their campaigns. But BP goes beyond the pale, doing far more environmental damage than good.

Using a respected institution like the UC as a fig leaf for its dubious projects is dangerous, blurring the divide between for-profit and public sectors. It's right up there with the UC's partnership with Bechtel to manage the nuclear weapons labs. The UC effectively lends corporations credibility and legitimacy in the public eye that they lack otherwise, and affords them greater latitude in their projects and less demand for accountability--it's all in the name of research and education, right?

Nuclear hype

2007-04-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

A skeptical reading of Iran's announcement that it's expanding nuclear enrichment to reach "an industrial scale":

Michael Levi, a fellow for science and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, was skeptical of the Iranian claims. He said by his calculations, the capabilities Iran has just announced would provide 10 percent of the material needed to run its plant.

"To me, that's not industrial scale," Levi said. "An industrial-scale facility is a facility that can support your industry."

On the other hand, "from a political perspective, it's more important to have them in place than to have them run properly," he explained since the announcement stirs up support and patriotism at home, and the international community has almost no way to verify how well the program is working.

"Iran looks to be moving its nuclear program along on a political schedule rather than a technical schedule," Levi said.

Levi marveled that Iran has the power to cause such a stir with an announcement. He noted that most of the time, world leaders complain they can't trust Iran, "except when they say something really scary, we take them at their word."

$4 a gallon

2007-04-03T14:38:00.000-07:00

From Oil Watchdog:

Dow Jones Marketwatch online predicts today that U.S. gasoline prices could reach $4 a gallon. Bulletin: In San Francisco they already have, at some stations. Where are the politicians who should be screaming?

They're too busy kowtowing to the oil lobby, whose spending in CA has more than doubled in recent years, to the tune of $12 million during the 2005-2006 legislative session.

If there were any doubt about the quid pro quo relationship between politicians and oil money, here's a startling graph of gas prices over the last year in CA:

Our "no special-interest money" governor accepted $2 million in campaign contributions from Big Oil . After he called for an investigation of price-gouging at the pump this time last year, the Alliance for a Better California replied, "Arnold's latest slick stunt, pretending to care about soaring costs of gas prices, rings hollower than a Krispy Kreme doughnut.''

Campaign finance reform, anyone?

Understanding Iraq

2007-03-30T12:26:00.000-07:00

The March/April issue of MotherJones features an article entitled Iraq 101 that offers a guide to Iraqi politics, a civil war FAQ, a breakdown of the costs, and predictions on the occupation's future ramifications.

The article provides a good crash course on the occupation itself, but obvious space limitations only permit a condensed history lesson summed up in a "5000 Years of Invasion" timeline. William Polk's "Understanding Iraq" provides a good survey of this history, framing current events in terms of the country's painful past.

Barry Lando's book "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" more closely examines 20th century Iraq in the context of Western imperialism. He surveyed this history on Democracy Now!:

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back in time, Barry Lando, because you start the history of Western complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush. Talk about how Iraq was formed, the current modern state of Iraq, and the central role of oil.
BARRY LANDO: Well, it was formed out of the collapsing Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The British and the French went in to kind of divide up much of the Ottoman Empire. And the British took essentially what is Iraq today. It was three provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and they put them together around 1920, ’21, into one country, which became known as Iraq.
These were peoples who had lived under the Ottoman Empire, but they had never been put together into one state, sort of living side-by-side politically and administratively. And it was a recipe for disaster. The British were warned about it at the time, but the reason they wanted to put these people -- the Shiites, the Sunnis, and particularly the Kurds -- in one place is the British wanted the petroleum, particularly the petroleum that the Kurds had. Kurdistan is a major petroleum area. They suspected -- they weren't pumping petroleum at the time, but they knew that it was there, and the British wanted that.
And they also wanted bases, too, in that part of the world, to protect their Persia, which was an important part of the British Empire, and India. So bases there became very important for them, too. So you had two things: petroleum and military bases, which are basically exactly the same motives, I think, that are keeping the United States in that part of the world today.
AMY GOODMAN: How did the US first get involved with Iraq?
BARRY LANDO: They came in as the British Empire was weakening, beginning to fall apart in the ’50s. The United States became active in that part of the world, and as the Cold War was going on, too, they looked at any attempts by leaders in that part of the world to become more independent from the West, to get more of their -- take more of their own petroleum resources for the benefit of their own country. To seek any kind of outside help from the Soviets, that became a sign that these people had to go. You had Eisenhower, Dulles, the CIA went in and overthrew leaders in that part of the world at that time.
AMY GOODMAN: John F. Kennedy and the CIA in Iraq?
BARRY LANDO: Well, before Kennedy, you had Eisenhower and Dulles, too, the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. Then you had John Kennedy: in 1963, you had a nationalist ruler in Iraq, Qasim, and Kennedy's CIA and the Egyptians, who also didn't like him, joined together and they helped organize a coup in Iraq that overthrew Qasim. The Baath Party, which was -- Saddam Hussein was then a junior member of the Baath Party -- came into power.
They were -- the US liked them at the time. They were secular, strongly anti-communist, anti-Soviet. So they were seen as allies by the CIA. When they took over in 1963, the CIA supplied them with lists of suspected communists, militants, left-wing intellectuals, professionals, to be taken care of. They were picked up, tortured, and many of them were killed. We're talking about hundreds, maybe thousands, of people. Saddam Hussein then was one of the young torturers at that time.
AMY GOODMAN: And then, explain how he rose to power.
BARRY LANDO: Well, then, back in -- the Baath fell out of power again in 1968. There was another coup, and they came back in, and Saddam became the power behind the throne. It took him ten years to become formally head of Iraq, of the government in Iraq, but for most of that time he was already seen as the man behind the throne. He ran the secret police, and he used Stalinist methods to take over. He was a great admirer of Stalin. So in 1979, Saddam formally became the leader of Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: President Carter's role here?
BARRY LANDO: Well, at this time, Khomeini had come to power in Iran, after the Shah was overthrown. Khomeini came to power. He was seen as an enemy of the United States, which he was. And you had the hostages taken. American hostages were taken from the embassy in Iran. And so, Carter did anything -- he wanted to do anything he could to weaken Khomeini. So did the other states of the Gulf. The Saudis, the Kuwaitis were terrified of Khomeini and what he could represent to their hold on that region, because Khomeini viewed them as dictators, and he was for the national -- taking over the oil, petroleum resources of those countries, as well, not for himself, but for the people of those countries. He represented a major threat.
Jimmy Carter encouraged Saddam, via the Saudis, to invade Iran. That started a war, which lasted for eight years, longest war of the 20th century, resulted in at least a million people dying on both sides. And, of course, the United States, other Western countries, Soviets, sold arms, continued to support the Iraqis during that period, and when it looked, though, that the Iraqis might win -- because they didn't want either side to win, really -- they also sold arms to the Iranians, as well. So the battle kind of went back and forth for eight years, with many countries selling arms to both sides. And the United States, in fact, even gave intelligence aid to both sides. And in the end, as I said, a million people died because of that war.
AMY GOODMAN: Gave intelligence on where Iranian soldiers were, to be gassed by Saddam Hussein.
BARRY LANDO: Exactly. The US gave satellite information, more to the Iraqis, enabling them to target Iranian troop concentrations, even though the US knew that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the effect of the sanctions period, largely through President Clinton?
BARRY LANDO: Yeah, well, that started after Saddam had been thrown out of Kuwait. And you had -- an uprising took place, that was a whole other story.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, speak briefly about that uprising, because it's very significant for Iraqis’ view of the United States, too, and it involved President Bush, Sr.
BARRY LANDO: Yeah. To me, the uprising and what happened is really key, in a way, to what's going on there today. As Saddam had invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, and the United States moved in to push him out of Kuwait, when they did, George Bush called on the people of Iraq publicly, called on them to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein. This call was relayed by the CIA’s secret radio stations all over Iraq, and US airplanes also dropped millions of pamphlets over Iraq, telling the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam. And they did. And the uprising spread like wildfire across southern Iraq. These were among the Shiites. The Kurds also rose up.
Then, the US, Bush Sr. and James Baker, became worried, because they realized they weren’t going to be able to control this uprising. They had wanted a military coup, a nice, neat military coup that in the end they could really control. But what, in fact, happened was a popular revolt. They were worried that perhaps Iran would come in, would try to make use of it; that the Kurds would try to set up an independent country that would disturb Turkey, their allies; that the Saudis wouldn’t like what was going on there. And so, they turned their back on the uprising.
They allowed Saddam to continue using his helicopters to attack the villages, and the Shiites had no way of fighting back against these helicopters. And when the Shiites came to American lines -- I spoke to a Special Forces officer who was just a few kilometers away from where the uprising was going on -- you had the Shiites coming to the American lines and saying, “Look, we're not asking you to fight for us. Just give us weapons. We will fight ourselves.” The Americans had hundreds of millions of dollars of arms that they had seized from the defeated Iraqi military. They destroyed those weapons, rather than turn them over to the rebels.
In another case, we were told that they blocked one rebel column from trying to march on Baghdad. They refused to meet with any of the insurgent leaders, who were desperately trying to talk to the Americans. The Americans refused to even talk to them, on the Kurdish side and on the Shiite side. So, finally, the revolt was over, and Saddam came in and killed, slaughtered, anywhere from 100,000 to 150,000 Shiites.

AlterNet is featuring an excerpt from Lando's book, in which he delivers a searing indictment of how Bush I encouraged, then betrayed the Iraqi intifada following the first Gulf War. Think Three Kings--without George Clooney leading the charge as America saves the day, helping the rebels triumph over the Republican Army.

From their base, Rocky and his units watched as Saddam's forces launched their counterattack against the rebel-held city. Thousands of people fled toward the American lines, said Gonzalez. "All of a sudden, as far as the eye could see on Highway Five, there was just a long line of vehicles, dump trucks, tractors -- any vehicle they could get -- coming to us in streams."
"The rebels wanted aid, they wanted medical treatment, and some of the individuals wanted us to give them weapons and ammunition so they could go and fight. One of the refugees was waving a leaflet that had been dropped by U.S. planes over Iraq. Those leaflets told them to rise up against the regime and free themselves."

If only we knew our history.

Arab League Summit

2007-03-29T11:28:00.000-07:00

King Abdullah insisted at today's summit in Riyadh that "the 'real blame' for Arab woes lay with squabbling Arab rulers, who could only prevent 'foreign powers from drawing the region's future' if they united." However "unlike past summits that at times saw overt feuds break out, the gathering showed unusual public unity."

Arab leaders unite to reintroduce 2002 Beirut Declaration:

Under the plan, Arab nations would recognise Israel if Israel withdrew from land occupied in the 1967 war, accepted a Palestinian state, and agreed a "just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem".

Saudi monarch calls U.S. occupation illegal

"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said the king.

Juan Cole's analysis:

King Abdullah followed up on these harsh criticisms of the US by cancelling his planned appearance at a White House dinner in April. The Saudi royal family is fit to be tied that Bush gave Iraq away to fundamentalist Shiite parties that have close ties to Iran.

Although the Saudi statement is remarkable for its brutal frankness and coldness toward the United States, its real significance is its slam of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Abdullah has not only said that the US presence is an illegal occupation, he has said that the al-Maliki government is nothing more than Shiite sectarian hegemony. The Saudis are known for their behind the scenes diplomacy and their public discretion. King Abdullah is hopping mad, to talk this way. It augurs ill for US-Saudi relations. Abdullah is also angry that Bush is letting the Palestine issue fester and that he pushed for open Palestinian elections but then cut off the Hamas government once it was elected. Abdullah thinks Bush is pursuing irrational policies, the effect of which is to destabilize the Middle East.

Breathtakingly stupid lede

2007-03-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

Not so long ago, neighborhoods were defined by little things like race and class, religion and ethnic roots.

Now the measuring rod is something that really matters, at least in the Bay Area: what sort of coffeehouse takes root.

Objective reporting*

2007-03-26T15:06:00.000-07:00

Writing on today's town hall meeting in Oakland, the Chronicle toes the Republican party line--"Dems don't have an alternate plan for Iraq":

Neither Penn nor Rep. Barbara Lee, the Oakland Democrat who has opposed the war since before it began four years ago, offered much in the way of specifics for ending the conflict, and they were largely preaching to the choir.

How easily these reporters turn a blind eye on comprehensive legislation provided by Lee, Boxer, and Waters in the Out of Iraq Caucus' Bring Our Troops Home & Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act.

*Not applicable to protest coverage

Blogger cred

2007-03-22T14:12:00.000-07:00

Traditional journalists seem all too eager to malign blogger credibility. They'll jump at any opportunity, like Politico's mistaken headline this morning about Edwards suspending his campaign. But let's not forget that mainstream news isn't exactly infallible either (::cough:: Judith Miller, Jayson Blair ::cough::) and that their mistakes often have dire consequences.

At least this reporter from the Chronicle makes an important distinction--not all bloggers are created equal when it comes to responsible reporting:

In a blog entry headlined, "Getting it Wrong,'' Smith [of Politico] admitted the error.
"My source, and I, were wrong,'' Smith said.
But he wasn't the only one. The web site for Washington television station WYLT said that "CBS news is reporting . . . '' that Edwards is out and the popular internet site Drudge, made Edwards' suspension of campaigning his lead item.
But at least at first, there was no apology from Drudge for getting it wrong. Apparently, it is fine to grab a story from another source and run with it, as many did with Smith's report, but once it is wrong, he's on his own.

Surprise, surprise. This from the internet gossip made famous for breaking the Lewinsky scandal and for his libelous claim that White House assistant Sideny Blumenthal beat his wife. His latest desperate cry for attention involved claiming to have Gore stumped with global warming questions based on debunked science.

But Politico and Drudge are closer than one might think. Politico Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris paid homage to him in his book cowritten by ABC News political director Mark Halperin--a man who called Drudge the "Walter Cronkite of his era." The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 includes a chapter entitled "How Matt Drudge Rules Our World." Let's hope they're wrong on that one.

Selling Israel

2007-03-21T14:17:00.000-07:00

MoJo Blog looks at marketing Israel, in particular BlueStarPR's $17,000 ad campaign in the Bay Area.

I spotted their handywork on BART a couple weeks ago. My first thought--what about Al-Jazeera?

meloukhia also commented on this poster, noting that Israel was ranked 135 on the Freedom of Press Index 2006 by Reporters Sans Frontieres. Israel's extra-territorial behavior earned it such a dismal score.

Lebanon has fallen from 56th to 107th place in five years, as the country’s media continues to suffer from the region’s poisonous political atmosphere, with a series of bomb attacks in 2005 and Israeli military attacks this year. The Lebanese media - some of the freest and most experienced in the Arab world - desperately need peace and guarantees of security. The inability of the Palestinian Authority (134th) to maintain stability in its territories and the behaviour of Israel (135th) outside its borders seriously threaten freedom of expression in the Middle East.

According to its 2007 Annual Press Freedom Survey

Palestinian journalists faced many restrictions by the Israeli authorities, who considered them primarily as Palestinian citizens, and they were banned from travelling between Gaza and the West Bank for supposed security reasons. Israeli soldiers freely entered media offices and the homes of journalists in the Palestinian Territories looking for weapons and “illegal material.” Journalists of the pan-Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera were prevented several times from reporting on the war in Lebanon in mid-2006. Walid al-Omari, the station’s Jerusalem bureau chief, was arrested on 17 and 18 July while reporting in the north of the country. An Israeli military vehicle opened fire on another Al-Jazeera crew, led by journalist Jevara al-Budeiri, during live coverage of an Israeli incursion into Nablus and a technician,Wael Tantous, was hit on the foot by rubber bullets.

Israeli forces bombed Lebanese media installations during the fighting with the Hezbollah militia. Israeli warplanes destroyed a transmission mast at Fatka, east of Beirut, on 22 July, temporarily putting the privately-owned Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC) TV station off the air. A station technician, Sleiman Chidiac, was killed during the attack and two other employees injured. Israeli planes bombed an LBC installation in the northern town of Terbol the same day, cutting off broadcasts to some regions by LBC and privately-owned TV stations Future TV and Al-Manar.

Given these actions, it's no wonder Israel would feel the need to improve its image with a PR campaign.

Chicken little

2007-03-20T16:29:00.000-07:00

From CIO magazine, the alarmist business perspective on California privacy legislation:

Like a large hurricane sweeping in off the Pacific, these laws will wreak havoc on all kinds of business processes, including how websites can collect personal data and the management of databases that store personal information on customers. They will influence how companies share personal data with third parties and restrict their ability to contact consumers via cell phones and faxes.
...
So what can CIOs do? You may not be able to divert this threatening tidal wave, but you can be prepared for it. To reduce your company's vulnerability, educate yourself about the legislation so that you can talk intelligently with your corporate counsel and CEO. And you can insulate yourself from some of the laws altogether by using encryption. Encryption is one solution to California's disclosure laws. Companies are not required to notify customers in the event of a security breach if customer data is encrypted.

Circumventing legal requirements is key, folks.

You can also adhere to best practices discovered by CIOs who have run afoul of some of these laws and learned from the experience. Such practices include communicating with the public on what information you collect, and following that up with clear, honest answers to questions from customers and the media in the event of an information leak.

Definitely haven't seen any evidence in my research of an effort on the part of telecommunications corporations to promote transparency and communicate with the public on information sharing.

The truth is that legislation hasn't gone far enough to hold business accountable in protecting sensitive consumer information.

American Jews to AIPAC: Not in our name.

2007-03-20T10:50:00.000-07:00

Salon looks at how the 2nd most powerful lobby in Washington's strongest potential opponents are the people it purportedly represents:

The Bush administration's neoconservative Mideast policy is essentially indistinguishable from AIPAC's. And so it is no longer possible to ignore it -- even though it is a notoriously touchy and divisive subject. The touchiest aspect of all is the role played by pro-Israel neoconservatives in laying the groundwork for the Iraq war. Much of the media has been loath to go near this, for obvious and in some ways honorable reasons: It feels a little like "blame the Jews." But that taboo has faded as it has become clearer that "the Jews" are not the ones being blamed for helping pave the way to war, but a group of powerful neoconservatives, some but not all of them Jewish, who subscribe to the hard-right views of Israel's Likud Party. This group no more represents "the Jews" than the Shining Path represents "the Peruvians."
...
As a group, American Jews continue to be staunchly liberal. A new poll shows that 77 percent of American Jews now think that the Iraq war was a mistake, compared with 52 percent of all Americans. (Jewish support for the war has collapsed: A poll taken a month before the war showed that 56 percent of Jews supported it, somewhat below the national average at that time.) Eighty-seven percent of Jews voted Democratic in 2006. And although data here is murkier, polls also show that most American Jews hold views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are to the left of AIPAC's.
...
The fact that AIPAC has anointed itself as the de facto spokesmen for American Jews is becoming more and more unacceptable. And increasing numbers of them are beginning to speak out.

Jews Against the War is a coalition of Jewish leaders doing just that.

Aptly named

2007-03-15T20:43:00.000-07:00

Conquest Student Housing's idea of a good PR move on Facebook, following widespread student protest over last year's shameless profit-driven eviction of low income families in Isla Vista.

I guess the strategy is to deflect criticism with a distraction appealing to the lowest common denominator (obviously not below Conquest). A diversion that says "Hey kids! Over here! Sex!"--perfect.

Gentrification...you know you want it.

Banana boating the truth

2007-03-15T20:12:00.000-07:00

Crooks and Liars traces tainted corporate contributions after today's news that Chiquita was being fined for paying right-wing terrorists in Colombia:

"Some of the same money that went to these terrorist organizations also went to the old Swift Boaters. Very interesting indeed...Remember - if you want to support terrorism then just give to the GOP. That will make sure you get off easy if you are busted supporting terrorist organizations."

Likewise, John Perkins explained in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" how George Bush Sr.'s Zapata Oil purchased United Fruit. It's no secret how neoliberal politicians and corporations have plundered hand in hand in Latin America--it's a symbiosis in which one simply leads the way for the other, at the detriment of local livelihoods. No amount of presidential tours or photo-ops will change that reality.

h/t BoingBoing

Anti-war strategies from NPR

2007-03-15T18:56:00.001-07:00

From All Things Considered--"Anti-War Groups Seek Breakthrough Moment"

Peter Overby's advice to peace activists:

"So if activists want to woo lawmakers, maybe occupying their offices isn’t the best way to do it. Maybe they should work inside the system and, say, offer to hold a fundraiser." --Peter Overby

Please tell me this is tongue in cheek.

Today the Senate rejected a timetable for withdrawal--after weeks of debating whether to have a debate--and the House is moving to pass its own bill (after striking a provision that would have given Congress more veto power in the event of an attack on Iran). I see little opportunity to work within that framework. The political will to goad lawmakers into action must come from outside the cautious Beltway.

For an NPR story that does less to marginalize anti-war activists, see Allison Keyes' "An Anti-War Movement in Search of Crowds." At least she incorporated more voices than just MoveOn.

Red Cross scare tactics

2007-03-09T10:13:00.000-08:00

via Boing Boing

What do we have to do, huh? Bomb the Ferry
Building? Create an earthquake?

"[Stumbling] Home for Purim"

2007-03-06T14:26:00.000-08:00

Oh, SF Gate DIP and its fakakta captions:

Ultra-orthodox Jewish men stagger down a Mea Shearim neighborhood street after ultra-heavy partying in Jerusalem. One of the precepts of the Purim holiday -- which commemorates the rescue of Jews from genocide in ancient Persia -- is excessive alcohol consumption.

Our "wasted treasure"

2007-03-01T12:59:00.000-08:00

McCain "stumbles out of the gate," perhaps unintentionally delivering one of the most candid and meaningful comments to come out of the "Straight Talk Express."

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," McCain said. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

Obama, as a Democrat, was raked over the coals for a similar remark:

“[The Iraq war] should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''

If McCain were a principled candidate (and he's not), and truly disapproved of Bush's handling of the war (he voted for it, before he...didn't show up to vote against it), he should have stuck by the remark. That goes for Obama, too--especially running on an ostensibly antiwar platform (minus his suggestion to increase defense spending post-withdrawal).

One simply cannot simultaneously advocate withdrawal on the grounds that the invasion was illegal, the "mission" ill-defined, and the occupation a bloody disaster and still defend the notion that such a debacle somehow warranted the loss of thousands of lives. If you believe the war is unjustified, a cause not worthy of death, then the sacrifices made in prolonging it are also tragically unjust.

Those demanding apologies from Obama and McCain lambast their remarks as callous and unsympathetic of the grieving families and friends of soldiers killed. But it's Gold Star family members, in the tradition of Cindy Sheehan, that make the most compelling arguments for calling it like it is--no matter how heart-renching that realization may be--if it will prevent the senseless loss of one more life :

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?
I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.
Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

And so do we. It ends once America owns up to it.

Be cool, stay in school--Army of One.

2007-02-27T14:46:00.000-08:00

The Ad Council has teamed up with the United Negro College Fund, United Way, Adopt Us Kids, and the U.S. Army. One of these things is not like the others.

Boostup.org is the offspring of an Ad Council/Army partnership to develop "a public service advertising campaign to motivate kids and demonstrate the importance of staying in school and obtaining a high school diploma."

You're saying the Army suddenly has humanitarian goals? It wants teens to graduate and not enlist? And they have no ulterior motive behind donating 100,000 branded tissue packets to at risk teens in 50 NYC high schools?

Seems suspicious, to say the least, given active recruitment on campuses across the country and the Pentagon's database on potential recruits ages 16-18.

This is totally unrelated, I'm sure:
Army tops recruit goal by lowering standards -
Lower test scores allowed, but high school diploma still required

Also, found this in the Ad Council's "About" section, under U.S. Army:

Today, more than 270,000 soldiers stand guard in defense of freedom in over 120 countries.

This is nothing new or shocking, but for some reason seeing U.S. military presence represented numerically this way--120/193 countries in the world--evokes the vast reach of empire decried by Chalmers Johnson. The Army advertises to sustain that presence (See "Why We Fight").

Side note--don't forget the folks at the Ad Council brought you this gem--

Message--if you smoke marijuana, your girlfriend will leave you for an alien.

As Cooper pointed out--the person that made this HAD to be high. Just like you'd have to be totally out of touch with reality to believe that the U.S. Army would be so altruistic as to spend money on a campaign to ensure teens have options after high school beyond joining their ranks.

Friedman at his finest

2007-02-23T16:40:00.000-08:00

O.K., boys, party’s over: we’re leaving by Dec. 1. From now on, everyone pays retail for their politics. We will no longer play host to a war where we’re everyone’s protector and target. If you Sunnis want to go on resisting, we’ll leave you to the tender mercies of the Shiites, who vastly outnumber you. You Shiites, if you want to run Iraq without compromising with Sunnis, fine, but you’ll have to fight them alone and then risk having to live under the thumb of Iran.

You Saudis and other Arabs, if you don’t use your influence to delegitimize Sunni suicide bombers and press Iraq’s Sunnis to cut a deal, we won’t protect you from the consequences. And Iran, you win — yes, if we leave, you win the right to try to manage Iraq’s Shiites. Have a nice day.

Mature foreign policy strategy--play vindictive martyr, blame the victim, collectively address all Arabs as children. He's right about a timetable and withdrawl--as a means for diplomatically leveraging support from regional powers. Unilateralism failed. By no means should withdrawal be used as a punitive measure against an already broken country.

What clash?

2007-02-22T19:44:00.000-08:00

A global majority rebuffs Samuel P. Huntington's theory of an inevitable "clash of civilizations" along religious and cultural fault lines.

A poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries has found most believe political and economic interests - not religious and cultural diversity - are the underlying cause of violent conflict in the world today.

The Harvard academic's thesis struck a chord with Westerners looking for an easy explanation of global violence in the 21st century. The appeal of Huntington's dubious clash lies in its invocation of history, how it adds apparent depth to lazy pundritry analysis, and how it maps easily into simplistic, essentialist notions of the unfamiliar "other."

Economist Amartya Sen countered the civilizational approach, arguing that Huntington incorrectly assumes that people only identify with one civilizational system, that civilizations are monolithic, based mostly on religion, and that they will always clash. His theory rejects diversity, and is grossly confrontational. Edward Said called it "the clash of ignorance."

Akbar S. Ahmed, former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain, critiqued Huntington in the Spring 2003 issue of The Hedgehog Review:

Islam was singled out as a potential enemy civilization in an argument that was as deterministic as it was simplistic. Huntington's thesis dervied from established Orientalist thinking: "We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of cilizations," wrote Beranard Lewis in 1990. "Islam has bloody borders," concluded Huntington.

Bernard Lewis, Huntington's predecessor, originally coined the term. During a career spanning many decades of U.S. foreign policy blunders in the Middle East, Lewis fed (and, with a recent inflammatory WSJ editorial on Iran, continues to feed) the neoconservative movement a wealth of revisionist history that conveniently rationalizes their expansionist endeavors. Cheney commended Lewis as a scholar--"...in this new century, his wisdom is sought daily by policymakers, diplomats, fellow academics, and the news media." His aggressive ideology for governing the Islamic world is enshrined by the "Lewis Doctrine," which consists of "a Westernized polity, reconstituted and imposed from above...that is to become a bulwark of security for America and a model for the region." "Freedom" from without acts as a thin veil for securing strategic interests.

In a White House lunch honoring the historian, Cheney beamed,

Bernard Lewis knows the greatness of Islamic civilization -- its tradition of learning and its towering cultural achievements. He refuses to condescend to the people that produced those achievements, and who have lately suffered such great torment at the hands of dictators.

But Lewis' selective reading of history betrays his Orientalist ideological prejudice:

Lewis' presentation of his narrative of Middle Eastern decline without any context is a ploy. His objective is to whittle down world history, to reduce it to a primordial contest between two historical adversaries, the West and Islam. This is historiography in the crusading mode, one that purports to resume the Crusades-interrupted in the thirteenth century-and carry them to their unfinished conclusion, the triumph of the West or, conversely, the humiliation and defeat of Middle Eastern Islam. Once this framework has been established, with its exclusive focus on a failing Islamic civilization, it is quite easy to cast the narrative of this decay as a uniquely Islamic phenomenon, which must then be explained in terms of specifically Islamic failures.

The conflict is not evidence of cultural superiority, the result of a fundamental clash of identity or ingrained values, but a byproduct of Western expansion and the quest for resources and capital:

Once Western Europe began to make the transition from a feudal-agrarian to a capitalist-industrial society, starting in the sixteenth century, the millennial balance of power among the world's major civilizations shifted inexorably in favor of Western Europe. A society that was shifting to a capitalist-industrial base, capable of cumulative growth, commanded greater social power than slow-growing societies still operating on feudal-agrarian foundations. Under the circumstances, it was unlikely that non-Western societies could simultaneously alter the foundations of their societies while also fending off attacks from Western states whose social power was expanding at an ever-increasing rate. Even as these feudal-agrarian societies sought to reorganize their economies and institutions, Western onslaughts against them deepened, and this made their reorganization increasingly difficult. It is scarcely surprising that the growing asymmetry between the two sides eventually led to the eclipse, decline, or subjugation of nearly all non-Western societies.

It's a relief to see that most of the world can see global conflict within the proper historical and political context, refusing to fall for reckless explanations that inflame polarizing tensions.

No business as usual.

2007-02-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

On the anniversary of the largest anti-war protest in history, UC Santa Barbara joined thousands of students across the country in striking against the war in Iraq.

by frozenquack

From Democracy Now!

College and high school students across the nation walked out class Thursday in a national student strike against the Iraq war. In California, an estimated 1,000 students at UC-Santa Barbara blocked traffic on a freeway. Up to 3,000 students turned out for an anti-war rally at UC - Berkeley. And at least four hundred rallied at Columbia University here in New York. More than a dozen other schools took part around the country.

by Matt Simpson

KSBY Channel 6 News reported on it, with KEYT, and KTVU has video.

Jake definitely had the best, most impassioned reporting on the demonstration--his diary was recommended on DKos yesterday, assuring half a million viewers that the student anti-war movement is alive and kicking.

One very legit complaint many of the SB Antiwar organizers have is how some media coverage of the protest has given far too much weight to the Revolutionary Communist Party affiliate World Can't Wait for organizing what was in reality an entirely student initiated demonstration. Papers blindly followed a misleading WCW press release that claimed credit for being "instrumental" in spreading UCSB's message and "putting out a call for national action." The Chronicle reported (almost verbatim) that "The rallies were in a response to a call by the protest group World Can't Wait to Drive Out the Bush Regime for a national student strike Feb. 15." Organizer (and friend) Darwin BondGraham called them out for trying to appropriate the protests--

You all were very helpful in making yesterday bigger than it would have been and I have to thank you for your brilliant energy, but the RCP seems intent on claiming this student led movement as their own. You people are great organizers, but I don't want the RCP taking credit for my political actions. And I definitely don't want RCP
trying to speak for me. I am not a communist and I have zero interest in Bob Avakian's political program. I am a student, a feminist, an antiracist and a little d democrat, and when I organize an action I want to speak about it and I want to represent it.

It wouldn't be the first time WCW has pulled that move. RCP and WCW are very effective at turn-out, but their ideology leaves them and the folks whose protests they try to horn in on open to marginalization.

The difficult part will always be creating that initial spark--convincing people to participate, explaining why the strike is an effective means of protest (if last May 1st wasn't proof enough). Darwin responded to skeptics:

Ask yourself this; if the entire nation went on strike tomorrow – didn’t go to work or school and didn’t buy anything – how much longer do you think Bush’s war could last? I’d give it 24 hours or less. Striking alone here at UCSB might not mean much, but the world is watching. News of our strike is spreading across other campuses and cities. We will not be acting alone on the 15th. And if the 15th is empowering, perhaps there can be a real movement beyond this, a shift toward a larger national peace movement that joins us in withdrawing consent and shaking the foundations of power. The more of us that act together, the more hope there is that we can end the war.

It began with a handful of people. Then a university. Then 5. Then 27. But before there's that kind of momentum, it's challenging to rise above the apathy and convince cynics and natural allies that it's worth their time. But once it starts snowballing, there's no stopping it. If people felt empowered by yesterday's action (and even the most seasoned activists I've talked to felt it was a truly remarkable day), then maybe they'll be motivated to stay involved.

It goes on one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean,
and each day
you mean one more.

by Tanya

Like Johnson & Nixon, Bush could still be constrained

2007-02-15T11:41:00.000-08:00

Congress has historically been loath to cut funding for a war waged by the executive for fear of being blamed for its failure. The Vietnam funding cutoff passed only after peace accords were signed and troops withdrawn. But despite timid non-binding resolutions against escalation from Congress, Bush could finally be feeling the heat. His own party is beginning to hold his feet to the fire in a way Dems couldn't. Republicans are beginning to think they'll be more likely to lose a re-election bid for clinging to Bush's sinking ship than for supporting a watered down resolution against that failed policy and running the risk of appearing decisive.

Bush has two years left in office and enormous -- though not unlimited -- power to continue the war. He does not face re-election. Republicans in Congress do, however, and could brake Bush if they abandon him in large numbers.

And away they go--11 Republican House members speak against Bush troop boost.

"Obviously the president still has a lot of muscle and is still doing what he wants, but the evidence is that this administration is starting to feel a bit checked," said Julian Zelizer, a Boston University historian who outlines congressional resistance during the Vietnam War in the March issue of the American Prospect.

An effective system of checks and balances. Go figure.

Of course Congress would not be taking action were it not for grassroots actions like today's student initiated strike at universities across the country working to build a movement capable of generating the political will to challenge Bush's war. Go UCSB!! Wish I could be there.

Scientist at UC managed Los Alamos speaks out against new nukes

2007-02-13T10:39:00.000-08:00

Joseph Martz, leader of a team designing a new generation of warheads at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said in a series of interviews last week that he is troubled by how the debate on nuclear weapons policy in Washington is focused narrowly on the number of weapons needed for the future, and how they would be built, rather than on how to eradicate them entirely.

***

Two widely-read opinion pieces published in the Wall Street Journal last month argued for total disarmament.
The essays -- the first by former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, and the second by the former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev -- urged aggressive steps toward this long ignored goal.
"Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage," the former U.S. officials wrote in their essay.

Some of the most effective champions for disarmament are the scientists themselves.

In 1944, Einstein wrote to physicist Niels Bohr:

“When the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life.”

One man's terrorist...

2007-02-12T13:52:00.000-08:00

This administration, like many before it, has manipulated all-encompassing and ill-defined buzz words for use as propaganda to forward a militant agenda. Critics have exhausted the subject (See/hear "War Made Easy" by Norman Solomon), though still not to the point where the American public immediately recognizes the spin. The drum-beating against Iran must not be another case in point.

I won't belabor the point or make any Orwell references. But I just find it an interesting anecdote that even Thesaurus.com can demonstrate the dangerous ambiguity of the word "terrorist."

Main Entry: anarchist
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: insurgent
Synonyms: agitator, insurgent, insurrectionist, malcontent, mutineer, nihilist, rebel, revolter, revolutionary, terrorist
Antonyms: loyalist

Demonized and misunderstood (Chomsky identifies as an anarchist). Also interesting that "revolutionary" is a synonym. The Founders would be terrorists by this definition.

Main Entry: dictator
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: ruler
Synonyms: absolutist, adviser, autocrat, baron, boss, caesar, caliph, chief, commander, czar, despot, disciplinarian, duce, emir, fascist, kaiser, lama, leader, lord, magnate, martinet, master, mogul, oligarch, oppressor, overlord, rajah, ringleader, sachem, shah, sheik, slave driver, strongman, sultan, taskmaster, terrorist, tycoon, tyrant, usurper

Suprisingly suggests the suppressed notion of state directed terrorism.

Main Entry: enemy
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: foe
Synonyms: adversary, agent, antagonist, archenemy, asperser, assailant, assassin, attacker, backbiter, bad guy, bandit, betrayer, calumniator, competitor, contender, criminal, crip, defamer, defiler, detractor, disputant, emulator, falsifier, fifth column*, foe, guerrilla, informer, inquisitor, invader, meat, murderer, opponent, opposition, other side*, prosecutor, rebel, revolutionary, rival, saboteur, seditionist, slanderer, spy, terrorist, traducer, traitor, vilifier, villain
Antonyms: ally, benefactor, friend, supporter

The broadest possible definition, and the one we know all too well--you're with us, or you're against us.

Bill Moyers eloquently expressed indignation over this language appropriation:

Day after day, the egalitarian creed of our Declaration of Independence is trampled underfoot by hired experts and sloganeers, who speak of the "death tax," "the ownership society," "the culture of life," "the liberal assault on God and family," "compassionate conservatism," "weak on terrorism," "the end of history," "the clash of civilizations," "no child left behind." They have even managed to turn the escalation of a failed war into a "surge," as if it were a current of electricity through a wire, instead of blood spurting from the ruptured vein of a soldier.

Soj's DKos diary takes us through a 200 year history of "terrorism."

My point here is obviously that at one time or another all of these things occurred and were (or still are) supported by people using the rhetoric that anyone who opposes it is aiding the enemy or being unpatriotic.

I used the word "terrorist" because that's the current name for the "bad guys". At various other times in history the "bad guys" were known as "Communists", "Socialists", "labor agitators", "Japanese Americans", "German Americans", "British", "Indians", "traitors" and a variety of other terms.

Cingular--formerly AT&T, now the new AT&T

2007-02-05T12:27:00.000-08:00

I've been doing research on 18 telecom carriers for a consumer privacy report card, and I thought AT&T's purchase of Bell South and its rebranding of Cingular would consolidate a few of the policies I'm evaluating and simplify my job. But I'm finding that explaining the convoluted history of mergers and acquisitions predating this latest chapter in the annals of media ownership concentration is making the task much more complex. The story is so absurd that (not surprisingly) parodies manage to present a more accurate representation of the monopolistic history than any official press release explanation. Here's Colbert's take:

Engadget tried to make sense of it all in 2005, before AT&T's purchase was approved and the Cingular shenanigans:

1984 - For years there was one phone company: AT&T. Then in 1984 the Justice Department forces AT&T to split up into a bunch of different companies. Seven of those become the regional Baby Bells (the regional Bell operating companies, or RBOCs), while what was left of AT&T handles long-distance.

The late 1990s - One of those regional local phone companies, Texas-based Southwestern Bell Corp, spends the late Nineties scooping up its fellow local phone companies, buying Pacific Telesis Group (PacBell) in 1997, Southern New England Telecommunications in 1998, and Ameritech in 1999. In 2002, SBC Communications, as it is now known, decides to ditch all the regional brand names and call the entire company simply "SBC" in order to "unify its image." SBC combines their cellphone operation with that of BellSouth in a joint venture known as Cingular Wireless. SBC owns 60% of Cingular. BellSouth owns the other 40%.

2001 - As part of a restructuring plan, AT&T decides to spin off their wireless division, known as AT&T Wireless, as a separate company.
at&T wireless logo

2004 - Cingular decides to acquire AT&T Wireless. Cost: $41 billion. AT&T, AT&T Wireless's former parent, retains rights to the AT&T Wireless brand name as part of 2001's spin-off agreement. They announce plans to launch a new wireless service under the AT&T Wireless brand name after Cingular completes its acquisition.

2005 - SBC, which you'll recall is an amalgam of regional Baby Bells spun off from AT&T, reaches an agreement to buy its former parent for $16 billion, $25 billion less than Cingular pays for AT&T Wireless. So SBC owns 60% of Cingular, which bought AT&T Wireless; assuming the Feds okay the deal, SBC will eventually own AT&T, too. Make sense?

Update: merger is approved in November, and SBC once again rebrands to AT&T. AT&T, which still has the rights to the AT&T Wireless name will begin using it in select markets, perhaps as a Cingular-based MVNO.

2006 - AT&T (formerly SBC) announces purchase of BellSouth for 67 billion dollars. Probably just to annoy us. We'll have to wait and see if the SEC approves.

"Her next bold move"

2007-02-02T10:57:00.000-08:00

A CampusProgress tribute to Ani, celebrating the birth of her daughter on January 20th.

Eroding localism in Half Moon Bay

2007-01-29T10:37:00.000-08:00

Battle brewing (lame pun intended--lifted from the HMBReview) over plans to replace a thriving coastside chai institution with a Peet's Coffee shop; story hits Chronicle pages.

This fight, like many of its kind being waged in towns across the country, is fundamentally about preserving localism rather than allowing corporate sprawl to stamp out economically immeasurable goods (like community and quality) in the name of higher profit margins.

Raman made projections back in 2005:

"[Chai] will hit the roof," Bechar predicts. "The manufactured kind will continue to grow because Starbucks has already set the standard. But I don't think the homemade kind will grow as fast. We don't have the patience."

-vs-

"My understanding is that Bechar has an old business model he likes to run, and we need to make upgrades,'' landlord Maher Shami said.

Janfreya Didur, who works at kindred coffee shop MCoffee (my high school afternoon hang-out), says it best--

"I don't consider it progress to have more chains come in here - and Raman makes the best chai - the truth is in the taste."

Shami underhandedly gave his application to bring in Peet's to the city council before talking to his leaser. Raman only found out when the mayor asked if he'd decided to close.

The shopping center where Raman's is located is quieter than it's been, after Albertson's closed months ago to make way for Santa Cruz based New Leaf Community Market--definitely an upgrade, from the locally-owned standpoint. Peet's, on the other hand, would be betraying its founding Berkeleyan principles if it crushes a shop with such history and a loyal local following. I suppose a chain is a chain, and they'd be positioning themselves to compete with the Starbucks across Highway 1, which rumor has it boasts the highest per capita income of any Starbucks in the state. Yes, another chain is just what the town needs.

SF Sketchfest '07

2007-01-24T10:36:00.000-08:00

So I'm becoming somewhat of a stand-up junkie.

The SF Sketchfest line-up last Monday at Cobb's was David Cross, Maria Bamford, Paul F. Tompkins, Doug Benson, Todd Glass, Hard ‘n Phirm & Jimmy Pardo of UCB Theater's Comedy Death Ray.

Hard 'n Phirm

Too bad this version left out the part about "mezoheroic petrol s'mores." But who knew the former host of "Singled Out" had such talent? So like MTV to stifle all signs of originality.

Some classic David Cross--this is probably my favorite bit of his. Again, on false patriotism:

He spent most of his routine at Cobb's talking about Mitt Romney, the lone Mormon presidential candidate, and why it's so absurd that polls show the American people are more opposed to him for accepting gay marriage (in the past)--AKA promoting equality--than for his religious ideology. It sounded a lot like the "All About Mormons" epidsode of South Park. I prefer David's earlier stuff. He gave insightful commentary on the frighteningly complicit state of the union post 9/11 before it became popular.

Todd Glass was out of control. Here's a sample--not his funniest stuff (thanks, cable TV).

Upcoming show in March--Stephen Lynch.

Grist snowed by Gov's executive order on carbon emissions

2007-01-19T14:35:00.000-08:00

Flexing His OPECs
Schwarzenegger, E.U. unveil new carbon-cutting schemes
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) may be hobbled by a broken leg, but his mind is still strong. (File that under Sentences We Never Thought We'd Write.) In his State of the State address last week, the green-leaning Governator announced a plan to cut carbon in transportation fuel 10 percent by 2020. "Our cars have been running on dirty fuel too long. Our country has been dependent on foreign oil for too long. I ask you to set in motion the means to free ourselves from oil and from OPEC," he said. " California has the muscle to bring about such change. I say use it." The effort, hailed as an "innovative and exciting" world first, will likely mean ramping up ethanol and other renewables, and could cause a transitional increase in gasoline prices. Across the pond, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso unveiled a plan that would require member states to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. Oh, E.U., that is so 2006. Arnie's been there, capped that.

Funny, Schwarzenegger's campaigns have been dependent on dirty oil money too long as well. With a history of industry appointments, vetoes of environmental bills, and let's not forget the Hummers (put your money where your mouth is, gov), the Sierra Club has called his record a "shade of green"--not true blue.

The man's remade himself more than Madonna--a bodybuilder, an actor, a politician, a centrist, an environmentalist--none of which he can honestly identify as now. This executive order doesn't erase his record and grant him green cred. Same goes for AB 32--Schwarzenegger had little choice in an election year but to jump on the bandwagon with the democrats in the state legislature. They're the ones who deserve recognition for consistent work on greening California.

UPDATE: TIME falls into the same trap, piling on undue praise for Bush's rhetorical green shift.

Walking in Memphis

2007-01-18T11:28:00.000-08:00

foto by Tizzie P

I spent last weekend at the National Conference on Media Reform in Tennessee. My friend Tanya and I submerged ourselves in media culture, ate pork for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and we even experienced some honest southern hospitality (unlike the disingenous debutante kind I'd recalled) from Alcenia's on Main. Having not set foot in the south for years, everything felt as it had, like it'd been in stasis--complete with top 40 radio hits circa 1998. Natalie Imbruglia can’t still be getting royalties for that gem (though yea, I’ll admit, my middle school self couldn’t get enough). Homogeneity, pop music be thy name. Perfect case in point for why media consolidation is such a threat to freedom of expression.

The most memorable part of the conference for me wasn't so much the panel discussions themselves. I was familiar with much of what was said, as a media junkie and having been fortunate enough to see Bill Moyers, Bob McChesney, Helen Thomas, and Amy Goodman in the past. I took it as a good sign of streamlined messaging. But what I took away from Memphis had to do more with the more practical application of the strategies for dealing with issues the panels addressed. I'll remember us engaging a perfect stranger about how progressives fare in Texas, asking the Holiday Inn operator who listened to Christian radio on why she didn't trust the media, and debating with other activists on the most effective means of forwarding the goals of the media and democracy movement--especially after realizing how absurd it was to be locked in an academic echo chamber that would do nothing to help us talk to the table next to us. I'll also think of the Sunday headline in the local paper--"With surge, Memphis families feel helpless--though proud, patriotic." That qualification-- that obedient flag-waving expression of steely resolve, lest anyone doubt their stripes--was the perfect example of the fear that's paralyzed the media, proof of why they are such an important check on power. That anecdotal evidence of the urgent need for media reform manifested at the local level-- that's what will stick with me.

That being said, I did want to note a few observations I made on the conference itself, for what they're worth.

With the recent FCC ruling on AT&T's purchase of BellSouth still in headlines, net neutrality was a major focus throughout the conference, touted at times in a fairly self-congratulatory tone. With so few big victories in the fight against media consolidation, it's understandable that activists would want to take this opportunity to pat ourselves on the back. But some have cautioned against declaring this a win for media reform. Dan Gillmore of the Center for Citizen Media called the ruling into question, one of the only speakers I saw to point out that even though they vowed not to obstruct equal access to the internet, AT&T pulled a fast one on us, consolidating their ownership power and agreeing to abide by a provision they would've been forced to adhere to anyway.

Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, predicted that attendees would come away from the conference "feeling that fighting for [net neutrality] should be the progressive media movement's top priority." Chester thinks otherwise:

Our most urgent task is to proactively intervene to shape -- on behalf of progressive values -- the emerging commercial digital communications system. This will require a strategic intervention to create sustainable "new media" services that help harness the power of digital media to better promote social justice. Our digital media system will have the capability to help "define" political and social "reality" for the majority of Americans. Unless progressives can seriously "program" the new media -- in every community and across the nation -- we will face even greater obstacles promoting our agendas.

Don Hazen, executive editor of AlterNet, concurs with Chester and Gillmore:

It is becoming increasingly clear that we need to focus more attention on the content and tools of the powerful new interactive digital landscape…and less attention on the delivery pipes. Here, huge media companies like Yahoo and Google are fighting that battle with us.

While net neutrality has an important goal of trying to protect us from future damage, it lacks the capability of fixing the myriad problems that already exist. And the company buyout that was approved in partial trade for net neutrality is an abomination, allowing AT&T, one of only three remaining regional phone companies from the original break up of AT&T back in 1984, to dominate 22 states, 67.5 million phone lines, 11.5 million broadband users.

I was happy to hear Bill Moyers reference this fact in his plenar y address.

***

A number of presenters challenged the notion of objectivity as an incontrovertible journalistic standard. Columnist Laura Washington of the Chicago Sun-Time and In These Times declared there's "no such thing" as objectivity in reporting while speaking on the panel "Inside Corporate Media: Can It Tell the Truth?" with Jeff Cohen, founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, TV host Phil Donahue, and Flavia Colgan of MSNBC. During the "Quality Journalists=Quality Journalism" discussion, a panelist described so-called objective journalism as the type of he-said/she-said reporting in which "both guys spin their lies, and no one can call them on it." She declared that balance does not equal truth. Tanya was reminded of a quote—“objectivity turns journalists into stenographers.” Demanding this warped version of objectivity silences critical voices, and has a chilling effect on dissenting opinions, allowing establishment points of view to get the last word.

***

Media critics span the political spectrum, though as Eric Boehlert from Media Matters for America pointed out, the nature of the critique differs depending on whether it's coming from the left or right. He argued that liberals believe it's important not to slander the press, but instead to create a factual, responsible critique of media misrepresentations and underreported stories. Conservatives, on the other hand, criticize press because their goal is to dismantle it,
Boehlert says. He quoted former Wall Street Journal columnist Ron Suskind—

"For them, essentially the way to handle the press is the same as how to handle the federal government; you starve the beast. When it's in a weakened and undernourished condition, then you're able to effect a variety of subtle partisan and political attacks."

***

Tanya had her reporter hat on for the conference, and recorded an interview McJoan from DailyKos. Her excellent summary of how the conference addressed issues surrounding citizen journalism, media access, and net neutrality is posted here on New Assignment. I submitted my observations as well, but since they dealt more with media reform as a progressive political priority, they weren't posted for the most part. I found it a little ironic that a site promoting citizen journalism--one that is testing grounds for an open source project--would wield such editorial privilege, though I understand it's a work in progress, and have respect for the editor--a friend of a friend. I do feel that divorcing the conference from the political discussion surrounding it robs it of much of its significance. But I suppose there are those sites that are just not the place for advocacy journalism. If the situation were any different--say a mainstream outlet--the rejection of progressive commentary would've done more to demonstrate the fear reporters have of the liberal label than anything the observations themselves could’ve said.

***

I want to wrap up with the poem by Marge Piercy that Bill Moyers read at the end of his address. When he spoke at UCSB a few years ago, he read another.

What can they do
to you? Whatever they want.
They can set you up, they can
bust you, they can break
your fingers, they can
burn your brain with electricity,
blur you with drugs till you
can t walk, can’t remember, they can
take your child, wall up
your lover. They can do anything
you can’t blame them
from doing. How can you stop
them? Alone, you can fight,
you can refuse, you can
take what revenge you can
but they roll over you.

But two people fighting
back to back can cut through
a mob, a snake-dancing file
can break a cordon, an army
can meet an army.

Two people can keep each other
sane, can give support, conviction,
love, massage, hope, sex.
Three people are a delegation,
a committee, a wedge. With four
you can play bridge and start
an organization. With six
you can rent a whole house,
eat pie for dinner with no
seconds, and hold a fundraising party.
A dozen make a demonstration.
A hundred fill a hall.
A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter;
ten thousand, power and your own paper;
a hundred thousand, your own media;
ten million, your own country.

It goes on one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean, and each
day you mean one more.

"Iran nuke work seems slow, puzzling West"

2007-01-11T12:38:00.000-08:00

Iran's uranium enrichment program appears stalled despite tough talk from the Tehran leadership, leaving intelligence services guessing about why it has not made good on plans to press ahead with activities that the West fears could be used to make nuclear arms, diplomats said Thursday.

Of course there's tough talk--Bush's speech last night deliberately excluded diplomatic language, likely provoking Iran to go on the offensive, rather than seek deterence as defense against preemptive strikes from Isreal and the U.S. I'm always reminded of the catch-22 posed by the original premise for invading Iraq--if WMD had really existed in the first place, a U.S. attack would have never happened, for fear of nuclear retaliation.

Fmr. weapons inspector Scott Ritter describes how Israeli leadership have ignored the facts and jumped to conclusions just as the Bush White House did in 2003:

All of this intelligence that’s being done has uncovered a nuclear enrichment program, not a nuclear weapons program. But the Israelis have already concluded, thanks to Amos Gilad and his konseptsia, that a nuclear weapons program exists. Therefore, if you’re not finding evidence of it, it means you’re not looking in the right places. So then you begin to speculate. How many people here remember underground facilities in Iraq, Saddam’s tunnels, everything buried? Well, there weren’t, were there?

What post-partisanship?

2007-01-08T10:36:00.000-08:00

In spite of all the press fanfare last week over Schwarzenegger's proposal to insure all children in CA, I was skeptical that it signalled a move towards real healthcare reform, or that it could possibly be anything more than a political gesture. After all--

"It's the low-hanging fruit of the health-care reform debate," said Dr. Bob Ross, president of the California Endowment, a private foundation in Los Angeles that was created to push for expanded access to health care.

Now on the day before his address to the state, Schwarzenegger reveals his true colors:

Gov. to seek cuts in aid to families on welfare

"It's ironic that the governor is proposing healthcare for poor kids while taking away their breakfasts," state Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said of the cuts, which would affect more than 40,000 families. "Even Republican Gov. [Pete] Wilson, at the time he negotiated welfare reform, agreed that children should not suffer for the behavior of their parents."

Calitics highlights this absurd contradiction:

So they can go to the doctor for a check-up, but they can't eat and they can't have a roof over their heads? I really don't get this. If this is "post-partisan cooperation", then I'm not particularly impressed.

Schwarzenegger's alienating people across the spectrum. Even though his welfare proposal proves his policies remain decidedly right-leaning, we're told the governor's loudest critics are Republican hardliners who feel betrayed by the governor's centrist self-styling. Their protest would seem to enable the governor to swing right and appease his base the moment they accuse him of "surrender" or "weakness" for supposed compromise. Meanwhile, the media pay far less attention to critics of the governor's disingenuous calls for cooperation on the left.

Centrism is worthless when the balance is tipped so radically in one direction.

UPDATE: CNA critiques the gov's overall healthcare plan. Here's the bottom line--

A market-based system always puts increased revenues and profits over the health and well-being of those patients it is supposed to serve. As was the clear intent of a number of the free-market architects of the plan, it reinforces and expands the role of the market in health care, the very source of the present crisis. If the governor's goal is truly universal health coverage, improved quality and effective cost controls, the state should embark on the same tried-and-true course taken by every other industrialized nation, either a national health system, or a single-payer approach as embodied in the single-payer bill, SB840 authored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl. Kuehl's bill was vetoed by the governor last year. It will be reintroduced this year.

Mercatus coast to coast

2007-01-05T22:20:00.000-08:00

Speaker Nunez' office cordially invites you to the Hotel Del Coronado for a weekend of wining, dining, and deregulation:

The program, “Capital Campus California,” is sponsored by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. (The Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy as named as a co-sponsor, but the program isn’t mentioned on the UC website). Mercatus, which runs similar anti-regulatory sessions for Washington DC chiefs of staff, promises the weekend will provide “an academic perspective on today's pressing policy issues.”

Oil and gas giant Koch Industries gave Mercatus approximately $7 million between 1998 and 2004, according to the Wall Street Journal. ExxonMobil is also a Mercatus donor ($80,000 in 2003 and 2004), and other corporations with an interest in limiting regulatory protections, including General Motors, Pfizer, and even Enron, pre-collapse, are reported supporters.

I got a taste of Mercatus through The Capital Semester Program--they've hired at least 4 Mercatus scholars over the years to inculcate students with their own radical corporatist ideologies. I never did figure out how the Fund was able to convince Georgetown to give university credit for their courses. Perhaps their money had something to do with it.

Media take notice of opposition to CPUC Commissioner Chong

2007-01-05T21:44:00.000-08:00

Not that it will make much difference in whether she's confirmed, but it's encouraging to see challenges to anti-regulatory ideology gaining traction in the political discourse.

Battle Brewing Over PUC Nominee

Groups urge nominee defeat
By STEVE LAWRENCE
Associated Press

SACRAMENTO - Consumer groups urged a Senate committee Wednesday to reject Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's appointment of a former telecommunications industry attorney to the California Public Utilities Commission.

The Consumer Federation of California, The Utility Reform Network and other groups said Commissioner Rachelle Chong's views were too close to those of the companies she is supposed to regulate.

''Her track record in the past year shows she will not be with consumers,'' Ignacio Hernandez, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of California, told the Senate Rules Committee. ''She's for free markets, less regulation, less consumer protection.''

***

Chong said she cares ''very much for consumers, particularly ones that are the most helpless.'' But she added that she has philosophical differences with consumer groups about how to deal with competitive markets.

She said her approach was ''trust, but verify. You hope that the market works, but if it doesn't, the PUC steps in.''

vs.

"We have decided to not take a more regulatory approach that was better suited to monopoly days and instead to trust the carriers to do the right thing given the market will demand it." --Chong, 3/30/06

"I believe that decision makers everywhere should step back from old style 'command and control' regulation and instead think 'regulatory light' where markets are competitive." --Chong, 10/26/06
''If the marketplace was practicing as you're arguing (it is), there would not be a need for a... bill of rights,'' Senator Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles) said. ''These problems would not be happening. The fact is, they are.''

CFC on KPFA

Entertainment wrap-up

2006-12-17T22:02:00.000-08:00

Fearing my post-grad social life had one foot in the grave when I realized watching Jeopardy ranked among my most stimulating weeknight activities (before tucking into bed around 9pm, of course), I decided I’d make an effort to take greater advantage of the SF entertainment scene. Here's who I've seen the last couple weeks:

-Hal Sparks at Cobb's Comedy Club November 30th.

I was reluctant to say hello on the way out, but we ended up commiserating with one another (having both survived the south). Cullman Alabama--more churches than Vatican City. Who knew?

Nico Santos & Sabrina Matthews opened. Fabulous.

<--the crazy eye -Yet another "I Love the 80's" alum--Michael Ian Black at The Independent Dec 12th with Michael Showalter.

One highlight--Showalter's air tambourine:

-Margaret Cho at the Good Vibrations Goodie Shoppe Dec 14th. She's now a board member for SF's pioneering sex-positive (formerly co-op owned) retailer. Deviating from her standard delightfully raunchy stand-up routine, she performed an alternative burlesque show. Jaw-dropping, all the same. My friend convinced me to go shake her hand, and the only thing I could think to say was "persimmons!" to which she grimaced.

Photo cred to Jon Leighton--my pics were less than PG.

Mucho mazel

2006-12-15T10:24:00.000-08:00

For those of us who missed Vodka Latka: The Festival of Rights last night, there's a Salsa Hannukah Party this weekend:

Meshuggenismo! describes itself as "a salsa band that plays Jewish wedding and bar mitzvah music, or a klezmer band that plays the most Afro-Cuban-sounding Jewish weddings you have ever heard." They infuse Jewish party music with son, cha cha cha, danzon, rumba, bolero, mozambique, guaracha and merengue. They play the Peninsula Jewish Community Center's Latkepalooza!, which also features children's entertainer Diana Shmiana, music, arts and crafts, latkes and candle lighting. 1-4 p.m. Sunday.

::Plotz::

2006-12-12T10:04:00.000-08:00

Madrid celebrates the death of a dictator...

Why the "Mierda?"
from SFGate

Ah, my alma mater.

2006-12-05T09:18:00.000-08:00

"UCSB men's soccer wins national championship, goal post loses."

Google mishegas

2006-12-04T10:53:00.000-08:00

Apparently this story is a couple years old, but I just stumbled upon it. I was searching on Google for novelty jew-isch themed schmattahs and tchotchkes to give as Chrismukkah gifts, when I spotted a link to this letter at the top of the sponsored links list, under "Offensive Search Results":

An explanation of our search results.
If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site's ranking in Google's search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for "Jew" brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew" only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google. Some people concerned about this issue have created online petitions to encourage us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Because of our objective and automated ranking system, Google cannot be influenced by these petitions. The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google's search results on this topic.

Why is there no disclaimer featured for search results that might offend other groups? Is this another example of AIPAC and ADL's disproportionate influence wielded through unfounded accusations of anti-semitism?

The height of Rumsfeldian condescension

2006-12-02T18:55:00.000-08:00

From his departing memo:

Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start "taking our hand off the bicycle seat"), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

...and if they don't have socks?

Rumsfeld urging responsibility--beyond hypocrisy.

Alt-Holiday Events in the Bay Area

2006-11-28T10:03:00.000-08:00

What better way to understand the true spirit of the holidays (love, acceptance, unity) than to celebrate San Francisco values-style?

Here's a few powerful antidotes to the tasteless consumer frenzy and that atrocious Christmas muzak I'm forced to endure at work:

The MeshugaNutcracker--A New Chanukah Musical
A Klezmer/Broadway-style production set to the music of Tchaikovsky.

A Queer Carol--"Unwrap a different kind of package"
Joe Godfrey's gay comic retelling of Dickens' holiday classic.

Santaland Diaries
David Sedaris' comedy about his experiences as a Macy's elf.

I'm Dreaming of a Wet Christmas
Submergency! is high-speed improv comedy with multimedia technology and squirtguns--the perfect late-night escape from the most wonderful time of the year.

Keep the Yuletide Gay
A Christmas comedy, featuring an incredibly awkward party complete with an alcoholic witch, some Lindsay Lohan perfume, warts, a bloody Santa, a Lionel Ritchie/Diana Ross duet, burnt dinner, some very unexpected skirt chasing.

Home for the Holidays
Featuring the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus

14th Annual Kung Pao Kosher Comedy
A Jewish comedy on Christmas in a Chinese restaurant

**from SFGate's Holiday 2006 events listing.**

Enough to make O'Reilly's head explode.

Nir Rosen on Democracy Now!

2006-11-27T18:14:00.000-08:00

There's been a shift lately since the Americans realized that Iraq is a failure, of blaming the Iraqi’s. The Iraqi’s need to step up, the Iraqi’s have to choose democracy, the Iraqi’s have to choose freedom. It is very popular for us to blame the Iraqi’s for the chaos that we’ve brought upon them. And, I think this will perhaps be something for the cameras in the US’s intent by Bush to show that he’s going to make Maliki, you know, seize the reigns of his country, or something absurd like that, because Maliki has no power of his own. The Iraqis actually did chose democracy, we just never gave them that democracy that they were demanding.
...
There was no civil war in Iraq until we got there. And there was no civil war in Iraq, until we took certain steps to pit Sunnis against Shias. And now it is just too late. But, we need to know we are responsible for what’s happening in Iraq today. I don't think Americans are aware of this.
--Nir Rosen, freelance writer and fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest article is called "Anatomy of a Civil War: Iraq's Descent into Chaos."

This is why it's so frustrating to hear Washington play the blame game. Democrats at least have expressed that deescalation is now beyond the scope of U.S. military influence, and nothing will be accomplished through protracted occupation. But this in no way absolves the U.S. of responsibilty for the chaos its brought on Iraqi civilians and on the region. The only way to stem the violence and save face would be to acknowledge mistakes and appeal to regional powers for help building stability. I doubt we'll see that anytime soon, given the hubris of our leadership.

Study: No link between Plan B & "risky behavior", STDs

2006-11-24T11:07:00.000-08:00

Another thinly veiled argument backing the religious right's anti-women's empowerment agenda debunked by science:

Raymond's group discounts the possibility that emergency contraceptive is not very efficacious. Moreover, the theory that emergency contraceptive is counteracted by increased risk-taking was proven not to be the case in their study.

Instead, they believe that even when they could have emergency contraceptives on hand, subjects who became pregnant had not used the pills.

The investigators therefore conclude that a proactive program like theirs "would probably not be feasible for widespread, long-term use outside a study." Instead, they suggest a strategy that would target women at the highest risk of pregnancy.

Maybe the solution is greater accessibility accompanied by a campaign to counter misinformation propagated against the drug?

The headline on this article is "Pregnancy rates unchanged with Plan B on hand." I'm sure the study will be spun to defend the argument against emergency contraception, that making it more available accomplishes little to curb pregnancies. The abstract of the study does mention, however, that "the increased access group used emergency contraceptive pills substantially more often and sooner after coitus than the standard access group." Also--

The authors point out that the risk of STDs in the easy access group was slightly lower than in the control group, but not significantly different, relieving fears that easy access would increase STD rates.

I'm wondering if the study's results distinguish between intended pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies within the sample. Probably relevant, no? Shouldn't it be looking at whether there were fewer unintentional pregnancies in the sample that had Plan B on hand? Maybe that was included in the full results of the study.

Also (very appropriately) in the same November issues of Obstetrics & Gynecology--"Emergency Contraception: Politics and Science Move Forward ." About time.

Bush gets lei'd/suffocated by old bitty

2006-11-22T09:38:00.000-08:00

SFGate DIP

"Hmmfrh!!"
"Stop fidgeting now, sonny..."

Self-hating neocon

2006-11-20T19:47:00.000-08:00

Hawkish AEI fellow Joshua Muravchik is getting far too much press. I first picked up his radical militant agenda when Democracy Now! had him on as token wing-nut to debate Kucinich and McGovern last week. He had a temper tantrum during the interview, berating his opponents and Amy Goodman (or as he called her, "Miss Moderator").

Today he resurrected the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" in an LA Times opinion column featuring the screeching lede "WE MUST bomb Iran."

Wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.

With Foreign Ministry in Tehran signaling its openness to negotiations, it seems the alternative is not nuclear holocaust, but diplomacy. Not if hard-liners like Muravchik have their way though--they'll dismiss diplomatic overtures because they'd rather exacerbate global instability and security, squandering any semblance of good-will the U.S. has left from the international community all in the name of regime change and regional dominance.

All this under the noble guise of "spreading democracy," the topic of a CSPAN Hudson Institute discussion aired tonight. Democracy is something Muravchik assumes is "good for everyone," though only if you vote for his guy, of course, so the Palestinian vote for "war and terror" (not a vote of no confidence for leadership hobbled by Israel's stranglehold) was illegit. Ariel Cohen of Heritage criticized Muravchik's "one-size-fits-all democratization policies." You know someone's out in right field when a Heritage fellow seems moderate in comparison. However Lee Smith, another panelist from the Hudson Institute also had his moments, remarking condescendingly, "Arabs need to fight it out themselves," and dismissing ramifications of anti-American sentiment in the region.

Muravchik's a pretty artless revisionist, using the end of Pinochet's regime in Chile as an example of democratic victory (of course he was "our bastard") and touting the U.S. as the infallible beacon of democracy. He says "power is gained or held by the use or threat of force" in the Middle East. And how does this differ from U.S. foreign policy under neoconservative rule?

I wondered how he got to be such an ideologue. Turns out he's a radical turn-coat like David Horowitz (swung from New Left to NewsMax)--he's the former leader of the Young People's Socialist League. I think it's telling that he characterizes socialism as the "faith" he was raised by. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists. The difference is that these two demagogues are legitimated by mainstream attention.

GOP just got a lot sexier...sorta

2006-11-19T17:24:00.000-08:00

Marin county couple behind the Global Orgasm for Peace seek to reclaim the republican acronym, along with Dec 22nd for a day of uh, "direct action."

Concerned about escalations against Iran, Donna Sheehan (no relation to Cindy) and her partner Paul Reffel devised their strategy in hopes that a combined effort would have the power to disarm tensions and direct the movement of U.S. battleships in the Persian Gulf (?!). They say it's all in the motion of the ocean.

Carol Queen, the staff sexologist at San Francisco's Good Vibrations store says "it's natural to link pleasure and peace. If you're experiencing pleasure, you're not engaging in aggressive, destructive behavior. "

Do these folks remind anyone else of the "love-ahs" from SNL?

See also: Masturbate for Peace, F*** for Forest

What the...?!

2006-11-16T16:23:00.000-08:00

Hello, my name is Che, and I'll be your waiter: A leftist protester hefts a crate of Molotov cocktails near a university in conflict-ravaged Oaxaca, Mexico.

...who says that?! F'in copy writers at SFGate.

Why not take an alternate view:

Women march in Oaxaca

This just in: "invisible hand" swipes Friedman

2006-11-16T10:52:00.000-08:00

Economist Milton Friedman dies at 94.

Too bad the Chicago school won't go with him.

Think CATO will demand a Reagan-esque mass for him at the Capitol? Maybe they'll just embalm him and put him under glass all Lenin-style.

In his defense, he did vehemently resist the draft along with the "war on drugs," insisting on decriminalization like a true libertarian. That's not to say he wasn't the epitome of right-wing though.

This conservative's comment on DKos sums up where Friedman and his fellow bootstrappers went so wrong:

...he wasn't a hero of mine because his calculus didn't include right and wrong, social justice or the general welfare of the people.

Friedman (surprisingly) sounding in favor of CSR in "The Corporation":

Can a building have moral opinions? Can a building have social responsibility? If a building can't have social responsibility, what does it mean to say that a corporation can? A corporation is simply an artificial legal structure. But the people who are engaged in it, whether the stockholders, whether the executives in it, whether the employees, they all have moral responsibilities.

RIP, though Chile's poor will be dancing on your grave.

The Shape of Water on DVD

2006-11-16T10:06:00.000-08:00

Prof. Kum-Kum Bhavnani's powerful film follows women initiated peace and social justice movements in Brazil, Senegal, Jerusalem, and India.

Watch the trailer.

Listen to her talk about her first film.

She's an inspiration--without a doubt the professor that had the single greatest impact on me as a student at UCSB.

"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves."

2006-11-14T19:37:00.000-08:00

This from Carl Levin, newly anointed Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, the congressman in control of legislative oversight of the military. Levin, like other Dems, wants to demonstrate that conditions in Iraq are beyond the scope of an armed solution, and the sooner the military draws down, the better.

I agree. But he could've said it differently--maybe something along the lines of "we cannot mend the chaos caused by negligent Bush administration policy." But instead his statement comes off as patronizing, imperialist, and irresponsible. We are to believe that Iraqi civilians--a sovereign people stripped of their rights by dictators and democracies alike--are little more than petty children, the U.S. playing the "father knows best" figure, though he'd abandoned his own flesh and blood when he was needed most, and now he'd really do well to let his kids be.

Alright, that's a pretty bad extended metaphor.

The point is that I'm pretty fed-up with the bipartisan buck-passing on Iraq. So few in Congress can claim total innocence on Iraq that I guess it's understandable why it'd be a touchy subject.

Don't get me wrong, I trust we'll see a true foreign policy shift with the Dems' move towards a timetable for phased redeployment. The final nail's been driven into the coffin for "stay the course," which roughly translated to a pig-headed, faith-based refusal to admit they could've misjudged.

Unfortunately an inability to accept responsibility for failed policy seems to be more than just an isolated republican pathology, and leaves Dem leadership vulnerable to charges of "republican lite." Rather than placing blame where blame is due--squarely with a deceptive White House and PNACers--and owning up to wrongly backing their invasion, they externalize the problem. It's far more convenient for politicians to blame the victim, hanging their own puppets for failing to bring stability to a country hobbled by bloody occupation. Reminds me of the way Israel blames the Palestinian Authority for failing to truly represent the Palestinian people though it does everything in its power to deter sovereign governance.

The only way Democrats will prove they're different to a public hungry for new leadership (though skeptical of its competence) is if they disengage from the blame-game rhetoric. Even hawkish Republicans like White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten start to sound empathetic when even they suggest easing off Iraqi leadership by refusing timetables, pretending like it's always been a humanitarian mission. It's an ugly game of good-cop-bad-cop, and Dems scrambling to sound "tough on terrorism" stand to lose by sounding callous and delinquent.

Dems have some measure of moral high ground on this one, and it would do them well to talk about Iraq as our mess, not just Iraqis'. This would convince the international community that our new leadership is unlike the old--it's willing to seek diplomatic solutions, compromise, and will reassure apprehensive Iraqi civilians and government officials that the U.S. won't unilaterally disengage. A timetable will also bring regional players into the fold--it's in neighboring countries' best interests to secure a stabilized Iraq.

And all this talk of victory? Democrats need to bring that into question, too. If victory is not achievable (and it isn't) and foreign presence is only instigating more violence (after all, a fundamentalist's wet dream is extended occupation--a justification for battle), then swift redeployment is the optimal answer.

The pendulum's shifted. The dialogue and policy need to catch up to prove that we've truly witnessed what's been touted as a revolution channeled through the electoral process.

Associated Repress

2006-11-02T13:57:00.000-08:00

An AP wire story on protests in Oaxaca marginalizes those calling for Gov. Ulises Ruiz' ouster. Shocking. They're "anarchists" (in the derrogatory sense) desecrating private property, while blameless law enforcement keep the peace:

"Thank you, sirs, and may God bless you," Maria Elena Zarate said to the officers. "We are going to support these people who risk their lives to protect us," she added, weeping as protesters threw rocks at officials.

But what of those officials responsible for the death of an American journalist, a local teacher, and three non-violent demonstrators? They're not even being held in custody on murder charges.

Here's what the AP story doesn't tell you:

Throughout the last five months [The Popular Assembly of the Pueblos of Oaxaca (Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca - APPO)] have maintained their demands in Oaxaca through a peaceful, popular, democratic uprising of the people, remaining firmly within the bounds of the law. In response they have been brutally attacked most recently by plain clothes police and city officials resulting in over twelve deaths, and hundreds injured, to date. The people of Oaxaca are unarmed and continue to respond to the situation with non-violentprotest, yet in response to attacks upon them, President Vicente Fox has responded by sending in nearly 10,000 federal police further aggravating the situation and resulting in more violence against the communities of Oaxaca.
(from a UCSB press release on the movement in Oaxaca)

Their demands are not radical--Mexico's Congress has joined the call for Ruiz' resignation.

U.S. media doing what it does best--ironing out dissent.

CA Prop Voting Recommendations

2006-11-02T13:51:00.000-08:00

á la CAP.

Like a caricature of himself.

2006-11-01T15:32:00.000-08:00

This guy can't be for real, it's just too good:

Dear Editor:
The liberal threat to our children goes way beyond refusing to let kids be implanted with radio frequency identification devices. Consider these other liberal outrages that I've come across: Some school districts in the clutch of tree-hugging, godless liberals have refused to allow as much time to the teaching of intelligent design as they do to the "theory" of evolution. Children in these liberal backwaters are being denied access to the full range of intellectual thought on the important question of "Where do we come from?"
I've read that some parents of the pinko political persuasion refuse to take their kids to McDonald's restaurants, depriving said young Americans of the beefy goodness and wholesome entertainment value that only a mega-Mac with Cheese 'n' Fries Happy Meal can provide. Yet these same Green Party-supporting socialists think nothing of stopping off at Starbucks for a grande blended chai latte on the way to their kid's soccer practice, exposing the child to countless free-floating ADHD-inducing caffeine molecules. --Pete Cockerell, Palo Alto

If it is a fake (al beit pretty authentic, lacking only an Osama reference), the staff at the Daily Journal is either a.) pulling our leg or b.) so scared shitless of the liberal label that they'll print any cockamamie rant sure to earn them krazy konservative kred (wow, went too far there, didn't I).

He must realize no self-respecting pinko would be caught dead at a Starbucks.

Simply gah-jus

2006-10-31T10:19:00.000-08:00

from the Chronic-WHUT!-le. (yea, I said it.)

2006-10-30T19:50:00.000-08:00

Found on Fillmore St:

Talk amongst yaselves.

On a related note, here's Regina Spektor wooing the crowd at the Fillmore--anti-folk hipster darling that she is. She had everyone eating out of the palm of her hand, not a dry seat in the house.

Pitchfork nails it, though they think her blushing modesty does her a disservice:

She reaches her audience's ears and heartstrings through feigned naivete. The I'm-just-a-wee-lass stance is apparent throughout Soviet Kitsch, as well as her live performances, where she's been known to pout and giggle and murmur and feed the crowd chocolates.

That coy bashful schtick she'd lay on thick between songs was likely part of the performance, though I found nothing ingenuine about it, and she was anything but self-important. It was endearing and disarming, not overbearing or put on--the whimsy she had on reserve for when she wasn't teasing the microphone with those bombshell ruby lips or mesmerizing us with the range and dexterity of that polished instrument she calls a voice. Cause let's be honest, who needs to be a concert pianist when you've got one of those?

Check out this live show only gem:

You know that statue
Yhat statue of baby jesus
In the window
In the window of the 99 cent store
Last night I saw the owner kiss it
And whisper in its ear
I was walking home from walgreen's
And he did not hear me see him
And on the
Very very next morning
All the subway cars were hallelu-leluing
Welcome back the baby king, the baby king
All the believers they were smiling
And winking at each other
I could honestly say I was scared for my life.

Followed by a howling refrain of "BELIEVE! BELIEVE! BELIEVE!" Sacrilicious.

Future Preacher of the House?

2006-09-29T10:06:00.000-07:00

"Forty is a number fraught with meaning in the Bible, whether it is the Jews and the Gaza, Noah and his wife and the ark, or Christ in the desert,'' Pelosi said she reminded the House Democratic caucus.

Oye, I've heard of Democrats going out of their way to appeal to the "faith community," but that's pretty over the top.

It'll take more than biblical forecasting and heavenly appeals to unseat fear-mongering congressional Republicans armed with this kind of language:

"Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists,'' Hastert charged Wednesday night after the bill passed. "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled if we followed the Democrat plan.''

Nevermind empty threats of foreign attack. Yesterday freedom and civil liberties were dealt a lethal blow right at home, by none other than Denny and his cohorts. Kiss habeas corpus goodbye. And now it's entirely at the president's discretion who's labeled an enemy combatant and thereby elligible to be subjected to cruel and inhumane punishment (including rape, since that apparently no longer qualifies as "torture"). And all the while mainstream media lauds the bill as a "compromise" (despite few White House concessions) focusing solely on political rather than historical ramifications of the legislation.

They've got Dems shaking in their boots.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

Rather than cowering, a winning strategy from Democrats would be to stand firmly on principle and call out their opponents for corrupting the very fabric of democratic ideals in the name of a false sense of security. Clearly prayers and acquiesence haven't gotten them anywhere.

Students mobilized...on Facebook

2006-09-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

At last, student activism has been reinvigorated.

"Now's the time to give them constructive criticism and to let them know that we're not going to go quietly in the night. We're here to stay, we want significant change. Let's work!"

What single issue could mobilize 360,000 high school and college students (and counting) in about two days' time? Not the rising cost of higher education. Not genocide, or a bloody civil war and occupation. And warrantless wiretapping? Though that poses a much more significant threat to personal privacy, it's got nothin on ::gasp:: changes to Facebook. Jake's on it:

The response has been overwhelming. The entire community is rising up and creating groups upon groups criticizing the new features, which are called "minifeed" and "newsfeed". Walls and discussion forums in the new groups are bustling with rapid chatter. People are placing anti-minifeed messages in their status updates and profiles, as well.

The massive "Students against Facebook News Feed Group" is like a microcosm of the larger political sphere, with representatives from every faction lining up, offering their two cents about the change that rocked their world (or didn't). You've got net-evangelists starting a discussion entitled "WHAT REALLY MATTERS IN LIFE (it's about God, y'all)," and my personal favorite, the archetypal "love-it-or-leave-it" conservative:

P.D. (Grand Rapids CC) wrote:
grow up, shut up, and if you want, LEAVE FACEBOOK. no one is making you stay.

a la South Park--"If you don't like america, then you can git out!"
I'll admit, it's pretty impressive. Jake concludes:

This is the single greatest spectacle of youth activism I have ever witnessed.

Knowing Jake, there's probably a little more than a hint of sarcasm in that. I think he's right to be cynical though, that there doesn't seem to be much else in the real world worth celebrating on the student activism front. Though this perfectly illustrates the power of netroots activism, I can't help but feel discouraged. Internet activism (while it can't replace the real thing) has huge potential, but only if people have their priorities straight, and there's clearly something seriously wrong in that department. Maybe I'm just nay-saying. "Always nay-saying...everything I create!"

I'm willing to bet that the majority of these students are far more active in online networks than in any organizing around real issues and policies impacting their communities at the local level, much less at the national or international level. Why? Because it's easy and requires only a mouse click or two. Sadly, that's no replacement for honest-to-god organizing in the flesh. And thanks to the way MSM reports it and what it chooses to prioritize(you knew it had to come back to that), what's really happening is no more real than what happens on the internet.

Remember that Le Tigre song, "Get Off the Internet"? I don't need to tell anyone here how the web is a powerful tool for organizing. There's no doubt about it. It democratizes communication and the flow of ideas (though the digital divide must be narrowed to improve access for less priviledged communities), and that's why the net neutrality fight is such an important one. But the song's got a point:

It's about how demoralizing "cyber-activism" can be...I think it’s really important that people remember not to become isolated in their apartments or in their offices with their e-mail and understand that there is a real place for activism that isn’t so language-based. People get so involved in online discourse that it sort of becomes meaningless -- it’s kind of like being in a hall of mirrors or something. That’s what that song is about to me -- it’s about actually remembering what your priorities are.

"Get off the internet! I'll meet you in the street!"

...or I'll just sit at my laptop for another 48 straight hours.

****

Okay, ONE LAST THING and I've said my peace.

Perhaps there is something to be said for Facebook as a surveillance tool. If anything, this is what users should be holding its owners accountable for, instead of something like the "news feed," which on relative terms does little to change the actual database, besides cluttering an otherwise pretty straightforward interface. Sure, now you can know the moment when someone breaks up and friends someone new, or messages someone, or scratches their ass. But investors' links to CIA information gathering projects on? Meh. And though Facebook denies trasmitting information on students, one can't help but be weary:

One lucky Oklahoma student who posted an unsavory comment about President Bush received a friendly Secret Service visit. Saul Martinez, a sophomore member of a “Bush Sucks” Facebook group, responded to another student’s assertion that his pet fish would make a better President, posting a comment along the lines of “Or we could all donate a dollar and raise millions of dollars to hire an assassin to kill the president and replace him with a monkey.” Four months later, Martinez found himself being questioned by a secret service agent who thought he might be a trained assassin.

You know the CIA's got some serious issues if it's relying on Facebook.

But just keep it in mind next time you join the "Bush sucks" group. If there even is a Facebook tomorrow.

Happy defanged Labor Day

2006-09-04T22:30:00.000-07:00

Ah yes, the first Monday in September. The end of summer, the start of the school year and campaign season, and (who's really counting?) "labor" day--a day so stripped of its historical significance and dissociated from its proletarian roots that you're hard pressed to find a U.S. citizen able to distinguish it from Veteran's Day or Memorial Day. According to a Rasmussen poll,

Thirty-eight percent (38%) say they take the day to celebrate the contributions of society's labor force and 45% say they use the day to mark the unofficial end of summer. Sixteen percent (16%) aren't sure what they celebrate on Labor Day.

And of course today isn't recognized outside the U.S., because ironically, the original Labor Day--International Worker's Day—established in this country to commemorate the Chicago Haymarket Massacre and the struggle for an 8 hour work day, was celebrated worldwide already on May 1^st. What gives?

The holiday's burgeoning popularity led Congress, in 1894, to establish "Labor Day" in September to honor American workers -- a holiday established, not by ordinary workers themselves as an expression of empowerment, but by big business and their Congressional apologists, as a way to try to dictate what workers were and weren't allowed to celebrate.

One day belonged to the workers; the other 365 days belonged to big business, and we were to work as many hours of those days as business pleased.

May Day was a day won by workers, begrudgingly conceded by the government, only to be rendered an empty gesture towards those deserving far greater recognition for their part in the struggle for dignity and protection in the workplace.

Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at UCSB and the go-to guy on the Walmartization of the global economy, explained how this year, the Great American Boycott on May Day reclaimed the holiday:

…Demonstrations and boycotts return the American protest tradition to its turn-of-the-20^th-century ethnic proletarian origins—a time when, in the United States as well as in much of Europe, the quest for citizenship and equal rights was inherent in the fight for higher wages, stronger unions, and more political power for the working class.

And it looks like more actions like the marches on May 1^st are scheduled around the country in the coming week.

****

Today, only 12.5% of the workforce is unionized, and the same poll conducted on the public recognition of Labor Day concluded that (try to resist the urge to vomit)

More Americans have a favorable opinion of retail giant Walmart (69%) than Labor Unions (58%).

Those are some pretty despicable numbers. But how representative are they? Do they really indicate the decline in union support that corporate

America

keeps trumpeting? Public opinion data from a nationwide survey by respected pollster Peter Hart in 2005 found 53 percent of nonunion workers - that's more than 50 million people - want to join a union, if given the choice.

David Sirota of the SF Chronicle says “Bashing organized labor is a Republican pathology, to the point where unions are referenced with terms reserved for military targets." He cites an article headlined "GOP readies for War With Big Labor.”

I had a pretty looney econ professor who used the classroom as a platform for his tirades against unions, accusing them of single-handedly upending the purported natural stability of the free market, and of representing only a cabal of the selfish elite workers out to profit at the expense of unorganized lower income labor. Corporations, on the other hand, were blameless. Naturally.

Daraka Larimore-Hall is an organizer and grad student at UCSB. He’s got a thing or two to say about “big labor.”

Corporations outspend unions 24 to 1 on political donations, and yet they are often discussed as if they are identical threats to the democratic system. Not only do employers have more power in the economy and in the workplace, they have more power in the political process: more money to give, more leverage over elected officials, more access to media.

…And let’s not kid ourselves: there is a moral distance between corporations, which are driven by profit, and democratic organizations which represent millions of people at the bottom of the economic ladder. All things are not equal when they chose to intervene in politics. One does so for the benefit of the many, the other for the benefit of the few. It’s that simple.

A couple years back, Daraka gave a talk at a Campus Dems meeting, where he delivered a call to action along with the most convincing argument I’d heard on the direct correlation between the success of the Democratic party and the strength of union organizing:

It is not an accident that as unions have waned, so has the “traditional” Democratic Party. We can wring our hands and talk about using the internet to "take back America", or we can understand that that fight happens in workplaces and neighborhoods across the United States. It is in organizing drives, Living Wage struggles, house meetings and city council elections from Seattle to Miami. Everywhere, labor is a part of those battles. Unions are far more than a national ATM machine for tepid, “liberal” candidates. Labor is the heart and soul of our progressive future.

On this day (more like every day), labor in California deserves to be commended for a number of victories over the past year, with voters’ rejection of Prop 75, the Living Wage campaign’s success in Santa Barbara, coalition building for immigrant and labor rights around May Day mobilizations, and we can all thank a union-led movement for a successful campaign to pass recent legislation boosting the state minimum wage to $8 by 2008. But given the record of expanding corporate influence and systematic labor suppression in recent decades, there’s clearly still a lot standing in the way of progressive labor policies, and a great deal of work to be done—just not on oh-so-generous day off, right?

Same old story.

2006-08-21T12:05:00.000-07:00

Between this and an overdose of Lou Dobbs in the airport, I've had about all I can take. Here's my response to a video on the doctored Reuters photos that my friend forwarded me from Aish, a conservative Jewish org:

This makes my blood boil. There's nothing I detest more than misinformation in mainstream news media. But I'm afraid press misinformation is a much broader pandemic, and not in the way one might believe after seeing that video (which was not surprisingly produced by a right-wing religious organization). The video deliberately avoids a much more significant point to push its own agenda.

The truth is, mainstream media in the US is in no hurry to rush to Hezbollah's defense (or the defense of the Lebanese, Palestinian, or Iraqi people, for that matter). What most Americans see and read and hear is utterly uncritical of Israel, just as it is uncritical of the conservative DC establishment--which along with even the most "left-leaning" democrats voted by a huge margin last month to unconditionally endorsed Israel's attacks (that means you, Babs). Israel's role in the instigation of conflict is often neglected by allegedly "liberal" papers like the Times and the Post, and network television leaves considerably more out of its coverage. That's what happens when you've got NBC's parent company building the bombs Israel imports from the U.S.

The organization that created this video is using a time-honored conservative technique--maintaining power by propagating their image as a weak and embattled minority. Think of Christians--"the war on Christmas," or even our friends at The Fund for American Studies--because everyone knows there are too damn many liberals in econ and polisci departments out there, and not enough money in conservative think tanks to raise a whole new generation of conservative leaders!

Regardless of whether those pictures were doctored, the fact is that Israel was responsible for that destruction, teddybear in the foreground or not. Nearly a million have been displaced and over a thousand innocent lives have been taken (many many more on the Lebanese side), and the "Paris of the Middle East" has been decimated. The capture of a soldier does not violate international law. The murder of civilians does, and an Israeli life is no more worthy or news coverage than a Palestinian one or a Lebanese one.

You're certainly not getting the whole truth when outlets give no coverage to the disproportionate toll of Israel military actions on the Lebanese people. Or what about when antiwar viewpoints were silenced in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq? How about the recent ruling by a federal judge that deemed Bush's warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional--it was ignored entirely (or only discussed by conservative legal experts) in favor of coverage of Ramsey developments. Jon Stewart did the math--10 year old murder of rich white beauty queen>Israel breaking the ceasefire>occupation of Iraq lasting longer than the US invovlement in WWII.

I have a million bones to pick with the media. That's why I want to be involved in its reform. But if one is criticizing the media, it should be for a tendency towards infotainment and the shuttering of opposing views that's so symptomatic of concentrated ownership and conservative corporate domination. So before jumping on the "liberal media" bandwagon ("Reuters is helping the terrorists!"), please consider the much more sophisticated smoke and mirrors techniques employed by the media at large.

P.S. Here's a story on the blogger from LittleGreenFootballs that challenges some of his accusations.

Walking the earth

2006-07-23T16:08:00.000-07:00

At home for a week between continents, recovering from a wee parasite (I'll spare the details), and reflecting on 2 weeks of intense trekking through Morocco and Andalucia.

The sights and sounds and smells were absolutely mind-blowing on their own, but the people I spent time with have stuck with me even more--hugely insightful, impassioned, and beyond generous locals and travellers from around the world. Together they comprised a tiny sample of the brightest and most open-minded people out there, people I feel so privileged to have met and bonded with so quickly in our short time together. There were so many times when I felt surrounded by such warmth and mutual understanding...when I would be talking to someone, and we'd be trying to express something complex and so much greater than ourselves in a foreign tongue, and despite every artificial barrier that's been built between us, we got one another. No problem. It was so simple we'd be in tears--if only it were always so easy.

This quote articulated that emotion, that feeling that our interactions, and just being there, especially now--watching Beirut on TV in the old medina in Fes--that was impactful in a much larger way:

"If I were 21, I would walk the Earth. I would go barefoot longer; I'd learn how to throw a frisbee, I'd go braless if I were a woman and I would wear no underwear if I were a man. I'd play cards and wear the same pair of jeans until they were so stiff they could get up and strut around the room by themselves...So don't take the short road. Fool around. Have fun...You're not going to get this time back. Don't panic and go to graduate school and law school. This nation has enough frightened, dissatisfied yuppies living in gated communities, driving SUV's and wondering where their youth went. We need you to walk the earth, so that other nations can see the beauty of American youth, rather than seeing our young in combat fatigues behind the barrel of an M-16." --James McBride, Pratt University commencement address class of 2005

Thanks to Allie for this--and for the Morocco suggestions. She's my travel mentor :)

She's baaaaaack...

2006-06-25T21:10:00.000-07:00

Graduation has yet to hit me like a bus...2 months of travelling this summer will pretty effectively soften the blow and provide for a cooshy landing. But come fall, I'd best have a job--doing some print or broadcast journalism, in theory. Indy stuff- if I'm lucky, at KPFA. In the meantime, thought I'd try to start posting regularly again, get a routine going. Just some pseudo-journalism for now--op-eds from the Daily Nexus.

Hasta la Vista Arnold
Governator’s Surprise Visit Was Simply a Ploy

Published Tuesday May 9, 2006

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger paid UCSB one of his signature stealth visits in the wee hours of Saturday morning. Touting a new bond initiative as part of his reelection campaign, Schwarzenegger and his crew shut down Davidson Library - to the dismay of those hoping to get a jump on midterm studying - for a cozy press conference. What, you weren’t invited? Not even local law enforcement knew about it until Friday night.

Perhaps Arnold thought that by scheduling his appearance on the morning after Cinco de Mayo he could sidestep protests because everyone would be too hung over to bother. But, au contraire - armed with only their phones and e-mails, tenacious UCSB activists were able to mobilize an impressive “welcome” crew late Friday night.

The governor hasn’t had the best reception in Santa Barbara, to say the least - hundreds turned out last October to protest his hush-hush, invitation-only “town hall” meeting for his failed special election. On the morning after Halloween in 2004, he visited the Elephant Bar in Goleta to endorse Bob Pohl, who lost the 35th District Assembly race to Pedro Nava. Students and concerned community members, there to voice opposition to education funding cuts and the Governor’s pro-business agenda, were written off as “special interests.”

Wherever Schwarzenegger makes an appearance, protests follow. Is it any wonder why he would keep a low profile when his approval rating is second only to the president’s dismal numbers?

When you hear Schwarzenegger touting his unwavering support for education and California students, beware. This man is no friend to higher education. In the past three years he has allowed our fees to rise. Have you seen that money come back to our campus in more classrooms, cheaper textbooks or more financial aid? Or did it go straight to the bank accounts of the UC system’s top staffers in the form of bonuses and outrageous salary hikes?

Let’s all sit back and watch as Schwarzenegger claims credit for freezing our fees this year, when the real credit belongs the UC Student Association (UCSA) and their strong lobbying efforts with legislative leaders and the governor. It was not a benevolent leader, but students themselves that saved us each $500 this year.

But lo and behold, it’s an election year again. We are beginning to hear the rhetoric and shameless pandering from our loving governor. But we see through it. This is all too little, too late. I would at least have expected him to have a few token UCSB students standing behind him at the press conference. No doubt our campus still contains a few star-struck shills who still marvel at how it’s “f-ing sweet that the Terminator is our governor!”

We were also disappointed that Chancellor Henry T. Yang, usually a great champion of students, allowed Davidson Library to close for two hours during midterm time for what was nothing more than a cheap photo-op for political gain.

The upcoming primary election June 6 will be the first step toward getting a real champion of students and higher education into office. Providing much more than empty rhetoric, Democratic candidates like Phil Angelides for governor and Jackie Speier for lieutenant governor have fought for California’s students and schools. If elected in November, we can be sure they will use their political office for substantive change, not photo-ops.

---------------

Readers Should Remain Skeptical of the News They Read, Press Makes Mistake

Published Thursday June 1, 2006

I was extremely disappointed after reading Elana Wenocur’s column (“Iran’s Wristbands Are Reminiscent of Nazi Germany,” Daily Nexus, May 24, 2006). Wenocur expressed her horror upon reading an article by Amir Taher printed in the conservative Canadian National Post about legislation that would institute a dress code for religious minorities in Iran. Her dismay would be quite understandable - if the story were true. However, the column she read - and that many others have undoubtedly been misled by - was a hoax pushed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the preeminent Israeli lobby AIPAC.

On May 19, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement acknowledging that “while it is factual that the Iranian parliament is considering some kind of dress code, there is no evidence of any discussion or legislation concerning badges or the like for Jews and others.” The following day, both Reuters and the Associated Press corroborated ADL’s report, which refuted the National Post author’s claims by obtaining a copy of the Iranian bill and listening to a broadcast of the parliamentary session where it was given preliminary approval. The false allegations have since been acknowledged by the Jewish Week and other pro-Israel publications.

Wenocur’s op-ed was published on the May 24 - the day the National Post issued an apology and retracted its story, and five days after it had first been called into question. Public opinion is built to a large extent upon stories transmitted by the press. Editors are to be held responsible for validating the factual content of columns before they are published and seen by thousands of readers. The media have a solemn responsibility to ensure they do not propagate an alarmist agenda intended to drum up domestic support for belligerent foreign policy.

I feel strongly that it is a civic duty to stay informed on world events and that inflammatory stories like Taheri’s should be viewed with healthy skepticism. Misconceptions are best challenged through education - the hugely successful panel on Iran a couple weeks ago in I.V. Theater was proof that there are many in our community who would rather get informed and seek the truth than hastily jump to conclusions.

It’s important to avoid provocative statements and casually toss around the notion that Iran, or any other nation for that matter, “is developing nuclear weapons.” Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It has not violated International Atomic Energy Agency regulations, and according to U.S. intelligence reports, the country is at least a decade away from producing any weapons.

In an effort to promote peace and stability - which ultimately will serve to protect Israel’s interests, too - I think it’s crucial to highlight efforts made toward brokering a diplomatic solution to recent escalations.

Last week the Washington Post reported that President Ahmadinejad followed up his letter to the White House with yet another overture for diplomatic negotiations. Paul Pillar, a recently retired senior CIA Middle East intelligence analyst said, “There is no question in my mind that there has been for some time a desire on the part of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a dialogue with the United States.”

At this critical moment, it’s in everyone’s best interest to emphasize diplomacy and constructive discourse, and avoid exaggerated rhetoric.

-----------------

That last one precipitated a giant pissing contest on the Facebook with an Israeli student. Not the first time that's happened. And from what I've seen after 4 years at UCSB, there's a pretty vocal (to say the least) pro-Israel community at UCSB. The Nexus has successfully engaged these folks and maintained a steady tradition of perpetuating the Arab/Israeli conflict on its editorial pages. That is, of course, when they're not busily debating the finer points of masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with a little intellectual masturbation now and again, am I right folks? Am I right? Oh the irony and the awful jokes. Yep, I'm blogging again. Only hopefully this time, no one's reading.

And for all the shit I talk about the Nexus, all I gotta say is--man...I'll miss having a surefire way to get published.

Juan Cole gives plenary address at UCSB ME Studies Conference

2006-03-26T16:20:00.000-08:00

Interview with Prof. Juan Cole posted at SBIndymedia.

Faiza Al-Araji brings the realities of Iraq to Isla Vista

2006-03-11T19:09:00.000-08:00

I had the chance to interview Iraqi blogger and civil engineer Faiza Al-Araji after facilitating a workshop on corporate media at the rained out IV Peace Fest today. Al-Araji was on Democracy Now! last week with part of a delegation of Iraqi women on a speaking tour through CodePink and Global Exchange. Two of the women scheduled to speak were denied travel visas--their families had been killed, and they were told they couldn't prove they had any incentive to return home after their tour. How's that for twisted logic.

More on Al-Araji's argument that sectarian differences have been exploited as a "divide and conquer" strategy soon. Iraqi authors and bloggers have been among what seems like only a handful of critical voices challenging the "imminent civil war" assumption. It's worth investigating--the whole justification for "staying the course" falls apart if it's true the Iraqi peoples' national identity is stronger than any sectarian affiliation and that disorder is perpetuated mostly by occupying forces.

The straw that broke the elephant’s back?

2006-01-17T12:22:00.000-08:00

last week in the Daily Nexus...

By most accounts, 2005 was a tough year. In the political realm, it was particularly inauspicious for Republican leadership. Here in California, voters flatly rejected Schwarzenegger’s 50 million dollar waste of a special election, a defeat which prompted an unusually contrite Governator to concede last week, “I have learned my lesson.” Other California politicians didn't have it so easy—Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham was forced to step down in December after admitting he’d accepted millions in bribes.

And Republicans’ troubles only got worse at the federal level. In the Executive branch, Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby resigned after being indicted for lying to officials investigating the potential retaliatory White House outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. And let’s not forget that Patrick Fitzgerald, the Justice Department special counsel that charged Libby, has kept his investigation open, and could ultimately implicate Karl Rove—Bush’s own advisor. In Congress, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist came under investigation for insider trading charges, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted for money laundering. DeLay dismissed the charges as a partisan attack, but recently abandoned hope of regaining his seat.

As the year of Republican cronyism drew to a close, the plot grew thicker. Enter Jack Abramoff, “super” lobbyist, who plead guilty last week to 3 felony counts for using millions in casino income to peddle influence in Washington. Abramoff not only gave bribes, but also lavish trips and meals, exclusive tickets, and jobs for relatives to sway Republican lawmakers, who (as we know from our high school civics classes) are forbidden from accepting gifts. Abramoff’s plea deal could see him testify against his former associates. Prior to Abramoff’s plea, a Congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution speculated we could be witnessing the biggest scandal in a century.

Before anyone rushes to the Republican party’s defense and makes this a bipartisan issue, let’s drop the talking points and Bush’s assertion that Abramoff was an “equal money dispensor.” Have a look at the numbers: federal records show that from 2001-2004 Abramoff gave $127,000 to some 200 members of Congress, all of which were Republican. And Bloomberg reports that Abramoff’s clients in the casino business were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors to give more money to Republicans than Democrats. It’s natural clients would donate to both parties, so this does not provide conclusive evidence that Democrats were directly involved.

With Republicans so embroiled in ethical scandals, it’s ironic to reflect back on this time last year, when a swaggering George Bush, having run on a platform of “personal responsibility” won what the mainstream media accepted as the “moral values” election (Christian conservative values). How hypocritical of Republicans to monopolize the moral high ground when they are responsible for the culture of corruption in the nation’s capital.

Far from accountable to their constituencies, Republican representatives have betrayed the public, granting their allegiance overwhelmingly to rich special interests. And the jig is up—even before Abramoff plead guilty, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll revealed that 55% of Americans would consider corruption as a deciding issue in the upcoming election, and since then, an AP-Ipsos poll found the public favoring Democratic control over Congress 49 to 36 percent.

Happily, this year is an election year, and provided Democrats aren’t afraid to be a true opposition party and follow through with Reid and Pelosi’s proposed reforms to the stagnant conservative establishment, November will provide a golden opportunity to wrest monopoly control of the legislature from Republican fat cats. The public has a duty to hold their representatives accountable, and it’s well past time that corrupt politicians were denied the power to sledgehammer their pro-corporate welfare, anti-public interest agenda into law.

In the new film Syriana, an oil company exec under investigation insists that “corruption is why we win.” But in reality, corruption is eroding public confidence in the Republican party and reversing that early 90’s revolution of “angry white men” in Congress. Corruption might have gotten them to the capital. But it’s also why this year, they’ll lose their chokehold on Washington.

This Dec 25th, I'll see you at "Osama's Homo Abortion Pot & Commie Jizzporium."

2005-12-16T22:11:00.000-08:00

Rep. John Dingell waxes poetic on the House floor:

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
No bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
And nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ..... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
Hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
When this is the season to unite us with joy.
At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
A Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.

And for all you Christmas originalists like Colbert--flaming trees, fruit shoes, and a terrifying black elf.