Saturday Morning, 0730: I have read more pages of Derrick Jensen than any other writer. Reading his book Endgame literally turned me into a brooding mess for most of my time in Costa Rica in 2008. His evolving argument, which has its flaws on the periphery, that civilization is a destructive force and must be taken down makes me want to quit. Quit everything and go underground and commit acts of violence that I'd rather not write in a public forum.
But I don't quit. I, like most people, am a coward. I live in a cozy urban den, drink fancy drinks (occasionally in excess) and bang my head against the wall, for eleven hours everyday, trying to get 145 kids their place in the wage economy. This is my life right now.
In said life, I have two groups of friends. I have those who know the Crash (Collapse, Long Emergency etc.) is coming and discuss it and those who when pressed admit they know it's coming, but find the whole thing too "big" "dark" or "depressing" to wrap their heads around. There's a third group of course, those who don't believe in or have never considered the idea of the crash, but my relationships with them are primarily work or recreational based (read SWF teachers and soccer fans).
The current social contract is based on hope for something better, a mutual agreement based on possessed (or potential) affluence. When that affluence begins to collapse, normalcy, civility and society as we have come to understand them will be drastically redefined. This uncomfortable period of redefinition and it aftermath are The Crash.
I believe that the future of the Western World, especially the United States, looks more like The Democratic Republic of the Congo (Jensen's example) or Southern Sudan, [(my preferred analogue) a set of collapsing kleptocracies, where resources are scarce and rape is a weapon] than any of the Sci-Fi fantasies and techno-utopias we have been fed throughout our lives.
Our way of life is not sustainable.
The future will look nothing like the recent past or our tech dreams.
No Federation. No flying cars. No Rosie the Robot.
A simple dark future.
This knowledge has led me to some conclusions. 1. It is asinine that the left (especially read urbanites) have ceded the use, possession and advocacy of firearms to rural and suburban libertarians. 2. This is even more asinine when one considers the ramifications of this renouncement of the right to use of deadly force in a time of coming crisis 2a. An unarmed man in a time of want, will soon find himself wanting. 3. Based on 1, 2 and 2a, in the near future, I am going to buy a gun. 4. I will keep it in my home because I think I am probably going to have to use it to defend someone I love before I die. Because, 5. I think in the future the United States will be a lot more like Guatemala than Sweden.
Contradiction: def 3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous. def 4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
Yesterday, I had drinks with a former teaching colleague and her spouse (both of whom I like), an investment banker at a restaurant attached to the Tacoma Mall. This morning I am writing this. This is my contradiction.
I am too scared to drop everything in my life and fight, instead I try to educate urban teens so they can have a better seat at the table of industrial capitalism--the very force that is systematically killing every living thing and system on the planet. And when I am not doing that, I go tramping through the Third World, speaking passable Spanish, posing for Facebook photos and binging on mangoes.
"Oh, but I'll make sure my students are socially conscious and polite," I tell myself. They will read fluently, write well, take well organized Cornell Notes, ask higher level questions, "follow staff directions the first time they are given", make Power Points, use polite language, know how to kick ass in a job interview, have firm handshake, read The Odyssey and make eye contact when speaking to people. This is the best I can do.
It is also what I do well. What are my alternatives?
If I go underground, it means nothing. The system is too big. If I blow up a dam (which I don't really know how or want to do), it will be rebuilt. If was to kill a CEO, he will be replaced (like the otherwise mentioned hydra) and if I get caught doing any of the above, I am dead or another black man in jail.
At the two public schools that I have worked in I have been the only black male general education teacher. If I quit teaching someone who loves them less than I do or someone they can not identify with steps into my place and they are plunged back into status-quo urban educational outcomes: prison, military service or cyclical urban poverty.
Saturday afternoon, 1420: I just got home from Saturday School and so much of the above rings differently in my ears right now, especially the final paragraph, which wasn't really a complete thought to begin with. My kids are really rad and I feel energized right now.
More later.
Read More About
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Continuing the Afghanistan Conversation
The following was uploaded to YouTube on October 8th. I took German in middle school with Frau Hurlbutt, but the description is beyond my language chops.
The Google tells me it (roughly) says this:
Since 2001 the U.S. has shelled, raided and Predator droned its way across the country yet have failed to get any of the initial targets in Afghanistan. It is now 2009. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the other original targets long ago fled to Pakistan where they operate with (more or less) impunity.
The Leviathan is spent and Sys Admin is nowhere to be found.
We have nothing to show in Afghanistan: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks (according to him and us) was arrested in Pakistan, by Pakistani Intelligence Services in 2003. Not by our military. Not in Afghanistan. That capture, probably the most significant victory in the campaign against Qaeda required no invading army. That truth, although rarely stated, matters.
The Taliban controls of eighty percent of the country. Canada, our closest ally, is bowing to the will of its people and is withdrawing its forces after losing 131 of its soldiers. Afghanistan is run by druglords, warlords and recently was home to an election more corrupt than Iran's.
I, for the life of me, cannot define the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Counter terrorism? Counter insurgency (COIN)? According to some the "mission is victory!". What the hell does that even mean?
We have no defined mission; we have difficult to find enemies and we are losing. That truth, although rarely stated, matters.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew in defeat in 1989. The video below is from their occupation and is indistinguishable from our occupation. Tell me how the U.S.'s fate in Afghanistan is going to turn out any different.
The Google tells me it (roughly) says this:
Today, a group of Taliban's base camp of the American Army has attacked. On the video you can see them and prepare for the Taliban, as they attack. As a tank weapon launchers, machine guns are large caliber & at the end (from 5:20 in the video), an incredibly strong car bomb, which resembles a nuclear explosion. The number of victims is still unclear.The United Stated has spent the last eightish years in a poorly planned and undermanned nation building effort in Afghanistan. The campaign is a classical example of mission creep. The U.S. invaded in 2001 the with the intention of rounding up/killing Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the leadership & members of their al-Qaeda organization. The U.S. failed in that mission. We failed--that truth, although rarely stated, matters.
Since 2001 the U.S. has shelled, raided and Predator droned its way across the country yet have failed to get any of the initial targets in Afghanistan. It is now 2009. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the other original targets long ago fled to Pakistan where they operate with (more or less) impunity.
The Leviathan is spent and Sys Admin is nowhere to be found.
We have nothing to show in Afghanistan: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks (according to him and us) was arrested in Pakistan, by Pakistani Intelligence Services in 2003. Not by our military. Not in Afghanistan. That capture, probably the most significant victory in the campaign against Qaeda required no invading army. That truth, although rarely stated, matters.
The Taliban controls of eighty percent of the country. Canada, our closest ally, is bowing to the will of its people and is withdrawing its forces after losing 131 of its soldiers. Afghanistan is run by druglords, warlords and recently was home to an election more corrupt than Iran's.
I, for the life of me, cannot define the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Counter terrorism? Counter insurgency (COIN)? According to some the "mission is victory!". What the hell does that even mean?
We have no defined mission; we have difficult to find enemies and we are losing. That truth, although rarely stated, matters.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew in defeat in 1989. The video below is from their occupation and is indistinguishable from our occupation. Tell me how the U.S.'s fate in Afghanistan is going to turn out any different.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Lying to Ourselves on Afghanistan
On 9-11, I was still in the military, the Air Force Reserves to be specific (446th Aeromedical Staging Squadron to be exact). I was in the midst of doing my "two weeks". The day of the attacks, we all wondered if Chicago or Los Angeles would be next. People were sad and cried; people were angry and cursed. I said things about Muslims and Arabs that I am ashamed of today.
On the base, we spent most of the day locked down and blacked out. I repeatedly asked people if our urban recovery and triage units were going to be deployed and it slowly dawned on me they wouldn't because no one expected survivors.
I was in a different time and place then; I was taking a quarter off from my JuCo in the hope of getting a 45-90 day TDY to somewhere sunnier than Tacoma: Virginia, Turkey or Japan. On 9-11, the only radio signal we could get on base was from a FM station carrying Howard Stern: I lived 9-11 through Howard's play-by-play.
We all knew war was coming. When the bombing of Afghanistan began I supported it--no actually I cheered for it. I cheered as bombs fell in Kabul and CNN broadcast the nightvision footage. I cheered the dropping of Daisy Cutters on fortified bunkers that I knew were filled with the people who destroyed the World Trade Center.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Somewhere between the fall of Kabul and invasion of Baghdad, I had a Saul to Paul conversion. At Evergreen I helped plan and attended teachins against the war. On base I began loudly speaking out and had dozens of meetings with my mentor Chief Ortiz and my friends in the unit, all of which ended along the lines of "following orders" and "we have a job to do". I also attended a 02.15.2003 protest where I attacked a police line and was arrested.
I knew the war in Iraq was at best wrongheaded, but more likely as I wrote in an essay at the time "a hegemonic powergrab intended to control Middle Eastern oil and emasculate the only rival to our regional client-state, Israel".
At the same time I bought into the lie that the left has told itself over the last eight years; this lie takes two forms:
There are no protests. There are few vigils. There is no outrage. There is nothing.
Everyone is watching Saint Barry and praying for a public option that if it comes will be worthless. It is almost as if soldiers' lives don't matter. If blonde white women were being killed at the rate of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan, Nancy Grace would be camped out with the cast of The View in front of the White House with Gretta Van Sustern reporting.
To demonstrate the deterioration of the occupation, these attacks are not the work of al-Qaeda. Qaeda, the stated target of the invasion is shattered and impotent. Meanwhile, we are busy trying to nationbuild to keep the mess of a country safe enough to build natural gas pipelines to keep the lights on in Europe.
The people of Afghanistan are rising against our occupation.
The media is reporting that "a Taliban group, probably Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, that included Pakistani, Uzbek, and Arab fighters" carried out the attacks in eastern Nuristan Province (see map left). Taliban, not al Qaeda. Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin is "the most radical of the seven mujahedeen factions in fighting the Soviets in the 1980s". Here is a write up on its leader.
Over the next thirty days another forty soldiers are going to die, the month after that the same--by Christmas another 100 or so.
I have no answers, nor solutions. I am left quoting Tennyson:
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade.
On the base, we spent most of the day locked down and blacked out. I repeatedly asked people if our urban recovery and triage units were going to be deployed and it slowly dawned on me they wouldn't because no one expected survivors.
I was in a different time and place then; I was taking a quarter off from my JuCo in the hope of getting a 45-90 day TDY to somewhere sunnier than Tacoma: Virginia, Turkey or Japan. On 9-11, the only radio signal we could get on base was from a FM station carrying Howard Stern: I lived 9-11 through Howard's play-by-play.
We all knew war was coming. When the bombing of Afghanistan began I supported it--no actually I cheered for it. I cheered as bombs fell in Kabul and CNN broadcast the nightvision footage. I cheered the dropping of Daisy Cutters on fortified bunkers that I knew were filled with the people who destroyed the World Trade Center.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Somewhere between the fall of Kabul and invasion of Baghdad, I had a Saul to Paul conversion. At Evergreen I helped plan and attended teachins against the war. On base I began loudly speaking out and had dozens of meetings with my mentor Chief Ortiz and my friends in the unit, all of which ended along the lines of "following orders" and "we have a job to do". I also attended a 02.15.2003 protest where I attacked a police line and was arrested.
I knew the war in Iraq was at best wrongheaded, but more likely as I wrote in an essay at the time "a hegemonic powergrab intended to control Middle Eastern oil and emasculate the only rival to our regional client-state, Israel".
At the same time I bought into the lie that the left has told itself over the last eight years; this lie takes two forms:
Lie 1: Afghanistan is the good/right war and that Iraq was a distraction from it (Obama/John Stewart).I am not sure when I stopped telling and believing the lie, but I don't anymore. Afghanistan is worse than it was in 2002. Last night eight U.S. soldiers died in the "deadliest fight for coalition forces in Afghanistan in more than a year". These men join the forty other soldiers and Marines that have died in Afghanistan since September 1, 2009.
Lie 2: The war in Iraq was a war of empire, but reasonable people can disagree on Afghanistan.
There are no protests. There are few vigils. There is no outrage. There is nothing.
Everyone is watching Saint Barry and praying for a public option that if it comes will be worthless. It is almost as if soldiers' lives don't matter. If blonde white women were being killed at the rate of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan, Nancy Grace would be camped out with the cast of The View in front of the White House with Gretta Van Sustern reporting.
To demonstrate the deterioration of the occupation, these attacks are not the work of al-Qaeda. Qaeda, the stated target of the invasion is shattered and impotent. Meanwhile, we are busy trying to nationbuild to keep the mess of a country safe enough to build natural gas pipelines to keep the lights on in Europe.
The people of Afghanistan are rising against our occupation.
The media is reporting that "a Taliban group, probably Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, that included Pakistani, Uzbek, and Arab fighters" carried out the attacks in eastern Nuristan Province (see map left). Taliban, not al Qaeda. Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin is "the most radical of the seven mujahedeen factions in fighting the Soviets in the 1980s". Here is a write up on its leader.
Hekmatyar , a favorite of the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate, received the greatest portion of foreign assistance to the mujahedeen.1 Hekmatyar trained Afghan and foreign guerilla fighters in the refugee camps of Shamshatoo and Jalozai in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) and also ran numerous schools and hospitals in NWFP.2 His organization also received funds from Saudi charity organizations, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, and other wealthy Arabs.3Follow that? The U.S. military is being defeated in a war by the exact-same-people that the CIA trained, funded and armed against the Soviets. And now the military wants to doubledown on our craptastic hand and send more soldiers in to kill and die.
Over the next thirty days another forty soldiers are going to die, the month after that the same--by Christmas another 100 or so.
I have no answers, nor solutions. I am left quoting Tennyson:
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Polanski Analogy
It is not a perfect analogue, but Roman Polanski is the white O.J.
They did the deed and basically got away with it. Lemmings support them, mostly on the basis of their fame the loyalty that black people, the Swiss and the French all apparently lavish upon their cultural heroes (yeah painting with a broad brush--deal).
I am blown away by anyone defending Polanski, including Woody "if I had a dime of sense I would shut-the-hell-up" Allen. I've spent the last four years, the best four years of my life teaching twelve and thirteen (well now fourteen) year old children. There is no ambiguity here; anyone who raises even a whimper to defend this effer deserves to be pistol whipped in public. Seriously, look at the record (from Salon, via Coates at The Atlantic):
I am going to bed now.
Edit: Imagine anyone in American society coming to the defense of a black fugitive child rapist. Good luck with that.
They did the deed and basically got away with it. Lemmings support them, mostly on the basis of their fame the loyalty that black people, the Swiss and the French all apparently lavish upon their cultural heroes (yeah painting with a broad brush--deal).
I am blown away by anyone defending Polanski, including Woody "if I had a dime of sense I would shut-the-hell-up" Allen. I've spent the last four years, the best four years of my life teaching twelve and thirteen (well now fourteen) year old children. There is no ambiguity here; anyone who raises even a whimper to defend this effer deserves to be pistol whipped in public. Seriously, look at the record (from Salon, via Coates at The Atlantic):
Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.Think about how badly the media went after R. Kelly for pissing on the girl. Wait a sec... Roman Polanski is the white R. Kelly. That feels much better.
I am going to bed now.
Edit: Imagine anyone in American society coming to the defense of a black fugitive child rapist. Good luck with that.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
I Hate You Facebook
This could also be called "the failed promise of the internet" or "no really, the internet is not a toy".
What follows is an exchange between myself and a friend of mine from high school and fellow Evergreen alum. The conversation began when I posted this video from the 9/12 Teabagger demonstration in D.C. I enjoyed this exchange and it reminded me why I used to love blogging so much and why I hate what I do instead.
MA: "I don't even know what to say."
In response, I shared this image and accompanying article from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish with the following:
NB:"That video makes a lot more sense when you see something like this. They are one in the same."
Here is what followed on her wall:
MA: "I get it and yet still can't wrap my mind around it. They're seriously equating Obama to Adolf Hitler and I can't fathom a rationale where health care reform equals impending concentration camps and eugenics campaigns. Sure, a lot of it is political rhetoric used for instigation and agitation... but the ones being agitated? They believe the rhetoric. You can see it in the genuine, albeit idiotic and irrational, way they're responding.
Thinking of the "teabaggers" as a few harmless crackpots and conspiracy theorists is much more comfortable than seeing them as a large(ish) and organized "movement." It's hard to believe that there are (still) so many people who would deny others the right to basic health care on the basis of some perceived privilege or superiority... whether it's economic or racial or whatever."
She continued.
MA: "And you're right... how do you negotiate with something that seems--despite being an organized movement (using that term loosely)--irrational and crackpot to the core? You have to take them seriously, because they are, but how can you?
I guess it's much easier look back through history and see other eras--revolutions, wars, movements--as watershed moments. It's harder to see the time that you're living in as a pivotal point, or points, in the story; if only because you can't see the shift when it hasn't yet happened.
Oh to be a historian 100 years from now."
NB: "If one looks back over the history of "Southern populism," which is a far different animal from conservatism and then examines the diffusion of Southern culture across the cultural landscape: country music, Larry the Cable Guy and NASCAR a very interesting overlay makes itself apparent.
These groups are not fringe, nor are they unorganized. They are the cyclical manifestation of the reactionary populist elements usually based out of the American South (see reconstruction, see Nixon's southern strategy). The screaming of socialism / communism are simply stand ins for a certain word that polite white ppl can no longer say in public."
This is the power and potential of the internet. This is why I hate Facebook.
I hate what it has done to my political consciousness. I hate that I am dependent on it to communicate with some of my closest friends. I hate that so much of that communication is frivolous at best. I hate that I spend more time of Facebook than I do reading books. I hate that when I post nonsense about what I am crockpotting or how many peaches I am about to crap out there is so much more interest and commentary than when I post about substantive issues: GI's being imprisoned without counsel for resiting deployment orders or the rise of clearly racist "Southern Populism". I hate that my 254 "friends" seem to care more about Lolcats than the spate of unarmed black men being shot by the police.
It is like with cable news. Twenty-four hour coverage was supposed to facilitate more in depth discussion and reporting of critical issues--a never ending McNeil/Lehrer. Instead we get frog boiling Glen Beck, shrill Nancy Grace and (the left's apparent savior in waiting) Ed Shultz (yuck!).
We, the people who know better (or should know better), have a social responsibility to stop being amused by Scandinavian furniture that we don't need and can't afford and to start better informing ourselves, better informing each other and organizing around issues of importance. In my sphere so many people talk about revolution, but the most revolutionary forces in American politics today are Teabaggers and the leftovers from the Ron Paul campaign. We do not even understand what revolution is (and no, the election of a black centrist Democrat who continues two wars and negotiated away meaningful healthcare reform is not revolution). At a certain point the urbane aren't we so clever navel gazing has to stop. Right now, the people in that picture and in that video are winning.
Maybe this is more about me and less about Facebook.
I got called out this weekend by a friend.
Challenge met.
What follows is an exchange between myself and a friend of mine from high school and fellow Evergreen alum. The conversation began when I posted this video from the 9/12 Teabagger demonstration in D.C. I enjoyed this exchange and it reminded me why I used to love blogging so much and why I hate what I do instead.
MA: "I don't even know what to say."
In response, I shared this image and accompanying article from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish with the following:
NB:"That video makes a lot more sense when you see something like this. They are one in the same."
Here is what followed on her wall:MA: "I get it and yet still can't wrap my mind around it. They're seriously equating Obama to Adolf Hitler and I can't fathom a rationale where health care reform equals impending concentration camps and eugenics campaigns. Sure, a lot of it is political rhetoric used for instigation and agitation... but the ones being agitated? They believe the rhetoric. You can see it in the genuine, albeit idiotic and irrational, way they're responding.
Thinking of the "teabaggers" as a few harmless crackpots and conspiracy theorists is much more comfortable than seeing them as a large(ish) and organized "movement." It's hard to believe that there are (still) so many people who would deny others the right to basic health care on the basis of some perceived privilege or superiority... whether it's economic or racial or whatever."
She continued.
MA: "And you're right... how do you negotiate with something that seems--despite being an organized movement (using that term loosely)--irrational and crackpot to the core? You have to take them seriously, because they are, but how can you?
I guess it's much easier look back through history and see other eras--revolutions, wars, movements--as watershed moments. It's harder to see the time that you're living in as a pivotal point, or points, in the story; if only because you can't see the shift when it hasn't yet happened.
Oh to be a historian 100 years from now."
NB: "If one looks back over the history of "Southern populism," which is a far different animal from conservatism and then examines the diffusion of Southern culture across the cultural landscape: country music, Larry the Cable Guy and NASCAR a very interesting overlay makes itself apparent.
These groups are not fringe, nor are they unorganized. They are the cyclical manifestation of the reactionary populist elements usually based out of the American South (see reconstruction, see Nixon's southern strategy). The screaming of socialism / communism are simply stand ins for a certain word that polite white ppl can no longer say in public."
This is the power and potential of the internet. This is why I hate Facebook.
I hate what it has done to my political consciousness. I hate that I am dependent on it to communicate with some of my closest friends. I hate that so much of that communication is frivolous at best. I hate that I spend more time of Facebook than I do reading books. I hate that when I post nonsense about what I am crockpotting or how many peaches I am about to crap out there is so much more interest and commentary than when I post about substantive issues: GI's being imprisoned without counsel for resiting deployment orders or the rise of clearly racist "Southern Populism". I hate that my 254 "friends" seem to care more about Lolcats than the spate of unarmed black men being shot by the police.
It is like with cable news. Twenty-four hour coverage was supposed to facilitate more in depth discussion and reporting of critical issues--a never ending McNeil/Lehrer. Instead we get frog boiling Glen Beck, shrill Nancy Grace and (the left's apparent savior in waiting) Ed Shultz (yuck!).
We, the people who know better (or should know better), have a social responsibility to stop being amused by Scandinavian furniture that we don't need and can't afford and to start better informing ourselves, better informing each other and organizing around issues of importance. In my sphere so many people talk about revolution, but the most revolutionary forces in American politics today are Teabaggers and the leftovers from the Ron Paul campaign. We do not even understand what revolution is (and no, the election of a black centrist Democrat who continues two wars and negotiated away meaningful healthcare reform is not revolution). At a certain point the urbane aren't we so clever navel gazing has to stop. Right now, the people in that picture and in that video are winning.
Maybe this is more about me and less about Facebook.
I got called out this weekend by a friend.
Challenge met.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Burning Bush--This Tuesday Night
On inauguration day, as a cathartic farewell to the 43rd President of the United States, we the residents of Tacoma's Hilltop (okay some friends and I) will be staging a public burning of (a life sized effigy) of President Bush.
The public burning (which I am sure the TPD are going to find just lovely) will take place at People's Park on South 9th and MLK across the street from The Tempest where we will presumably retire for beverages.
I guess this is just one more thing the Persians perfected before we did.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Best YouTube Videos of 2008 (Frivolity)
About one in five times that I hang out with Pedro we have the conversation about how YouTube plays such a strong role in our media consumption. YouTube has only been around since 2005, but I struggle to visualize the Internet without it.
That being said, I offer my favorite YouTube Videos of 2008. A couple of caveats, these are not all YouTube videos some are from copycat sites (but not RedTube). Also, some of these videos may not actually be from 2008, but I discovered them this year. I am going to do this in two parts--the frivolous--followed by the "more serious".
The Presidential Election.
I am still not sure why I cried at this one. It just hit me in the right spot.
This is perhaps my favorite of the entire year. I was praying he'd do it when he came to Tacoma. Joe Biden!!
Did Elmo just pull out a blunt?
I have nothing to add.
So much racism. What is a "Sloppy Booger Bear"?
Kids getting hit in the head.
I have been told my ability to enjoy this one is directly proportional to lack of paternal instincts.
Four seconds.
Tyrone has ninja reflexes. Do not try to scare Tyrone.
Coaches.
I personally represent at least 1,000 of one million plus views this video has.
Dan Hawkins owns [full stop]
Miscellaneous.
Human Giant is the only excuse to ever watch "Music Television".
He is just helpless.
Now with over 5 million views.
Last but not least, a late entry into the contest, all the way from Iraq.
I could go on, but I have "snowed in" dishes to square away before the afternoon. Add your own in the comments.
That being said, I offer my favorite YouTube Videos of 2008. A couple of caveats, these are not all YouTube videos some are from copycat sites (but not RedTube). Also, some of these videos may not actually be from 2008, but I discovered them this year. I am going to do this in two parts--the frivolous--followed by the "more serious".
The Presidential Election.
I am still not sure why I cried at this one. It just hit me in the right spot.
This is perhaps my favorite of the entire year. I was praying he'd do it when he came to Tacoma. Joe Biden!!
Did Elmo just pull out a blunt?
I have nothing to add.
So much racism. What is a "Sloppy Booger Bear"?
Kids getting hit in the head.
I have been told my ability to enjoy this one is directly proportional to lack of paternal instincts.
Four seconds.
Tyrone has ninja reflexes. Do not try to scare Tyrone.
Coaches.
I personally represent at least 1,000 of one million plus views this video has.
Dan Hawkins owns [full stop]
Miscellaneous.
Human Giant is the only excuse to ever watch "Music Television".
He is just helpless.
Now with over 5 million views.
Last but not least, a late entry into the contest, all the way from Iraq.
I could go on, but I have "snowed in" dishes to square away before the afternoon. Add your own in the comments.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
On News Tribune Anti-Labor Bias...
What follows is a striking example of a journalist taking an overtly anti-labor stance in what should be a fairly straightforward news story: Union sues governor because she left their pay raises and additional fringe benefits costs out of her budget proposal.Throughout the piece the reporter, Joe Turner, seeks to wrongfoot labor, when it is the Governor who has broken protocol.
This summer, The Washington Federation of State Employees/AFSCME Council 28 negotiated a contract for its members that called for consecutive two percent wage increases over the next two years. Claiming "they are not financially feasible," the Governor decided to leave those increases out of her upcoming budget. In response the union has filed suit.
Those are the two sides to this argument--plain and simple.
What follows is Turner's entry on the News Tribune's Political Buzz Blog; Turner's unedited words will be italicized:
"The lawsuit charges the governor (Chris Gregoire), her budget director, Victor Moore, and the state with breach of contract and committing an unfair labor practice for bad-faith bargaining," the union said in a news release announcing the lawsuit. It was filed today.When the State negotiated the contract, revenue forecasts were pessimistic at best:
The new U.S. economic forecast exhibits weaker growth of GDP, employment and income than did the forecast adopted in February. The forecast assumes that the economy slumps once again to a near-recessionary state in the fourth quarter of this year and first half of next year as the impact of the tax rebates wears off. The new forecast also expects higher inflation in 2008 and 2009 than assumed in February. The weaker national outlook is the main reason for the reduction in the state’s economic and revenue forecasts (Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast, June 2008).If the State had revenue forecasts that predicted a decline in revenue (which they did) and then negotiated wage and benefit increases they could not afford (which they did), then The State of Washington negotiated in bad faith (which it clearly did).
The Washington Federation of State Employees, which represents about 40,000 of those workers, wants a Thurston County judge to order the governor to ask the Legislature to approve the pay raises and benefits that were negotiated in contracts this past summer. The federation's members were supposed to get 2 percent pay raises in each of the next two years, plus a bigger state contribution toward their medical coverage and other fringe benefits.In his two articles on the issue Turner uses "fringe benefits" three times in a pejorative manner, including once in today's headline, yet he declines at any point to identify what they are for the public. It seems Turner saw "fringe benefits" as a great anchor to hang around the union's neck, but not important enough to actually explain: Free Asian massages? Discount plastic surgery on site? Free whiskey on Tuesdays? Or more likely, maintaining pension contributions at current levels and limiting growth in healthcare premiums (I like you am left to guess).
The federation lawsuit also seeks to strike down a provision in the 2002 collective bargaining law that allows the governor's budget director to say "we can't afford pay raises."When faced with financial difficulty the governor has three levers at her control: cutting spending, increasing revenue (taxes) and deficit spending. She has unilaterally taken the latter two mechanisms off the table. Therefore, only within the limited scenario that she has constructed are these negotiated raises "not feasible financially".
Moore told me yesterday that the collective bargaining law that gave state workers the ability to bargain for wages does allow the governor not to fund pay raises if there is a finding they are not feasible financially.
Moore made such a finding the day before the governor unveiled her budget proposal on Dec. 18. He said the $5.7 billion projected deficit would force the state to cut too many other vital services.Did anyone else notice the lack of a response quote from the union or any state worker to Moore? Instead, of telling both sides, Turner serves as an information conduit for Moore and by extension Gregoire.
That's why the $453 million for pay raises and fringe benefits (again with the "fringe") for about 150,000 workers covered by 33 labor contracts was not included in Gregoire's budget, Moore said.This only reinforces the point above: The State of Washington negotiated a contract they should have known they could not afford and then kept it out of the budget when new forecasts came out.
I sympathize with the governor's predicament; the atmosphere towards tax increases is more frigid than the current temperature, but that calculation should have been considered before negotiating and ratifying this labor contract on October 10th just two months ago.
As a collective bargaining unit protecting the interests of its members, the union is well within their rights, if not obligations to file this suit. Moreover, Turner calling the benefit guarantees the union has negotiated "fringe benefits" is unnecessary editorializing.
If Gregoire unilaterally decided, in order to increase revenue, to cancel the countless tax breaks, loopholes and incentives that Boeing and Microsoft receive to operate in Washington State, I am pretty sure the lawsuits would start flying. In such a case, I doubt Turner would exclude the corporate perspective (from his coverage) and only get quotes from the Governor's office. Lastly, I have a hunch that the term "fringe benefits," or more appropriate to that case "corporate welfare," would nary be found.
Friday, December 19, 2008
On Activism and the Obama Transition...
The inauguration is exactly one month away.
On January 20th an estimated four million people--the largest gathering of human beings in one place--ever, are going to pour into Washington D.C. for the most joyous Presidential inauguration in American history. However, the trajectory currently being set for the upcoming Obama administration bellies the hopeful and joyous stagecraft of Change being planned for that day.
Already, young progressives, labor activists and people within the marriage equality and anti-war movements who supported the campaign are being forced to make excuses for President-Elect Obama's cabinet selections and political appointments. It seems these people who put their lives on hold to volunteer and who sent in tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions are now being shown the door.
Reflexively, like millions of battered spouses, progressive Obama supporters are rationalizing the decisions of another centrist (read: corporate) Democratic administration:
Can anyone name one legit progressive who has any role anywhere in the National Security or economic team? The selection of Shaun Donovan at Housing and Urban Development is even dubious. Does Obama really believe there are no competent left economists? If the answer is no, then the implication is clear--he has chosen to exclude progressives from his cabinet and top level staff. You can't build a progressive agenda and implement the accompanying policy changes with moderate to conservatives wielding power within the administration. Again, this seems all too familiar; we witnessed this same pattern in the 90s:
1. Democratic President gives the right what they want on an issue, say DOMA or welfare reform.
2. President's supporters remain silent and refuse to condemn the President for the sake of party unity or fear of weakening the President.
3. President sees no pushback from within and gets high-fives from the right.
4. President gets props from corporate media (The Washington Post Editorial Board, WSJ, etc.) for being bi-partisan, post-partisan or willing to "stand up to his base".
5. Progressives hold their tongues; President repeats cycle as needed.
Clinton supporters were promised National Healthcare and got NAFTA instead. Obama supporters were promised an end to torture, the closing of GITMO and a sixteen month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq--all of which are now in doubt and it's not even inauguration day yet.
This is unacceptable. People need to stop making (and accepting) excuses for Obama's selections. On marriage equality, he did not come out against Prop 8 and yet he invited Rick Warren to his inauguration--unacceptable. On the war, every member of his National Security team supported either the initial invasion of Iraq or "the Surge"--unacceptable. On torture, he campaigned saying "I will end torture", yet he is probably going to keep Hayden on as DCIA; under Hayden the U.S. Government tortured people and destroyed the evidence--unacceptable.
Centrist Democrats give cover for radical conservative policies; Clinton set the table for the Bush years:
Without Clinton's DOMA the spate of state constitutional bans on same sex marriage would have been an impossibility.
Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act was one of the key intellectual and legal foundations justifying the war in Iraq.
Clinton's NAFTA was the first of a wave of multilateral trade agreements that hinder global labor movements and incentivize continued environmental degradation in the developing world (see: WTO & GATT).
Corporate & banking deregulation under Clinton allowed for the rise of "too big to fail" corporations like Citibank and AIG (who now need to be bailed out) and the eventual collapse of the housing market and subsequent economic crisis.
Innumerable other Clinton capitulations to the right on issues from cuts in public assistance to the poor to increased sentences for non-violent drug offenses were capitalized on and amplified by conservatives during the Bush years.
This is the record of Democratic centrism.
As long as his supporters keep making up excuses for Obama, he'll keep giving them reasons to make them. Nations have the governments they deserve. We deserve better than Clinton and certainly better than Bush. We will not get it unless we demand it from Obama.
On January 20th an estimated four million people--the largest gathering of human beings in one place--ever, are going to pour into Washington D.C. for the most joyous Presidential inauguration in American history. However, the trajectory currently being set for the upcoming Obama administration bellies the hopeful and joyous stagecraft of Change being planned for that day.
Already, young progressives, labor activists and people within the marriage equality and anti-war movements who supported the campaign are being forced to make excuses for President-Elect Obama's cabinet selections and political appointments. It seems these people who put their lives on hold to volunteer and who sent in tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions are now being shown the door.Reflexively, like millions of battered spouses, progressive Obama supporters are rationalizing the decisions of another centrist (read: corporate) Democratic administration:
- Democratic Leadership Council posterboy, Rahm "midwife to NAFTA" Emanuel, the man who helped prevent over a dozen Iraq vets from winning their primaries in order to run moderate Blue Dogs as Chief of Staff? Don't worry, Obama values competence over ideology (there are apparently no competent progressives in all of Washington D.C.).
- Iraq war advocate/cheerleader Hillary "obliterate Iran in defense of Israel" Clinton as Secretary of State? No problem, he is just building a Team of Rivals, he has a secret master plan for peace.
- Anti-gay conservative preacher Rick "I can cure the gays" Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration? Oh, that's no big deal, Obama is just courting moderate evangelicals. It will be okay, he still loves us.
Can anyone name one legit progressive who has any role anywhere in the National Security or economic team? The selection of Shaun Donovan at Housing and Urban Development is even dubious. Does Obama really believe there are no competent left economists? If the answer is no, then the implication is clear--he has chosen to exclude progressives from his cabinet and top level staff. You can't build a progressive agenda and implement the accompanying policy changes with moderate to conservatives wielding power within the administration. Again, this seems all too familiar; we witnessed this same pattern in the 90s:
1. Democratic President gives the right what they want on an issue, say DOMA or welfare reform.
2. President's supporters remain silent and refuse to condemn the President for the sake of party unity or fear of weakening the President.
3. President sees no pushback from within and gets high-fives from the right.
4. President gets props from corporate media (The Washington Post Editorial Board, WSJ, etc.) for being bi-partisan, post-partisan or willing to "stand up to his base".
5. Progressives hold their tongues; President repeats cycle as needed.
Clinton supporters were promised National Healthcare and got NAFTA instead. Obama supporters were promised an end to torture, the closing of GITMO and a sixteen month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq--all of which are now in doubt and it's not even inauguration day yet.
This is unacceptable. People need to stop making (and accepting) excuses for Obama's selections. On marriage equality, he did not come out against Prop 8 and yet he invited Rick Warren to his inauguration--unacceptable. On the war, every member of his National Security team supported either the initial invasion of Iraq or "the Surge"--unacceptable. On torture, he campaigned saying "I will end torture", yet he is probably going to keep Hayden on as DCIA; under Hayden the U.S. Government tortured people and destroyed the evidence--unacceptable.
Centrist Democrats give cover for radical conservative policies; Clinton set the table for the Bush years:
Without Clinton's DOMA the spate of state constitutional bans on same sex marriage would have been an impossibility.
Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act was one of the key intellectual and legal foundations justifying the war in Iraq.
Clinton's NAFTA was the first of a wave of multilateral trade agreements that hinder global labor movements and incentivize continued environmental degradation in the developing world (see: WTO & GATT).
Corporate & banking deregulation under Clinton allowed for the rise of "too big to fail" corporations like Citibank and AIG (who now need to be bailed out) and the eventual collapse of the housing market and subsequent economic crisis.
Innumerable other Clinton capitulations to the right on issues from cuts in public assistance to the poor to increased sentences for non-violent drug offenses were capitalized on and amplified by conservatives during the Bush years.
This is the record of Democratic centrism.
As long as his supporters keep making up excuses for Obama, he'll keep giving them reasons to make them. Nations have the governments they deserve. We deserve better than Clinton and certainly better than Bush. We will not get it unless we demand it from Obama.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Something I am working on (Why the WASL must go)...
Email or place any thoughts (or ideas for areas of expansion) into the comments section. It's still a work in progress, but please feel free to link and/or share with people you think might be interested.
The footnotes are not links but can be accessed by "copy & paste". There are some jewels down there--especially #7, #10, and #15.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Reason #146 why the Clintons must go away...
As a possible consequence of my occupation, I have little patience for self-inflating belligerency and bellicose rhetoric, whether it be in the lunch room or on ABC News. My contempt for Hillary Clinton's hawkish--I can be tougher than the men--foreign policy and the generation of politicians that she represents was cemented this week with her saber-rattling and pledge to use nuclear weapons on Iran in defense of Israel.
Proving your foreign policy bonafides and the toughness Americans seem to crave in their pols by threatening to "obliterate" a culture that pre-dates the Hellenistic period in Europe and then calling them "reckless, foolish, and tragic" is the sort of nonsense that most Americans are desperate to leave behind with Dick Cheney y Bush numero dos.
Reason #146 why the Clintons must go away:
Let's unpack her farcical statement: If Iran uses the nuclear weapons, that they do not have and have no program to develop, to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, that they have not threatened to do, Candidate Clinton pledges to obliterate Iran and wants them to know that so they don't behave recklessly. This is worse than McCain's "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". His were the off-hand and spontaneous words of a warmonger performing for his brethren at a VFW hall. Clinton made a premeditated statement with no caveats; she is more of the same--if not worse.
This is a statement that did not need to be made and using the term "obliterate" towards a nation whose neighbors on either side we currently occupy does nothing to advance the interests or security of the American people. She can't actually believe this nonsense, which makes her all the more disingenuous and loathsome. For the last seven years the Bush Administration's foreign policy has been do what we say or we will bomb you, threaten to bomb you, and refuse to negotiate with you. I presumed the Democrats would offer a more subtle and enlightened alternative to this, but Candidate Clinton is proving the dime's worth of difference adage correct when it comes to the Middle East.
The regional equation is fairly uncomplicated: If Iran was developing nuclear weapons, their purpose would not be a first strike against Israel--they would be to deter a first strike by the U.S. (and our regional proxy Israel). Moreover, in case of Mrs. Clinton's eminent hypothetical, Israel would not even need our assistance in "obliterating" Iran, rendering her entire statement an inefficacious escalation of rhetoric. Israel possesses an arsenal of 100 to 200 nuclear weapons including U.S. built (no surprise) Dolphin class missiles aboard submarines.
The policies of the current Administration have led us to this predictable point; we will not talk or negotiate with rogue nations, with the exception of North Korea (who now has nuclear weapons and can furthermore do their own obliteration of Seoul, with conventional shelling). The lesson for despots worldwide is clear: if you want to guarantee sustainability for your regime and gain the power to negotiate terms with the U.S. you must (like Pakistan and Kim Jong Il) acquire nuclear weapons. The death of the non-proliferation regime lies at the feet of the current President and Candidate Clinton might actually be worse.
Proving your foreign policy bonafides and the toughness Americans seem to crave in their pols by threatening to "obliterate" a culture that pre-dates the Hellenistic period in Europe and then calling them "reckless, foolish, and tragic" is the sort of nonsense that most Americans are desperate to leave behind with Dick Cheney y Bush numero dos.
Reason #146 why the Clintons must go away:
Let's unpack her farcical statement: If Iran uses the nuclear weapons, that they do not have and have no program to develop, to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, that they have not threatened to do, Candidate Clinton pledges to obliterate Iran and wants them to know that so they don't behave recklessly. This is worse than McCain's "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". His were the off-hand and spontaneous words of a warmonger performing for his brethren at a VFW hall. Clinton made a premeditated statement with no caveats; she is more of the same--if not worse.
This is a statement that did not need to be made and using the term "obliterate" towards a nation whose neighbors on either side we currently occupy does nothing to advance the interests or security of the American people. She can't actually believe this nonsense, which makes her all the more disingenuous and loathsome. For the last seven years the Bush Administration's foreign policy has been do what we say or we will bomb you, threaten to bomb you, and refuse to negotiate with you. I presumed the Democrats would offer a more subtle and enlightened alternative to this, but Candidate Clinton is proving the dime's worth of difference adage correct when it comes to the Middle East.
The regional equation is fairly uncomplicated: If Iran was developing nuclear weapons, their purpose would not be a first strike against Israel--they would be to deter a first strike by the U.S. (and our regional proxy Israel). Moreover, in case of Mrs. Clinton's eminent hypothetical, Israel would not even need our assistance in "obliterating" Iran, rendering her entire statement an inefficacious escalation of rhetoric. Israel possesses an arsenal of 100 to 200 nuclear weapons including U.S. built (no surprise) Dolphin class missiles aboard submarines.
The policies of the current Administration have led us to this predictable point; we will not talk or negotiate with rogue nations, with the exception of North Korea (who now has nuclear weapons and can furthermore do their own obliteration of Seoul, with conventional shelling). The lesson for despots worldwide is clear: if you want to guarantee sustainability for your regime and gain the power to negotiate terms with the U.S. you must (like Pakistan and Kim Jong Il) acquire nuclear weapons. The death of the non-proliferation regime lies at the feet of the current President and Candidate Clinton might actually be worse.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
