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

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

SFGate DIP
















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

Self-hating neocon

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

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...?!

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

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

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."

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

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

á la CAP.

Like a caricature of himself.

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

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

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?

"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

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

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.

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

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...

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

Interview with Prof. Juan Cole posted at SBIndymedia.

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

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?

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."

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.

Progressive Gifting

There's some easy ways to buy blue and green for the holidays...just thought I'd pass these along.

Instead of using Amazon for online shopping (still a red company), try Powell's or Barnes and Noble.

The best thing (besides shopping in local bookstores) is to use www.bookswelike.net--search for books, music, or DVDs, and choose which retailer you want to use from their site. A commission from your purchase goes towards their partners (Alternet, CodePink, Free Speech TV, Organic Grower's Association, etc).

Green gift ideas--Co-Op America.

And BuzzFlash has some excellent premiums they're offering in exchange for donations.

Happy Chrismukkanza.

A turkey drop for Rove

Reflections on a White House Thanksgiving:

Rove works the room, shakes hands, squeezing a little too hard to remind everyone who "the architect" really is. Everyone understands, even as they furtively wipe their hands on their pants after he touches them. Rove grabs fistfuls of baby shrimp and shoves them into his mouth when he thinks no one's looking, swallows without chewing. He smells like baby aspirin and old bacon.

Fitznukkah's almost here...

Bush blooper recap

PoliticalHumor.com:

Bush's door gaffe is merely the latest in a long string of presidential bloopers. For those of you keeping score at home, Bush has now fallen off a Segway scooter, slammed his head on Marine One, dropped his dog, desecrated a flag, choked on a pretzel, asked for a potty break, not to mention being violated by a turkey and outwitted by an umbrella.

He may be a collosal failure, but you gotta admit he's always been good for a laugh (or cry, depending). When it comes to being a fuckup, he never fails to outdo himself, so in that sense he's a winner.

Totally unexpected press coverage

Disorienting the wires...
"Profanity sprinkled" my ass.

See for yourself--www.sbdisorientation.org

UPDATE: More shameless DisO plugage, this time from (that bastion of free thought) MTV.

Total Recall Arnie

Over the din of shouting protesters kept out of an invitation-only "town hall" meeting in Santa Barbara, Mr. Schwarzenegger appealed for help in passing a package of propositions on November's ballot.

The Governator made an impromptu, very hush hush visit to SB today to promote his special election agenda. Like all things Schwarzenegger, the appearance was totally transparent and democratic--you could only find out the location and the time if you RSVPed, and though the governor's office was billing it as a "town hall," it was just him and his tiny contingent of SB cronies (where have I heard that strategy before...). Totally obscure location, in a MarBorg warehouse in the industrial part of downtown. MarBorg is the local trash collector--no punchline required there--and the huge hollow metal structure had acoustics perfectly suited for chanting. I think we drowned out the PA system, and that was just outside the building. We got in very briefly thanks to a (naturally) sympathetic construction worker, made some noise and migrated outside to the open end of the warehouse without much pushing and shoving. Totally exhilarating. Here's my silly audio, recorded during a live newscast today.

SB IndyMedia blitz

Darfur Freedom Fest
Howard Zinn at Campbell Hall

SB DisOrientation in the News Press

Lefty guide at UCSB urges return to student radicalism
By MORGAN GREEN

Part liberal manifesto and part how-to manual for radicals, the first UCSB Disorientation Guide appeared on campus last week, signaling that a new season of student activism has begun.

The "Diso" guide exhorts students to become activists and points them toward campus groups on the political left. The first copies were handed out Thursday night outside Campbell Hall to students hoping to attend a packed address by pacifist historian Howard Zinn.

While the guide is clearly aimed at students, it gives Santa Barbara a snapshot of the latest generation of liberal-leaning campus activists here, and the issues they'll be marching, and chanting, and petitioning about. It's an eclectic list, from ending the war in Iraq and opposing globalism and sweatshops, to support for unisex campus restrooms designed for disabled or transgender users.

The guide is not an official UCSB publication. Its creators, eight students and former students, acknowledged that so many students have come and gone since the heyday of counterculture and anti-Vietnam movements at UCSB that many are only dimly aware of even the infamous 1970 torching of the Bank of America in Isla Vista. In an attempt to revive the spirit, but not necessarily the violence, of the "old days," the guide details the history of student activism here. The last mass event noted is a 2003 march by about 1,000 students protesting the Iraq war as part of a nationwide student walkout. Tanya Paperny, a student and guide organizer, said that is why the Diso guide is needed. "A lot of people have passion for certain issues, but never direct it to work on campus because UCSB has this reputation for being apathetic."

The guide drew some criticism before it came off the press. One contributor, a UCSB staff member, objects to some of its raw language. And the leader of College Republicans has questioned the propriety of cash contributions by some professors to help pay for printing costs.

Only 1,300 or so copies of the guide are in print, but its cyber version evidently is getting attention. Since the www.sbdisorientation.org site was completed a few weeks ago, it has received more than 6,000 "hits," said Darwin BondGraham, a graduate student who helped organize the project.

The Diso guide covers aspects of campus life that are not seen in UCSB's official orientation materials, he said.

Similar guides have appeared recently at several universities nationwide, including Columbia, Stanford and the University of Texas at Austin. UC Berkeley has produced an online "Disorientation Zine" for 10 years. Last year, UC Santa Cruz produced a guide that was downloaded by more than 8,500 visitors, according to the UCSC guide Web site.

The self-defined radical publication at UCSB comes at a time the volume of campus discourse is rising over issues such as the war in Iraq, the presence of military recruiters on campus, the ban on affirmative action, and state funding cuts. Although only a few hundred out of 20,000 undergraduates consistently participate in grass-roots political activities, conservative and liberal student groups have been increasingly visible on campus in the past year or so. Both sides spent time this summer gearing up for the start of the fall term.

On the right, the long-established UCSB College Republicans spent part of the summer arranging to bring conservative pundit Ben Stein to UCSB on Thursday. They hope he will sway opinions ahead of an expected faculty vote later this fall on whether to keep military recruiters on campus, said Sally Marois, the UCSB College Republicans president. By the 11th day of classes, campus Republicans also conducted Support Our Troops days, gathering signatures on a banner to send to a UCSB alumnus in Iraq.

Also over the summer, the Disorientation Guide's creators solicited students, staff and others for articles and assembled the publication and Web site. "We want to help build up the antiwar movement, get the word out about different progressive organizations," said Mr. BondGraham.

The Diso guide includes biting profiles of UC regents, and commentaries on topics from feminism and corporate media to proper "queer" terminology and the value of blogs. It has interviews with the campus's "most politically active" professors, and a directory of liberal organizations on campus and in Santa Barbara.

UCSB staff member Barbara Hirsch, who co-authored a guide page listing UCSB's environmental accomplishments, lamented that the publication's raw four-letter-word language might be counterproductive. There could be a more positive way of expressing it, she said.

But Will Parrish, a former UC Santa Cruz student who brought the guide idea to Santa Barbara, defends the language. "One of the things we were trying to do is appeal to students in a way that they don't think we're part of the establishment, or what we're doing is watered down in any way."

Some UCSB professors who donated up to $100 for the guide's printing costs stepped over the line, said Ms. Marois. "I think it would be inappropriate for (the College Republicans) to have professors listed under our magazine, The Gaucho Free Press, or to give us money."

One of the donors, Dick Flacks, a sociology professor and outspoken liberal, said he has not read the guide yet. "In fact, I will probably disagree with a lot in it."

In any case, he said that he can contribute to it what he wants when he wants. He also said that he believes it is only inappropriate for professors to sponsor something "that would cause injury to the institution or individuals. I thought (the guide) was a nice project for the students to have worked on."

LA Times raises eyebrows (and eyelids)

On A14 of the LA Times, the headline reads:

DeLay Is Indicted Again' Charges Are Graver

At the bottom corner of the page below the fold, the ad reads:

For more beautiful eyes, go to an Eyelid Specialist
...This means tha tif you have droopy upper lids, baggy lower lids and fine lines and wrinkles, Dr. Fett's advanced knowledge of eyelid structure combined with years of experience as a laser eyelid specialist, can give your eyes a more natural, balanced and beautiful look.

I kid you not. Coincidence? Maybe...but a ridiculously funny one, nonetheless. DeLay--doctors may have been able to make you look a little less like Droopy, but my guess is they probably won't be able to save you from jail.

Norman Solomon at UCSB

Audio at SBIndyMedia.

Facebook's CIA ties?

The Facebook.com: Big Brother with a Smile

The article plays six degrees of Kevin Bacon--The Facebook received $13 million in venture capital from Accel Partners--a firm whose manager sits on the board of the National Venture Capital Association alongside members of the CIA's datawarehousing group In-Q-Tel.

I'm a little skeptical, seems like a bit of a stretch...though I suppose the Facebook wouldn't need any direct government links, since it's a pretty useful, self-sustaining database on its own, and I suppose it could be used for surveillance...though the CIA must really be scrounging if they need the Facebook to keep track of radical students. Meh, if they started using it, they'd probably get addicted to it and waste all their time looking up friends from middle school anyway.

In any case, though the author comes off as a bit paranoid, he's got a good strategy:

So in the meantime I am using TheFaceBook to my advantage. I have listed myself as a “Very Conservative” intern at the Dan Quayle Library with a penchant for books by Oliver North.

I figure if they were really hell bent on going after someone like me, my CodePink alliegance is on FBI file, and that'd be enough to make me ripe for the Thought Police's picking.

One last conspiracy theory before I go--Deadly Bacteria Detected in US Capital During Anti-War March. No symptoms thus far.

Alright, removing the tin foil hat now.

Best spammed comment ever

Refreshingly honest, aren't we?:

Like your blog, ...better than mine.!!..lol... perhaps you may like my AdwareHowdy!, nice little blog you have here, if you'd like a peek at my Adware related site, feel free...if you like Adware stuff that is.... :-)

Make levees, not war...

Pictures from my weekend in DC...courtesy of Tizzie P.

Pink line, Metro

Audio of an interview with Medea Benjamin and more photos on SBIndyMedia

A sea of people...only knew about it cause I saw it with my own eyes, sincenaturally big media was MIA. You'd think I would've learned, or at least quit complaining by now.

In a headline that summed up the absurdity of this type of coverage, the Washington Post reported (9/25/05): "Smaller but Spirited Crowd Protests Antiwar March; More Than 200 Say They Represent Majority." Perhaps this "crowd" felt that way because they've grown accustomed to a media system that so frequently echoes their views, while keeping antiwar voices--representing the actual majority opinion--off the radar.

And as much as I hate to admit it, what really gets me is when the campus paper dismisses us by cherry-picking stories from the wires and printing them under headlines like "U.S. Soldiers Receive Praise in Pro-War Demonstration." Sent them an angry letter, but no dice. Guess I'll stick to broadcast journalism.

Katrina--Bush's Monica

The Daily Show's back in full swing--"Bush will build a billion dollar damn in Arkansas...we're fighting the water over there, so we don't have to fight it at home, in New Orleans."

[M]ost chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection — or at least amelioration — against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological. It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.

You'd only hear a line like that on alternative news outlets, right? That was Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Hot damn, we have ourselves a critical, aggressive media.

"Let them eat cake"

From DN!:

Barbara Bush: Relocation is "Working Very Well For Them"
While the federal government has been widely criticized for its slow response, former First Lady Barbara Bush told the radio show Marketplace that the relocation is "working very well" for some of those forced out of New Orleans since they were "underprivileged anyway." This is Barbara Bush speaking at the Astrodome in Houston. "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this working very well for them," Bush said.

Not surprising, coming from her. She tends to turn her nose up at unsavory news (from ThinkProgress):

Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it’s gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?

That attitude is just par for the course. Recall Al Franken's hellish experience meeting Former First Lady Antoinette:

In his knee-slapping 2003 book Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them), Franken relates an encounter with Barbara Bush on a flight to Washington. After describing his unsuccessful effort to pick up a conversation with Bush--the former First Lady rebuffed each approach with, "I'm through with you"--Franken quotes several unnamed "Washington insiders," both Republicans and Democrats, who thought it was funny that Franken regarded Bush's dismissive attitude of him as a form of kidding. Franken writes that at a Bat Mitzvah in Washington soon after his Barbara Bush encounter, "I kept hearing things like: 'Oh no, she's a horrible bitch.' 'Omigod, she's the worst bitch on earth.' 'She can be very charming, but Barbara Bush is the Queen Bitch.'" Then he writes, "But another, even more interesting, insight came from everyone who knew the Bushes. They all agreed. 'Dubya is her son.' He's mean."

You'd probably be mean too if you bore someone as hated as Bush. Or maybe she raised him to be the way he is. Chicken or the egg?

@%$&*#!!

Asshat Homeland Security chief:

"The critical thing was to get people out of there before the disaster," he said on NBC's "Today" program. "Some people chose not to obey that order. That was a mistake on their part."

That's about as cold and ignorant as something I'm pretty sure I heard Dr. Joyce Brothers say on CNN about looters making it "difficult for us to have sympathy for hurricane victims." Though I did hear Harry Connick Jr. say during the same program that he wouldn't pass judgement on people doing what they can to survive.

Warzone

From the Superdome:

"This is the most important thing they've ever done," Elliot said. "I just got back from Iraq last month. It's nothing like this. These are our people."

But it has a lot to do with Iraq, and it all ties back to the real basis for the occupation (which Bush kind of acknowledged, no?). Only you can't precision strike a force of nature--unless you count the reckless assault on the environment that precipitated the most deadly storm this country's ever seen.

They were literally knee deep in shit, with reported incidents of rape and child molestation. I share the anger of those who have rightfully dubbed the flooded areas Lake George, as tribute to the man that diverted their levee funds for the invasion and remained on vacation with feigned sympathy while they suffered.

The "little woman who stopped the war"

Sheehan has become the lone voice that kick-started a chorus. Whether Bush agrees to her demand for a meeting (and it is unlikely he will) is now largely irrelevant. The political legacy left by her summer of protest will last far longer than the ramshackle tents of Camp Casey lining the roads outside Bush's ranch. 'This is now about far more than Cindy Sheehan. She has given people the confidence to speak out about the war that they didn't have before. Finally, its OK in America to be anti-war,' Zunes said.

It's the Democrats' turn to join the choir. Conyers is leading the way, as usual, along with Kucinich. Do the rest of them really want to get shown up by the father of freedom fries?

Vindicated

Though it's been almost a year since it happened, I still think back on a conversation about "liberal education" that I had with the Fund for American Studies organizers over lunch in the cafeteria that gave rise to "freedom fries." They were justifying the crazily ideological curriculum of the program's courses as being a way to counterbalance bias in university classrooms everywhere else. At the time, I didn't know what to say beyond my feeling that professors at UCSB were liberal, but still gave the other side, while we didn't even know another side existed at CATO or in our rented classroom at Georgetown. In fact, charges of bias and principles of academic freedom were so on my professor's minds when I returned to SB that they almost gave preference to students with conservative viewpoints because they were running scared from the David Horowitzes of the right.

It's frustrating to hear even left-leaning students accept this notion of liberal bias in all of academia. But it's always good to see concrete evidence to the contrary:

The campus Left, which is still organized for the most part by students and community activists, increasingly finds itself facing off against seasoned conservative strategists. And while progressive student groups are mostly self-funded, by the mid-1990s roughly $20 million dollars were being pumped into the campus Right annually, according to People for the American Way.

That money and expertise are directed at four distinct goals: training conservative campus activists; supporting right-wing student publications; indoctrinating the next generation of culture warriors; and demonstrating the liberal academic "bias" that justifies many conservatives' reflexive anti-intellectualism.

Their argument is false, but they've got a forumlaic, well-funded strategy--and that's why they can round up kids and perpetuate such lies.

Hippie-crit

For someone who admittedly has a pretty shameful history of consumer whoredom, I'm turning into an almost hyper-conscious consumer, trying to spend money selectively and shop on principle. I'm pretty successful when it comes to food--it's what I spend the most on, and I try to go fair trade and organic all the way, partly because of the Global Exchange influence, and it also doesn't hurt that I'm living at home for now and I've got the resources to do it. Buying with a conscience can be difficult since it's often pretty expensive, and the majority of shoppers get priced out right off the bat. If you can afford it, you've still got to know where to look--and even then it's all about where you live--I doubt you'd have much success finding worker friendly and environmentally friendly foods in places like Alabama where strip malls and chain restaurants dominate.

I know where my food comes from, so you'd think I'd be just as careful about where I get my clothes. I'm more than happy to spend an extra buck at places like American Apparel (though Dov Charney is a total douchebag and the store is totally sizist--you call THAT a large?!) if it means I can wear something with the confidence that it wasn't sewn in a maquiladora. I also know the value of thrifting (since you're not directly funding exploitation when you buy second hand), but I lack the patience and skill it takes to do it often. In retrospect, I probably have spent more time researching corporate practices than I have on picking through racks of clothes at stores you can be certain donate to good causes. It's just a matter of finding those places. A lot of people, myself included, just opt for what's easy though:

While some girls really did get that embroidered blouse in the former Soviet bloc, most of them have patched together their summer wardrobes at the Gap, Urban Outfitters, or United Colors of Benneton. And most of them have done so in blissful -- or willful -- ignorance of where their clothing actually came from. Most people are at least vaguely aware that much of our clothing is produced in conditions antithetical to the values of "one world" bohemianism. Aside from the "Made In ___" tag that identifies its country of origin, it's impossible to tell just by looking at a piece of clothing whether it was manufactured by sweatshop workers. But odds are that it was.

It's pretty self-destructive--I get totally discouraged reading about abhorrent labor practices at every store that's convenient, and then I just end up feeling guilty giving in and buying the easiest (and often most expensive) thing when my jeans split down the middle (which they did last week at summer camp when I tried to do a cartwheel). There's no excuse really, I do know where this stuff is coming from, and I'm just violating my own principles by continuing to shop out of habit.

ANYWAY, now that this has turned into more of a self-flagellating live journal-esque post than anything else, I'm off to find a thrift store directory.

The noise machine and its soldering engine

I was talking politics (surprise surprise) over a bottle of wine last night with some friends in the city, when a girl I’d just met said something that gave some real insight into the despair plaguing the left. She told us she was too overwhelmed and too disgusted by conservative tactics to even join the conversation. “You can’t win,” she said.

It was just so indicative of what’s been going on with the broader movement—we’ve been attacked on all fronts by a pervasive messaging machine, and all we’ve resorted to is (at least what comes off as) reactionary bitching. I think everyone knows what the right is all about--though having lived at their policy nerve center, it could just be that I’ve been conditioned to pick up on their arguments. Still, it's never ceased to amaze me how consistent and easily recognizable right-wing, particularly free market messaging is. And the fact that I unwittingly ended up at Heritage alone proves how effective they are at drawing people in—even though their hosting me had the unintended effect of pushing me further in the opposite direction.

Ironically, the people with the most regressive politics have maintained this facade that they've got the most coherent and visionary ideas--proof that the left’s lagging on positive messaging (hopelessly abstract as that is) that all we've done is either rail against them or throw up our hands in disgust after seeing how far we've gone in the wrong direction. The fringe has had absolute control, and solid Frankian backlash rhetoric to convince everyone they’re the ones who are marginalized. With strategies that rival the Chewbacca defense, and it’s enough to make any lefty's head explode.

But all this is changing—in spite of themselves, in spite of democrat’s shortcomings as an opposition party, and even with all the republican’s catch phrases and law-bending strategery and corporate funding, they’re losing it:

The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968...

Paul Hackett, a Democrat who called the president a "chicken hawk," received 48 percent of the vote in exactly the kind of bedrock conservative Ohio district that decided the 2004 election for Mr. Bush...

Only someone as adrift from reality as Mr. Bush would need to be told that a vacationing president can't win a standoff with a grief-stricken parent commandeering TV cameras and the blogosphere 24/7.

And polls show some serious disapproval across party lines. Now isn’t the time for silence or infighting. There needs to be focus on helping their self-destruction along.

Go Cindy, go!

"I'll camp on his lawn in D.C. until he has the courtesy and the integrity and the compassion to talk to somebody whose life he has ruined." -Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, killed in combat April 4, 2004

At last, some well deserved, long overdue national attention. Cindy is a firey, loving, amazing woman, and she's completely invincible. That's what makes her vigil genius--not even Fox would dare debase or attempt to discredit her. She gave her eldest son to the supposed cause of defending this country, only to have her grief be amplified when she learned his sacrifice was unfounded and in vain.

To thank her for her patience and generosity in voicing a radio spot for CODEPINK, we did some press calls at the office Friday to help get local coverage of her trip to Crawford. I wasn't really getting my hopes up--we'd had one defeat after another in our media campaign to get Cindy's call to end the occupation on conservative airwaves, and though it seemed like it had a lot of potential at first, organizing around Downing Street had become a lost cause.

I was pretty suprised to see that her message had made headlines on Yahoo! news. Then there was a piece on CNN, and now even Foxnews.com has a story, under the stark, even disrespectful headline "Dead Marine's Mom Protests at Bush Ranch" (although they naturally had to juxtapose her story with that of a military father who supports the occupation).

At least if Rush won't hear her out, the saner members of this country will have the chance to lend her an ear.

Her letter to President Bush remains one of the most powerful statements against the Iraq war to date.

Hard work is seeing your oldest son, your brave and honorable man-child go off to a war that had, and still has, no basis in reality.

Hard work is worrying yourself gray and not being able to sleep for 2 weeks because you don’t know if your child is safe.

Hard work is seeing your son’s murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you’re enjoying the last supper you’ll ever truly enjoy again.Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son…your first born…your kind and gentle sweet baby.

Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday.

Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big “baba” into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both.

I'd join her in Texas if I could. CODEPINK has ways you can be there with her and show your solidarity. Get updates from the Camp Casey blog.

"The beginning of the end of the occupation of Iraq was on August 6, 2005, and in of all places, Crawford, Tx." -Cindy Sheehan

"Don't fill the frontlines of their war, those assholes aren't worth dying for" --Ani