(courtesy of John B.)
Dear President Bush,
Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
-Terry Liberty Parker
Saturday, November 13, 2004
IT Conversations; Jay Rosen on Academia and Blogging
El Oso turned me on to a discussion about Academia and Blogging hosted by Jay Rosen at Bloggercon III. I'm listening to it now and it is hosted by IT Conversations which is a huge archive of "audio and transcripts of interviews and important events." It seems to also have a set-up that allows you to build your own personal collections of your favorites and to download them as MP3s.
The Power of Vivisimo; The Copenhagen Free University
I'm always looking for better ways to sift through all the information circulating on the net and I recently was introduced to a new search engine (well new to me) called Vivisimo. I find it very useful because it operates with clustering technology that compile various categories that refine your search for you.
Another great find tonight is the Copenhagen Free University online library. Its a collection of radical theorists that are often hard-to-find here in the U.S. in our regular libraries.
Another great find tonight is the Copenhagen Free University online library. Its a collection of radical theorists that are often hard-to-find here in the U.S. in our regular libraries.
Town & Planet: Liar, Liar, Liar
(courtesy Michael Tedesco and The Progressive Blog Alliance)
Check out the new flash animation by Andy of Town & Planet that criticizes the continuing Diebold scandal.
Check out the new flash animation by Andy of Town & Planet that criticizes the continuing Diebold scandal.
Eat Well Guide: Sustainable Thanksgiving Recipes
The Eat Well Guide has a handy Thanksgiving Recipes list for those looking for healthy alternatives.
We are hosting a Thanksgiving Fest for disaffected radicals who are discouraged from attending family gatherings (so far we have over a dozen people coming).
We are hosting a Thanksgiving Fest for disaffected radicals who are discouraged from attending family gatherings (so far we have over a dozen people coming).
Agglutinations: Interviews and Reviews About Urbanism, Politics, and Society
Edited by Nader Vossoughian this archival blog is a treasure-trove. It appears that Nader stopped in July 2004, but don't let that dissuade you from giving it a read (Rickenharp and Esmail--you will be very interested in this site). Nader, whatever happened, I hope that you once again find the time to start this blog back up:
Agglutinations
Agglutinations
El Oso and Hispanic Pundit
Check out El Oso's blog where he is conducting an experiment in building bridges of dialogue between conservatives and liberals by inviting conservative bloggers to become guest writers on his blog in order to provide a forum where they can engage in respectful dialogue with the more liberal readers of Oso's blog. The first conservative guest blogger is Hispanic Pundit. Visit El Oso, El Moreno and El Abogado and join the conversation.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Susannity: Washington Gubernatorial Race--Another Florida?
Susannity reports from Seattle that they are still counting votes from 11/2 and have yet to declare a winner in the Washington governor race:
Washington Gubernatorial Race--Another Florida?
Washington Gubernatorial Race--Another Florida?
Donna Brit: Worst Voter Error Is Apathy Toward Irregularities
(courtesy of the Amazon Femme and her musings and mutterings from inside and around the Beltway)
An excerpt:
Worst Voter Error Is Apathy Toward Irregularities
An excerpt:
Come on. If Republicans had lost the election, this column would be unnecessary because Karl Rove and company would be contesting every vote. I keep hearing from those who wonder whether Democrats are "too nice," and from others who wonder whether efforts by the mainstream media to be "fair and balanced" sometimes render them "neutered and less effective.
...
The point isn't just which candidate won or lost. It's that we all lose when we ignore that thousands of Americans might have been discouraged or prevented from voting, or not had their votes count.
Worst Voter Error Is Apathy Toward Irregularities
Chuck Baldwin: Is President Bush Ushering In The Mark Of The Beast?
Having read the bible front-to-back 6 times, I'm very familiar with the apocalyptic prophecies and I knew that someone would eventually ask this question.
Pastor Baldwin, who also ran as Vice-President for the Constitution Party, asks Is President Bush Ushering In The Mark Of The Beast?
Pastor Baldwin, who also ran as Vice-President for the Constitution Party, asks Is President Bush Ushering In The Mark Of The Beast?
Édouard Glissant: Poetics of Relation
Glissant, Édouard. Poetics of Relation. trans. Betsy Wing. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1997.
“Glossary: for readers from elsewhere, who don’t deal very well with unknown words or who want to understand everything. But, perhaps to establish for ourselves, ourselves as well, the long list of words within us whose sense escapes or, taking this farther, to fix the syntax of this language we are babbling. The readers of here are future.”
—Édouard Glissant, Malemort, 231
(Quoted in Glissant, xxi)
Imaginary
Thinking thought usually amounts to withdrawing into a dimensionless place in which the idea of thought alone persists. But thought in reality spaces itself out into the world. It informs the imaginary of the peoples, their varied poetics, which it then transforms, meaning, in them its risk becomes realized.
Culture is the precaution of those who claim to think thought but who steer clear of its chaotic journey. Evolving cultures infer Relation, the overstepping that grounds their unity-diversity.
Thought draws the imaginary of the past: a knowledge becoming. One cannot stop it to assess it nor isolate it to transmit it. It is sharing one can never not retain, nor ever, in standing still, boast about. (Glissant, 1) {MB—“For Glissant the imaginary is all the ways a culture has of perceiving and conceiving of the world. Hence every human culture will have its own particular imaginary” Wing, Betsy. “Glossary.” quoted in Glissant, xxii)
Not just a specific knowledge, appetite, suffering, and delight of one particular people, not only that, but knowledge of the Whole, greater from having been at the abyss and freeing knowledge of Relation within the Whole.
Just as the first uprooting was not marked by any defiance, in the same way the prescience and actual experience of Relation have nothing to do with vanity. Peoples who have been to the abyss do not brag of being chosen. They do not believe they are giving birth to any modern force. They live Relation and clear the way for it, to the extent that the oblivion of the abyss comes to them and that, consequently, their memory intensifies.
For though this experience made you, original victim floating toward the sea’s abysses, an exception, it became something shared and made us, the descendants, one people among others. Peoples do not live on exception. Relation is not made up of things that are foreign but of shared knowledge. This experience of the abyss can now be said to be the best element of exchange. (Glissant, 8)
“Glossary: for readers from elsewhere, who don’t deal very well with unknown words or who want to understand everything. But, perhaps to establish for ourselves, ourselves as well, the long list of words within us whose sense escapes or, taking this farther, to fix the syntax of this language we are babbling. The readers of here are future.”
—Édouard Glissant, Malemort, 231
(Quoted in Glissant, xxi)
Imaginary
Thinking thought usually amounts to withdrawing into a dimensionless place in which the idea of thought alone persists. But thought in reality spaces itself out into the world. It informs the imaginary of the peoples, their varied poetics, which it then transforms, meaning, in them its risk becomes realized.
Culture is the precaution of those who claim to think thought but who steer clear of its chaotic journey. Evolving cultures infer Relation, the overstepping that grounds their unity-diversity.
Thought draws the imaginary of the past: a knowledge becoming. One cannot stop it to assess it nor isolate it to transmit it. It is sharing one can never not retain, nor ever, in standing still, boast about. (Glissant, 1) {MB—“For Glissant the imaginary is all the ways a culture has of perceiving and conceiving of the world. Hence every human culture will have its own particular imaginary” Wing, Betsy. “Glossary.” quoted in Glissant, xxii)
Not just a specific knowledge, appetite, suffering, and delight of one particular people, not only that, but knowledge of the Whole, greater from having been at the abyss and freeing knowledge of Relation within the Whole.
Just as the first uprooting was not marked by any defiance, in the same way the prescience and actual experience of Relation have nothing to do with vanity. Peoples who have been to the abyss do not brag of being chosen. They do not believe they are giving birth to any modern force. They live Relation and clear the way for it, to the extent that the oblivion of the abyss comes to them and that, consequently, their memory intensifies.
For though this experience made you, original victim floating toward the sea’s abysses, an exception, it became something shared and made us, the descendants, one people among others. Peoples do not live on exception. Relation is not made up of things that are foreign but of shared knowledge. This experience of the abyss can now be said to be the best element of exchange. (Glissant, 8)
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Learning how to not take myself so serious ;)
(thanks to the really pissed off progressive Mike who tutored me on how to put myself under erasure)
Michael Benton
Carrying Out the Mandate
I think that it is very important to be aware of the actual plans for carrying out the republican mandate (as it is perceived by republicans, instead of just as it is feared to be by everyone else). So I've been browsing about and came across Human Events: The National Conservative Weekly and they are featuring a series of conservative individuals/collectives outlining what they see as the priority issues:
Pt. 1--Clare Booth Lucy Policy Institute: Enact School Choice, Cut Taxes, Improve Cultural Climate
Once again, this is just to see what is being proposed... feel free to comment.
Pt. 1--Clare Booth Lucy Policy Institute: Enact School Choice, Cut Taxes, Improve Cultural Climate
Once again, this is just to see what is being proposed... feel free to comment.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Democracy in America: Warren's Vote Tally Walled Off
(Courtesy of Why Are We Back in Iraq and the Progressive Blog Alliance)
Adding to that sick feeling ... this report:
Warren's Vote Tally Walled Off: Alone in Ohio, officials cited homeland security
Adding to that sick feeling ... this report:
Warren's Vote Tally Walled Off: Alone in Ohio, officials cited homeland security
Networks Return to the Front, and to TV Group Think
Media Democracy
In one of his more telling interviews with network journalists, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart asked CNN's Wolf Blitzer why so many TV news outlets failed, in 2003, to challenge the Bush Administration's bogus case for war in Iraq.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have since admitted to grave mistakes in their pre-war coverage. As yet, no mainstream television news network has done the same.
Following a Senate investigation of Iraq intelligence failures, which accused America's spy agencies of "group think," Stewart asked Blitzer if the same was true of TV news coverage in the run-up to war.
"Were you suffering from a case of group think," pressed Stewart, "or" — tossing Blitzer a curve ball — "of retardation?" Faced with the choice, Blitzer admitted to network group think.
Now, with embedded network journalists resurfacing on the Iraqi front, new questions must be asked: What if anything have the networks learned from their past mistakes? Have they admitted to a failure to provide Americans with timely and thorough investigations of official claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Have they conducted media post mortems on their failure to investigate Iraqi civilian casualties -- recently tallied at more than 100,000?
Judging from the reporting that has accompanied the recent bloodletting in Fallujah, it appears that -- in the words of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd -- the media have, once again, bought the Pentagon war narrative "hook, line and sinker."
Soon after the invasion of Iraq began, military commander Tommy Franks told a New Yorker reporter that he considers the media a "fourth front" in fighting the war -- NOT as an autonomous "fourth estate" whose duty is to challenge official claims and better inform the American public.
By limiting information and embedding journalists in 2003, the government successfully spun the media's coverage in favor of war. Anti-war views were effectively marginalized. The cameras rolled alongside the tanks into Baghdad. Establishment media declared "victory" as Saddam Hussein's statue fell in al-Fardos Square, and later, "Mission Accomplished" with President Bush aboard USS Abraham Lincoln.
Today, we know that the war did not end then. And that few US media outlets prepared us for what was to come.
In the last year, more and more media critics have documented these media failures. None of their criticisms seems to have broadened the media's war coverage to include more diverse voices from within Iraq and around the world. The coverage of the war in this respect is similar to the coverage we saw of the election, where Administration "talking points" tended to dominate the evening news, leaving little room for substantive and contentious discussions of the issues that Americans say mattered to them most.
Media for Democracy is calling on our members to demand media integrity during wartime. Join us in a petition that calls on the news executives at NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News and CNN to diversify their sources, give more airtime to Iraqi and Afghan voices, scrutinize Administration claims, report on civilian casualties, and offer on-air analysis that includes more anti-war perspectives.
Stay Tuned.
Sign Petition Protesting the Media Coverage of the Iraq War
Sign this petition and notify:
ABC News President David Westin
CBS News President Andrew Heyward
CNN VP of News Susan Bunda
Fox News CEO Roger Ailes
NBC News President Neal Shapiro
I join other Media for Democracy members to call on mainstream news networks to restore integrity and balance to their war reporting by:
- diversifying your sources to include more independent, non-military experts;
- giving more airtime to Iraqi and Afghan voices;
- more thoroughly scrutinizing for accuracy White House and Pentagon claims;
- reporting on the full extent of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq;
- offering balanced on-air analysis that includes more anti-war perspectives.
In one of his more telling interviews with network journalists, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart asked CNN's Wolf Blitzer why so many TV news outlets failed, in 2003, to challenge the Bush Administration's bogus case for war in Iraq.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have since admitted to grave mistakes in their pre-war coverage. As yet, no mainstream television news network has done the same.
Following a Senate investigation of Iraq intelligence failures, which accused America's spy agencies of "group think," Stewart asked Blitzer if the same was true of TV news coverage in the run-up to war.
"Were you suffering from a case of group think," pressed Stewart, "or" — tossing Blitzer a curve ball — "of retardation?" Faced with the choice, Blitzer admitted to network group think.
Now, with embedded network journalists resurfacing on the Iraqi front, new questions must be asked: What if anything have the networks learned from their past mistakes? Have they admitted to a failure to provide Americans with timely and thorough investigations of official claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Have they conducted media post mortems on their failure to investigate Iraqi civilian casualties -- recently tallied at more than 100,000?
Judging from the reporting that has accompanied the recent bloodletting in Fallujah, it appears that -- in the words of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd -- the media have, once again, bought the Pentagon war narrative "hook, line and sinker."
Soon after the invasion of Iraq began, military commander Tommy Franks told a New Yorker reporter that he considers the media a "fourth front" in fighting the war -- NOT as an autonomous "fourth estate" whose duty is to challenge official claims and better inform the American public.
By limiting information and embedding journalists in 2003, the government successfully spun the media's coverage in favor of war. Anti-war views were effectively marginalized. The cameras rolled alongside the tanks into Baghdad. Establishment media declared "victory" as Saddam Hussein's statue fell in al-Fardos Square, and later, "Mission Accomplished" with President Bush aboard USS Abraham Lincoln.
Today, we know that the war did not end then. And that few US media outlets prepared us for what was to come.
In the last year, more and more media critics have documented these media failures. None of their criticisms seems to have broadened the media's war coverage to include more diverse voices from within Iraq and around the world. The coverage of the war in this respect is similar to the coverage we saw of the election, where Administration "talking points" tended to dominate the evening news, leaving little room for substantive and contentious discussions of the issues that Americans say mattered to them most.
Media for Democracy is calling on our members to demand media integrity during wartime. Join us in a petition that calls on the news executives at NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News and CNN to diversify their sources, give more airtime to Iraqi and Afghan voices, scrutinize Administration claims, report on civilian casualties, and offer on-air analysis that includes more anti-war perspectives.
Stay Tuned.
Sign Petition Protesting the Media Coverage of the Iraq War
Sign this petition and notify:
ABC News President David Westin
CBS News President Andrew Heyward
CNN VP of News Susan Bunda
Fox News CEO Roger Ailes
NBC News President Neal Shapiro
I join other Media for Democracy members to call on mainstream news networks to restore integrity and balance to their war reporting by:
- diversifying your sources to include more independent, non-military experts;
- giving more airtime to Iraqi and Afghan voices;
- more thoroughly scrutinizing for accuracy White House and Pentagon claims;
- reporting on the full extent of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq;
- offering balanced on-air analysis that includes more anti-war perspectives.
ACME: Special Issue on Empire; Ephemera: Special Issue on The Theory of the Multitude
ACME journal has a special issue out on Michael Hardt and Negri's Empire
Also the journal Ephemera has a new issue out on the Theory of the Multitude
Also check out:
Hardt and Negri: Multitude
Also the journal Ephemera has a new issue out on the Theory of the Multitude
Also check out:
Hardt and Negri: Multitude
H.L. Finch: The Illusion of Progress
Finch, H.L. Wittgenstein. Rockport, MA: Element, 1995.
The notion that the power that has been discovered and released by modern science and technology is our power, as if it were at our disposal, is itself an example of philosophical naivete since, socially or “civilizationally” speaking, we have no independent life or identity apart from the whole complex which now contains both the powers and us. We are, as it were, inextricably at one with the scientific and technological powers and do not, as we imagine, merely “make use” of them. Socially speaking, apart from them, we have no reality, and this is why, as individuals, far from being in control of these powers, we feel ourselves to be completely at their mercy. The situation, in other words, moves as a whole, and we have no footing either within it or outside it from which to change it. That the whole moves of itself in a benign direction is the illusion of progress. That we are in control of where it is going is an even more pervasive and deadly illusion. (Finch, 17)
The notion that the power that has been discovered and released by modern science and technology is our power, as if it were at our disposal, is itself an example of philosophical naivete since, socially or “civilizationally” speaking, we have no independent life or identity apart from the whole complex which now contains both the powers and us. We are, as it were, inextricably at one with the scientific and technological powers and do not, as we imagine, merely “make use” of them. Socially speaking, apart from them, we have no reality, and this is why, as individuals, far from being in control of these powers, we feel ourselves to be completely at their mercy. The situation, in other words, moves as a whole, and we have no footing either within it or outside it from which to change it. That the whole moves of itself in a benign direction is the illusion of progress. That we are in control of where it is going is an even more pervasive and deadly illusion. (Finch, 17)
Keb Mo and the Lighter Side of the Blues
Listen to Closer, Keep it Simple, Let Your Light Shine and Shave Yo Legs--also an interview with NPR's Michele Kelman.
Keb Mo and the Lighter Side of the Blues
Keb Mo and the Lighter Side of the Blues
Evan Derkacz: Bright Spots
BRIGHT SPOTS
Evan Derkacz
AlterNet
November 2 wasn't a wash for progressive causes. Anti-war senators won by landslides, polluters were voted out of office, and progressive initiatives on the minimum wage, education, and drug policy won in states that Bush dominated.
Bright Spots
Evan Derkacz
AlterNet
November 2 wasn't a wash for progressive causes. Anti-war senators won by landslides, polluters were voted out of office, and progressive initiatives on the minimum wage, education, and drug policy won in states that Bush dominated.
Bright Spots
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Daimonic Reality
A friend has set up a great site called Daimonic Reality why don't you stop by and see the world anew (posts in German and English)
Alan Drengson: The Practice of Technology
Drengson, Alan. The Practice of Technology: Exploring Technology, Ecophilosophy, and Spiritual Disciplines for Vital Links. Albany: SUNY, 1995.
... the environment is one whole—it is not cut up into specialties, disciplines and departments—and part of our difficulty in dealing with environmental problems is that we do not approach them as a unified whole. (Drengson, 1)
In industrial society, life becomes abstract, cut off from firsthand experience with nature, lacking in genuine human relationships; community is destroyed by the organizational processes; meaningful work is lost to the mechanization of production; and life and nature are desacralized and treated as nothing more than raw material. These losses and divisions give rise to a deep longing and a frustrating quest for self-completion, which often result in a pursuit of thrills and other compensatory activities and addictions. The whole system is characterized by violence resulting from exerting “power-over” control. To understand the deep needs of the human person is to see how we find our completion through a process of maturation that enables us to extend our sense of compassionate identification to a wider and wider sphere of relationships, not only with other humans but with other beings as well, and eventually with all of nature. This is the practice of ecosophy.
But, in addition, we must recognize that the philosophy of industrial culture is rooted in an approach to the world that necessarily divides the human person into parts and the world into fragments. The organization of industrial society for productive activity and profit reorders the whole range of values of earlier societies. It intensifies the urbanization of human life, destroys rural culture, and turns the whole planet into a giant manufacturing and marketing system, in which the major media become primarily marketing tools and time-filling entertainment. The depopulated wilderness and farmland become only raw materials. Forests are just logs for timber and fiber. The models and paradigms under which industrial philosophy operates must be replaced by new ones. Drawing from ancient wisdom and contemporary understanding of both ecological processes and transpersonal human development, we can provide a new vision of human possibilities and of nature, based on ecocentric values. (Drengson, 3)
... the environment is one whole—it is not cut up into specialties, disciplines and departments—and part of our difficulty in dealing with environmental problems is that we do not approach them as a unified whole. (Drengson, 1)
In industrial society, life becomes abstract, cut off from firsthand experience with nature, lacking in genuine human relationships; community is destroyed by the organizational processes; meaningful work is lost to the mechanization of production; and life and nature are desacralized and treated as nothing more than raw material. These losses and divisions give rise to a deep longing and a frustrating quest for self-completion, which often result in a pursuit of thrills and other compensatory activities and addictions. The whole system is characterized by violence resulting from exerting “power-over” control. To understand the deep needs of the human person is to see how we find our completion through a process of maturation that enables us to extend our sense of compassionate identification to a wider and wider sphere of relationships, not only with other humans but with other beings as well, and eventually with all of nature. This is the practice of ecosophy.
But, in addition, we must recognize that the philosophy of industrial culture is rooted in an approach to the world that necessarily divides the human person into parts and the world into fragments. The organization of industrial society for productive activity and profit reorders the whole range of values of earlier societies. It intensifies the urbanization of human life, destroys rural culture, and turns the whole planet into a giant manufacturing and marketing system, in which the major media become primarily marketing tools and time-filling entertainment. The depopulated wilderness and farmland become only raw materials. Forests are just logs for timber and fiber. The models and paradigms under which industrial philosophy operates must be replaced by new ones. Drawing from ancient wisdom and contemporary understanding of both ecological processes and transpersonal human development, we can provide a new vision of human possibilities and of nature, based on ecocentric values. (Drengson, 3)
James Surowiecki: The Ownership Society
The Ownership Society
James Surowiecki
The New Yorker
George W. Bush was reëlected last Tuesday not because of the job he did running the economy in his first term but in spite of it. (Voters for whom the economy was the most important issue voted for Kerry by a four-to-one margin.) Bush doesn’t get to coast for the next four years, though; he’s facing a host of economic problems, particularly the mounting cost of health care and the looming crisis in funding for Social Security and Medicare. Bush, of course, has a master plan: he intends to turn America into what he calls an ownership society.
Read the Rest of the Essay
James Surowiecki
The New Yorker
George W. Bush was reëlected last Tuesday not because of the job he did running the economy in his first term but in spite of it. (Voters for whom the economy was the most important issue voted for Kerry by a four-to-one margin.) Bush doesn’t get to coast for the next four years, though; he’s facing a host of economic problems, particularly the mounting cost of health care and the looming crisis in funding for Social Security and Medicare. Bush, of course, has a master plan: he intends to turn America into what he calls an ownership society.
Read the Rest of the Essay
Monday, November 08, 2004
9 MLA Interviews
It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't so close to being true--we are all academics at this site and we believe it is important to laugh at ourselves:
9 MLA Interviews
Which is your favorite?
9 MLA Interviews
Which is your favorite?
H.L. Mencken: As democracy is perfected..
(courtesy of Nth Position)
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
HL Mencken (1880-1956)
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
HL Mencken (1880-1956)
Think About Where Your Money Goes
You should first read this post Joining the Rest of the World (courtesy Mouse Musings and Progressive Blogger Alliance) then think about who you are supporting with your hard-earned dollars:
Top 25 Republican Party donors (1999-2003) with global consumer brands
1 Altria (formerly Philip Morris) $6.5m
2 AT&T $5.36m
3 Microsoft Corp. $5.12m
4 United Parcel Services $4.48m
5 MBNA $4.38m
6 Citigroup $3.93m
7 Pfizer $3.9m
8 FedEx Corp. $3.4m
9 Bristol-Myers Squibb $3.4m
10 GlaxoSmithKline $3m
11 Wal-Mart $2.85m
12 General Electric $2.58m
13 ExxonMobil $2.35m
14 AOL Time Warner $2.31m
15 Anheuser Busch $2.23m
16 ChevronTexaco $2.2m
17 PepsiCo $1.9m
18 Schering Plough $1.8m
19 Archer Daniels Midland $1.8m
20 Wyeth (formerly American Home Products)$1.74m
21 Alticor Inc. $1.7m
22 American Airlines $1.62m
23 Ford $1.52m
24 BP Amoco $1.25m
25 Disney $1.25m
Top 25 Republican Party donors (1999-2003) with global consumer brands
1 Altria (formerly Philip Morris) $6.5m
2 AT&T $5.36m
3 Microsoft Corp. $5.12m
4 United Parcel Services $4.48m
5 MBNA $4.38m
6 Citigroup $3.93m
7 Pfizer $3.9m
8 FedEx Corp. $3.4m
9 Bristol-Myers Squibb $3.4m
10 GlaxoSmithKline $3m
11 Wal-Mart $2.85m
12 General Electric $2.58m
13 ExxonMobil $2.35m
14 AOL Time Warner $2.31m
15 Anheuser Busch $2.23m
16 ChevronTexaco $2.2m
17 PepsiCo $1.9m
18 Schering Plough $1.8m
19 Archer Daniels Midland $1.8m
20 Wyeth (formerly American Home Products)$1.74m
21 Alticor Inc. $1.7m
22 American Airlines $1.62m
23 Ford $1.52m
24 BP Amoco $1.25m
25 Disney $1.25m
Critical View of the Assault on Fallujah
I have been reading Michael H's series of postings on the American assault on Fallujah at Spontaneous Arising
Highly recommended for their wide range of connections and influences!
Highly recommended for their wide range of connections and influences!
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Glowlab: Neuroscape
Neuroscape is a collaborative environment, an individual and collective musing on the places - real and imagined - that we interact with, informed by personal narratives and investigations into what it could all possibly mean.
Glowlab: Neuroscape
Glowlab: Neuroscape
Revealed: Pharmaceutical Giant's Secret Plan to Push 'Happy' Pills
Cue Steppenwolf's "The Pusher":
You know I smoked a lot of grass.
Oh Lord! I popped a lot of pills.
But I've never touched nothin'
That my spirit couldn't kill.
You know I've seen a lot of people walking 'round
With tombstones in their eyes.
But the pusher don't care
If you live -- or if you die.
God Damn! The pusher.
God Damn! The pusher.
I said God Damn! God damn the pusher man.
You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With a lump of grass in his hand.
But the pusher is a monster
Not a natural man.
The dealer for a nickel
Goin to sell you lots of sweet dreams.
Ah...but the pusher will ruin your body;
Lord he'll leave your mind to scream.
God Damn! The pusher.
God Damn! God damn the pusher.
I said God Damn! God damn the pusher man.
Well now if I were the president of this land
You know I'd declare total war on the pusher man.
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he run,
And I'd kill him with my bible, and my razor and my gun....
GOD DAMN! The pusher
God damn the pusher.
I said God damn! God damn the pusher man!
Revealed: secret plan to push'happy' pills
You know I smoked a lot of grass.
Oh Lord! I popped a lot of pills.
But I've never touched nothin'
That my spirit couldn't kill.
You know I've seen a lot of people walking 'round
With tombstones in their eyes.
But the pusher don't care
If you live -- or if you die.
God Damn! The pusher.
God Damn! The pusher.
I said God Damn! God damn the pusher man.
You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With a lump of grass in his hand.
But the pusher is a monster
Not a natural man.
The dealer for a nickel
Goin to sell you lots of sweet dreams.
Ah...but the pusher will ruin your body;
Lord he'll leave your mind to scream.
God Damn! The pusher.
God Damn! God damn the pusher.
I said God Damn! God damn the pusher man.
Well now if I were the president of this land
You know I'd declare total war on the pusher man.
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he run,
And I'd kill him with my bible, and my razor and my gun....
GOD DAMN! The pusher
God damn the pusher.
I said God damn! God damn the pusher man!
Revealed: secret plan to push'happy' pills
Herbert Marcuse
Here is a huge online archive of Herbert Marcuse's writings. It include the complete text of One Dimensional Man:
Marcuse's Writings
From his biography:
Marcuse, Herbert (1898-1979)
German-born U.S. political philosopher whose combination of Marxism and Freudian psychology was popular for a time among student radicals in the late 1960s.
Having become a member of the Social Democratic Party while a student at the University of Freiburg, Marcuse joined the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in 1932 and became its most widely read spokesperson. He fled to Geneva in 1933 when Hitler came to power, then went to the United States in 1934, where he taught at Columbia University and became a US citizen in 1940. His Reason & Revolution, written in 1941, made an important contribution to the understanding of Hegel and his influence on Marx.
An intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army during World War II, he headed the Central European Section of the Office of Intelligence Research after the war. He returned to teaching in 1951 at Columbia and Harvard, Brandeis University (1954-65), and the University of California at San Diego (1965-76), where after retirement he was honorary emeritus professor of philosophy until his death.
A Hegelian-Freudian-Marxist, Marcuse highlighted the cultural forms of repression and the role of technology and the expansion of the production of consumer goods in the maintenance of the stability of capitalism. Marcuse observed that Post-War prosperity had managed to keep the masses intellectually and spiritually captive and his later works are permeated with pessimism. Although a open critic of the established order, Marcuse did not applaud the 1968 demonstrations by students, many of whom were his readers, believing the demonstrations to be misguided: “I still consider the American University an oasis of free speech and real critical thinking in the society,” he said. “Any student movement should try to protect this citadel . . . [but] try to radicalise the departments inside the university.”
Among his major writings are Reason and Revolution (1941), Eros and Civilisation (1955), One-Dimensional Man (1964) and Studies in Critical Philosophy (1972
Source Link
Marcuse's Writings
From his biography:
Marcuse, Herbert (1898-1979)
German-born U.S. political philosopher whose combination of Marxism and Freudian psychology was popular for a time among student radicals in the late 1960s.
Having become a member of the Social Democratic Party while a student at the University of Freiburg, Marcuse joined the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in 1932 and became its most widely read spokesperson. He fled to Geneva in 1933 when Hitler came to power, then went to the United States in 1934, where he taught at Columbia University and became a US citizen in 1940. His Reason & Revolution, written in 1941, made an important contribution to the understanding of Hegel and his influence on Marx.
An intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army during World War II, he headed the Central European Section of the Office of Intelligence Research after the war. He returned to teaching in 1951 at Columbia and Harvard, Brandeis University (1954-65), and the University of California at San Diego (1965-76), where after retirement he was honorary emeritus professor of philosophy until his death.
A Hegelian-Freudian-Marxist, Marcuse highlighted the cultural forms of repression and the role of technology and the expansion of the production of consumer goods in the maintenance of the stability of capitalism. Marcuse observed that Post-War prosperity had managed to keep the masses intellectually and spiritually captive and his later works are permeated with pessimism. Although a open critic of the established order, Marcuse did not applaud the 1968 demonstrations by students, many of whom were his readers, believing the demonstrations to be misguided: “I still consider the American University an oasis of free speech and real critical thinking in the society,” he said. “Any student movement should try to protect this citadel . . . [but] try to radicalise the departments inside the university.”
Among his major writings are Reason and Revolution (1941), Eros and Civilisation (1955), One-Dimensional Man (1964) and Studies in Critical Philosophy (1972
Source Link
Globalization and Labor
We are often presented with the illusion that the globalization of labor practices (to the disadvantage of labor) is just a problem in undeveloped countries. Check out this report from San Francisco:
Beyond the Picket Line
Beyond the Picket Line
And Here Are Your Newly Elected Officials!
The World Socialist Web Site gives us the lowdown on our newly elected officials (and you thought Dubya was bad!)...:
US Election Notes
In Kentucky we are especially proud of:
US Election Notes
In Kentucky we are especially proud of:
No account of what might be called the lunatic right would be complete without mentioning Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who won reelection narrowly despite a series of bizarre incidents which led the state’s largest newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, to publicly question his mental health. Bunning remarked that his Democratic opponent, Daniel Mongiardo, looked like one of Saddam Hussein’s sons. He claimed that Mongiardo aides had assaulted his wife at a campaign rally, and demanded federal protection against the prospect of terrorist attacks on his campaign events in rural Kentucky. At one point, the 71-year-old senator revealed that he had not read a newspaper in six weeks and was not aware of the refusal of Army reservists in Iraq to go on a convoy mission. Meanwhile, Bunning supporters circulated rumors that Mongiardo was gay.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Estephania: Politics and Cooking
Estephania creates a spicy intellectual meal in her recent post Politics and Cooking. An excerpt:
On Tuesday I learned, in no uncertain terms, that the majority of this country looks at the world, America's role in the world, and our responsibilities as citizens in a fundamentally different way than I do. Up until Tuesday night, I believed that the majority of the people believed in civil rights. In the basic tenants that, "all men are created equal." That torture was wrong. That what I consider bedrocks of our country, like the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment should not be gutted our of facist reactionary fear. What I learned was that "equality" to the majority really means, "equality for people like me." That the majority is more concerned with itself than with protecting anyone. That discrimination is perfectly acceptable. That is pathetic - and they have no concept of how dangerous their views are, the slippery slope they have traversed down.
"When they took the 4th Amendment away, I was quiet because I didn't deal in drugs... When they took the 6th Amendment away, I was quiet because I had never been arrested...When they took the 2nd Amendment away, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun...Now they have taken the 1st Amendment away, and all I can do is be quiet." –Fred Albury
That is, of course, modified from Martin Niemoeller's quote: "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
And another twist to it is the brilliant essay, First they came for the Muslims, that Stephen Rohde wrote in the aftermath of the Patriot Act. "First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim. Then they came for the immigrants, detaining them indefinitely solely on the certification of the attorney general, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant. Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect. Then they came to prosecute noncitizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a noncitizen. Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peak" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide. Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I no longer participated in any groups. Then they came to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without any charges and without access to lawyers, and I didn't speak up because I would never be arrested. Then they came to institute TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) recruiting citizens to spy on other citizens and I didn't speak up because I was afraid. Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it only aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up ... because I didn't speak up. Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up."
Dutch Filmmamker Theo Van Gogh is Murdered
Dutch filmamker Theo Van Gogh was murdered Tuesday in Amsterdam by a group of extremist muslims angry about his latest film that portrays a woman abused in Islamic society:
Google Archive of Reports
Google Archive of Reports
Boulder Colorado High School Students Occupy Building in a Protest
(courtesy of Michael H. at Spontaneous Arising)
These high school students inspire me with their courage and passion:
Kids are not taking it any more
These high school students inspire me with their courage and passion:
Kids are not taking it any more
Teaching Snippet
Teaching Reflection
I am amazed at the dual tensions that are rippling through our young intellectuals. While many are in search of profits or chasing illusionary celebrity, a smaller, but increasing minority are becoming very vocal and politically active, trying to effect change…
You can’t rush at them like a middle linebacker, hitting them with reality and all its dirty secrets, rather you have to engage in the dialogic co-creation/exploration of the world, in which the student is introduced to critical tools that allow them to access multiple narratives of understanding/meaning. Once they recognize that the “one” truth they have been indoctrinated into all their lives is so exclusionary of so many other possibilities then the world opens up before their eyes. Of course, this is a fragile process, it can be destabilizing and threatening, so slow, careful steps—progress towards meta-awareness, not pell-mell destruction of beliefs.
Last week I had a young, bright, student tell me how she was a big fan of Ayn Rand and desired to write her paper on the benefits of free-market capitalism and individualistic competition. I said great, write me a proposal—which she did, the proposal was amazing (written over a week), a true document of inner turmoil caused by the accessing of different perspectives on an issue that was represented as an unquestioned truth. Like many intellectuals she was struggling to reconcile her lifelong indoctrination into a worldview that celebrated unfettered capitalism as the supreme beneficial societal force and her desire that we all have the basic necessities of life. A major, recent influence was a “social services” course that introduced her to different realities and perspectives about the world. In this course she began to engage these perspectives, and in doing so her paper proposal to write on Ayn Rand changed into a critique of the values that she defended at the beginning of the project. In the proposal’s original narrative she kept coming up against a truism that had been repeated to her throughout her upbringing—“unfettered free-market capitalism is the superior social system because the freedom of individualistic competition is the most beneficial for everyone”—bam! She continuously ran into this paradoxical wall, bam! bam! four times in her proposal, bam! … just yesterday she told me she had always believed, somehow, that it was true and that no one had encouraged her, of course, to consider those that lose in the competition, or, those that are excluded from ever joining the race…
I am amazed at the dual tensions that are rippling through our young intellectuals. While many are in search of profits or chasing illusionary celebrity, a smaller, but increasing minority are becoming very vocal and politically active, trying to effect change…
You can’t rush at them like a middle linebacker, hitting them with reality and all its dirty secrets, rather you have to engage in the dialogic co-creation/exploration of the world, in which the student is introduced to critical tools that allow them to access multiple narratives of understanding/meaning. Once they recognize that the “one” truth they have been indoctrinated into all their lives is so exclusionary of so many other possibilities then the world opens up before their eyes. Of course, this is a fragile process, it can be destabilizing and threatening, so slow, careful steps—progress towards meta-awareness, not pell-mell destruction of beliefs.
Last week I had a young, bright, student tell me how she was a big fan of Ayn Rand and desired to write her paper on the benefits of free-market capitalism and individualistic competition. I said great, write me a proposal—which she did, the proposal was amazing (written over a week), a true document of inner turmoil caused by the accessing of different perspectives on an issue that was represented as an unquestioned truth. Like many intellectuals she was struggling to reconcile her lifelong indoctrination into a worldview that celebrated unfettered capitalism as the supreme beneficial societal force and her desire that we all have the basic necessities of life. A major, recent influence was a “social services” course that introduced her to different realities and perspectives about the world. In this course she began to engage these perspectives, and in doing so her paper proposal to write on Ayn Rand changed into a critique of the values that she defended at the beginning of the project. In the proposal’s original narrative she kept coming up against a truism that had been repeated to her throughout her upbringing—“unfettered free-market capitalism is the superior social system because the freedom of individualistic competition is the most beneficial for everyone”—bam! She continuously ran into this paradoxical wall, bam! bam! four times in her proposal, bam! … just yesterday she told me she had always believed, somehow, that it was true and that no one had encouraged her, of course, to consider those that lose in the competition, or, those that are excluded from ever joining the race…
NarcoNews
(courtesy of a response posted on this blog by Harry of Scratchings)
Speaking of media development, NarcoNews is a case study in the development and implementation of reality-based funding and reporting. It's a populist news service that cuts across artificially defined partisanship in pursuit of getting as close to the truth as possible. If anyone is looking for a place to start, or people worth assisting, I'd be hard pressed to think of one better.
Also check out their blog NarcoSphere
Speaking of media development, NarcoNews is a case study in the development and implementation of reality-based funding and reporting. It's a populist news service that cuts across artificially defined partisanship in pursuit of getting as close to the truth as possible. If anyone is looking for a place to start, or people worth assisting, I'd be hard pressed to think of one better.
Also check out their blog NarcoSphere
El Oso's Plan
First read At the heart of good political discussion then visit Oso's proposal Day 1...
Friday, November 05, 2004
Electing to Leave: Harper’s Guide to Expatriating
(courtesy of Esmail)
It is very difficult to renounce your citizenship:
Electing to Leave: A reader’s guide to expatriating
It is very difficult to renounce your citizenship:
Electing to Leave: A reader’s guide to expatriating
Environmental Blowback: Never Shutting Up
Orion magazine has compiled a collection of responses from leading environmentalists on the aftermath of the 2004 elections:
Environmental Blowback: Never Shutting Up
Environmental Blowback: Never Shutting Up
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Richard Feynman: I Wonder Why I Wonder Why
"I wonder why. I wonder why. / I wonder why I wonder / I wonder why I wonder why / I wonder why I wonder!"
---From the scientist Richard Feynman's childhood writings
---From the scientist Richard Feynman's childhood writings
More Thoughts on the Aftermath of 11/2
(response to comments on an earlier post)
I don't see our country as a true theocracy or even close. The neo-conservatives have co-opted some of the language and values of a Christian mindset and propped up their masquerade with a fanatical true-believer, but they are in no way acting or ruling according to Christian values (at least as I understand them).
People are just scared and that makes them easily manipulated. When we see those polls that so many people are believers I think that it is distorted in that a huge chunk of those people are infrequent church-goers (except where I am at--where they take their drinking and church-going seriously) and say they believe in God because the alternative would short-circuit their brain (I don't say this in a demeaning way--whenever I sit down and fully reflect on my anti-theism it seriously messes with my psyche). We are indocrinated/interpellated into belief in a God, it is frightening to think otherwise because once you remove that foundational card the whole house comes down...
Communication--we need to develop media channels to combat the corporate media system--this is a huge problem. The most disturbing part of the current social trend is its reliance upon a monological media system--one view, one politics, one voice (even if the players like to pretend the Rep and Demos are drastically different they are still agreeing on what to disagree about and whatever falls outside their agreed limits is not discussed or considered)
I don't see our country as a true theocracy or even close. The neo-conservatives have co-opted some of the language and values of a Christian mindset and propped up their masquerade with a fanatical true-believer, but they are in no way acting or ruling according to Christian values (at least as I understand them).
People are just scared and that makes them easily manipulated. When we see those polls that so many people are believers I think that it is distorted in that a huge chunk of those people are infrequent church-goers (except where I am at--where they take their drinking and church-going seriously) and say they believe in God because the alternative would short-circuit their brain (I don't say this in a demeaning way--whenever I sit down and fully reflect on my anti-theism it seriously messes with my psyche). We are indocrinated/interpellated into belief in a God, it is frightening to think otherwise because once you remove that foundational card the whole house comes down...
Communication--we need to develop media channels to combat the corporate media system--this is a huge problem. The most disturbing part of the current social trend is its reliance upon a monological media system--one view, one politics, one voice (even if the players like to pretend the Rep and Demos are drastically different they are still agreeing on what to disagree about and whatever falls outside their agreed limits is not discussed or considered)
Russell Morse: Youth Voting Does Not a Movement Make
YOUTH VOTING DOES NOT A MOVEMENT MAKE
BY RUSSELL MORSE, PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE
EDITOR'S NOTE: Anyone who thought youths would save John Kerry from Karl Rove's evangelicals must be disappointed. Overall youth voter turnout was up in an election that saw more Americans go to the polls. But as a percentage of the total vote, the youth vote didn't budge -- and many young voters chose Bush. PNS contributor Russell Morse, 23, sees youths inching toward a political identity most politicos just can't grasp. Morse is an associate editor of YO! Youth Outlook Magazine, a magazine by and for Bay Area youths and a PNS project.
I've spent the past year focusing almost exclusively on the role of young people in this presidential election, and I didn't learn anything until Bush delivered his victory speech. That's when I realized that a victory for Kerry on the heels of a massive youth voter turnout would have killed any hope for a viable movement of young people in America.
On Tuesday night, as the election coverage dragged on and it became clear that W would put this one in his pocket, a graying Democratic pollster tried to spin the non-impact of the youth vote into a "wait till next time" scenario. She acknowledged the efforts and enthusiasm of organizations like Rock the Vote, Punk Voter, "Vote or Die" and said that America was witnessing "the creation of a new political generation." Well, this Prius-driving Democratic spokesperson may have secured a talking head spot on PBS, but she missed the mark.
This political generation wasn't created. It evolved as we witnessed crumbling towers and school-shooting carnage -- tragic, fantastic spectacles that make a mohawked Puff Daddy in a "Vote or Die" T-shirt seem even more ridiculous than he actually is. It evolved as we watched the last presidential election expose an inefficient, crooked and dangerously vulnerable democracy. We've seen that political power comes from dramatic, sensational and violent acts, not from a punch card.
Something else to consider is the misconception that if prompted to participate, young people will vote Democratic. It's expected that we'll fall in line with union workers and menopausal feminists with litmus issues and party loyalty. And had we boosted John Kerry into the White House, this misconception would have been confirmed and our wad of political power would have been shot for four years of mediocrity. While it's true that young people were backed into a corner by the boundless lunacy of our president's policies, it obviously doesn't mean that we were tying each other's shoelaces together to be the first in line for Kerry. Only one in 10 young people aged 18 to 24 voted Nov. 2, 2004. Just about the same number that voted on Nov. 2, 2000.
A couple weeks ago, Eminem released a music video for his song "Mosh," a political diatribe against the president. The video featured computer animated images of a young man being sent to fight in Iraq, a young woman evicted from her home as reports of Bush's tax cuts flashed on her television and an army of hooded, angry and multicultural young people marching on the White House.
Eminem does a sound job of reflecting the concerns of young America with (mostly) articulate, intelligent lyrics -- and then he missteps. As the young rainbow coalition mob fights past the secret service and makes it into the White House, they form a line and register to vote. Forget for a second that the video aired after the deadline to register, and consider that the violent, angry and unpredictable Eminem led a legion of furious young people into Bush's house so they could. . . fill out a form. That's like storming the Bastille for a visitor's pass.
Em's video, along with the youth voter drive led by organizations like Rock the Vote, had the same impact and success as commercials on daytime television -- if you're fat, broke, or unemployed enough and you don't know what to do about it, you'll eventually give in and get the Bowflex, apply for a high interest credit card or go to massage therapy school. If you're baffled enough by the spiraling madness of Bush's America, you'll shrug and put a Kerry button on your JanSport. A number of young people did that. But it does not qualify as the creation of a political generation.
I'm not saying that young people shouldn't vote. I'm saying that young people are inching toward a political identity by yearning for a voice that isn't limited to voting once every four years or being ignored by a party that takes us for granted. I know few of us are looking forward to 2008, when we'll have to endure Arnold Schwarzenegger calling Hilary Clinton a "manly girl" before sweeping the electoral college.
Ultimately, though, we have to consider that the result of this election has hastened the Apocalypse. When the bombs start dropping and we're eating baked beans out of the can in an underground parking structure for the next 10,000 years, we'll all be yearning for a simpler world, where Bruce Springsteen and the Black Eyed Peas could collaborate on a campaign song for Hilary.
BY RUSSELL MORSE, PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE
EDITOR'S NOTE: Anyone who thought youths would save John Kerry from Karl Rove's evangelicals must be disappointed. Overall youth voter turnout was up in an election that saw more Americans go to the polls. But as a percentage of the total vote, the youth vote didn't budge -- and many young voters chose Bush. PNS contributor Russell Morse, 23, sees youths inching toward a political identity most politicos just can't grasp. Morse is an associate editor of YO! Youth Outlook Magazine, a magazine by and for Bay Area youths and a PNS project.
I've spent the past year focusing almost exclusively on the role of young people in this presidential election, and I didn't learn anything until Bush delivered his victory speech. That's when I realized that a victory for Kerry on the heels of a massive youth voter turnout would have killed any hope for a viable movement of young people in America.
On Tuesday night, as the election coverage dragged on and it became clear that W would put this one in his pocket, a graying Democratic pollster tried to spin the non-impact of the youth vote into a "wait till next time" scenario. She acknowledged the efforts and enthusiasm of organizations like Rock the Vote, Punk Voter, "Vote or Die" and said that America was witnessing "the creation of a new political generation." Well, this Prius-driving Democratic spokesperson may have secured a talking head spot on PBS, but she missed the mark.
This political generation wasn't created. It evolved as we witnessed crumbling towers and school-shooting carnage -- tragic, fantastic spectacles that make a mohawked Puff Daddy in a "Vote or Die" T-shirt seem even more ridiculous than he actually is. It evolved as we watched the last presidential election expose an inefficient, crooked and dangerously vulnerable democracy. We've seen that political power comes from dramatic, sensational and violent acts, not from a punch card.
Something else to consider is the misconception that if prompted to participate, young people will vote Democratic. It's expected that we'll fall in line with union workers and menopausal feminists with litmus issues and party loyalty. And had we boosted John Kerry into the White House, this misconception would have been confirmed and our wad of political power would have been shot for four years of mediocrity. While it's true that young people were backed into a corner by the boundless lunacy of our president's policies, it obviously doesn't mean that we were tying each other's shoelaces together to be the first in line for Kerry. Only one in 10 young people aged 18 to 24 voted Nov. 2, 2004. Just about the same number that voted on Nov. 2, 2000.
A couple weeks ago, Eminem released a music video for his song "Mosh," a political diatribe against the president. The video featured computer animated images of a young man being sent to fight in Iraq, a young woman evicted from her home as reports of Bush's tax cuts flashed on her television and an army of hooded, angry and multicultural young people marching on the White House.
Eminem does a sound job of reflecting the concerns of young America with (mostly) articulate, intelligent lyrics -- and then he missteps. As the young rainbow coalition mob fights past the secret service and makes it into the White House, they form a line and register to vote. Forget for a second that the video aired after the deadline to register, and consider that the violent, angry and unpredictable Eminem led a legion of furious young people into Bush's house so they could. . . fill out a form. That's like storming the Bastille for a visitor's pass.
Em's video, along with the youth voter drive led by organizations like Rock the Vote, had the same impact and success as commercials on daytime television -- if you're fat, broke, or unemployed enough and you don't know what to do about it, you'll eventually give in and get the Bowflex, apply for a high interest credit card or go to massage therapy school. If you're baffled enough by the spiraling madness of Bush's America, you'll shrug and put a Kerry button on your JanSport. A number of young people did that. But it does not qualify as the creation of a political generation.
I'm not saying that young people shouldn't vote. I'm saying that young people are inching toward a political identity by yearning for a voice that isn't limited to voting once every four years or being ignored by a party that takes us for granted. I know few of us are looking forward to 2008, when we'll have to endure Arnold Schwarzenegger calling Hilary Clinton a "manly girl" before sweeping the electoral college.
Ultimately, though, we have to consider that the result of this election has hastened the Apocalypse. When the bombs start dropping and we're eating baked beans out of the can in an underground parking structure for the next 10,000 years, we'll all be yearning for a simpler world, where Bruce Springsteen and the Black Eyed Peas could collaborate on a campaign song for Hilary.
Greg Palast: Is This Democracy?
For some this may sound like sour grapes but Greg Palast supplies some relevant documents to support his case that Kerry Won
The Edwards Family
Whatever bitter feelings I have about the Kerry campaign, I must admit that John Edwards is a class act. Thus I'm sorry to hear this report and hope for the best for Elizabeth Edwards and her family.
International Media Responses to the Bush Victory
The Christian Science Monitor has reviewed the international editorial responses to the Bush election and compiled a synthesis
Wendell Berry: The Work of Local Culture
Berry, Wendell. “The Work of Local Culture.” What Are People For? San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990: 153-169.
A human community, too, must collect leaves and stories, and turn them to account. It must build soil, and build that memory of itself—in lore and story and song—that will be its culture. These two kinds of accumulation, of local soil and local culture, are intimately related. (Berry, 154)
A human community, then, if it is to last long, must exert a sort of centripetal force, holding local soil and local memory in place. (Berry, 155)
This loss of local knowledge and local memory—that is, of local culture—has been ignored, or written off as one of the cheaper “prices of progress,” or made the business of folklorists. Nevertheless, local culture has a value, and part of its value is economic. This can be demonstrated readily enough. (Berry, 157)
... when a community loses its memory, its members no longer know one another. How can they know one another if they have forgotten or have never learned one another’s stories? If they do not know one another’s stories, how can they know whether or not to trust one another? People who do not trust one another do not help one another, and moreover they fear one another. And this is our predicament now. Because of a general distrust and suspicion, we not only lose one another’s help and companionship, but we are all now living in jeopardy of being sued. (Berry, 157-158)
... most people of the present can only marvel to think of neighbors entertaining themselves for a whole evening without a single imported pleasure and without listening to a single minute of sales talk. (Berry, 159)
But if, for example, there should occur a forty-eight-hour power failure, we would find ourselves in much more backward circumstances than our ancestors. (Berry, 159)
Professionalism means more interest in salaries and less interest in what used to be known as disciplines. And so we arrive at the idea, endlessly reiterated in the news media, that education can be improved by bigger salaries for teachers—which may be true, but education cannot be improved, as the proponents too often imply, by bigger salaries alone. There must also be love of learning and of the cultural tradition and of excellence—and this love cannot exist, because it makes no sense, apart from the love of a place and a community. Without this love, education is only the importation into a local community of centrally prescribed “career preparation” designed to facilitate the export of young careerists. (Berry, 164)
Our children are educated, then, to leave home, not to stay home, and the costs of this education have been far too little acknowledged. One of the costs is psychological, and the other is at once cultural and ecological. (Berry, 164)
The natural or normal course of human growing up must begin with some sort of rebellion against one’s parents, for it is clearly impossible to grow up if one remains a child. But the child, in the process of rebellion and of achieving the emotional and economic independence that rebellion ought to lead to, finally comes to understand the parents as fellow humans and fellow sufferers, and in some manner returns to them as their friend, forgiven and forgiving the inevitable wrongs of family life. That is the old norm. (Berry, 164-165)
The new norm, according to which the child leaves home as a student and never lives at home again, interrupts the old course of coming of age at the point of rebellion, so that the child is apt to remain stalled in adolescence, never achieving any kind of reconciliation or friendship with the parents. Of course, such a return and reconciliation cannot be achieved without the recognition of mutual practical need. In the present economy, however, where individual dependences are so much exterior to both household and community, family members often have no practical need or use for one another. Hence the frequent futility of attempts at a purely psychological or emotional reconciliation. (Berry, 165)
The loss of local culture is, in part, a practical loss and an economic one. For one thing, such a culture contains, and conveys to succeeding generations, the history of the use of the place and the knowledge of how the place may be lived in and used. For another, the pattern of reminding implies affection for the place and respect for it, and so, finally, the local culture will carry the knowledge of how the place may be well and lovingly used, and also the implicit command to use it only well and lovingly. The only true and effective “operator’s manual for spaceship earth” is not a book that any human will ever write, it is hundreds of thousands of local cultures. (Berry, 166)
Lacking an authentic local culture, a place is open to exploitation, and ultimately to destruction, from the center. (Berry, 166)
A human community, too, must collect leaves and stories, and turn them to account. It must build soil, and build that memory of itself—in lore and story and song—that will be its culture. These two kinds of accumulation, of local soil and local culture, are intimately related. (Berry, 154)
A human community, then, if it is to last long, must exert a sort of centripetal force, holding local soil and local memory in place. (Berry, 155)
This loss of local knowledge and local memory—that is, of local culture—has been ignored, or written off as one of the cheaper “prices of progress,” or made the business of folklorists. Nevertheless, local culture has a value, and part of its value is economic. This can be demonstrated readily enough. (Berry, 157)
... when a community loses its memory, its members no longer know one another. How can they know one another if they have forgotten or have never learned one another’s stories? If they do not know one another’s stories, how can they know whether or not to trust one another? People who do not trust one another do not help one another, and moreover they fear one another. And this is our predicament now. Because of a general distrust and suspicion, we not only lose one another’s help and companionship, but we are all now living in jeopardy of being sued. (Berry, 157-158)
... most people of the present can only marvel to think of neighbors entertaining themselves for a whole evening without a single imported pleasure and without listening to a single minute of sales talk. (Berry, 159)
But if, for example, there should occur a forty-eight-hour power failure, we would find ourselves in much more backward circumstances than our ancestors. (Berry, 159)
Professionalism means more interest in salaries and less interest in what used to be known as disciplines. And so we arrive at the idea, endlessly reiterated in the news media, that education can be improved by bigger salaries for teachers—which may be true, but education cannot be improved, as the proponents too often imply, by bigger salaries alone. There must also be love of learning and of the cultural tradition and of excellence—and this love cannot exist, because it makes no sense, apart from the love of a place and a community. Without this love, education is only the importation into a local community of centrally prescribed “career preparation” designed to facilitate the export of young careerists. (Berry, 164)
Our children are educated, then, to leave home, not to stay home, and the costs of this education have been far too little acknowledged. One of the costs is psychological, and the other is at once cultural and ecological. (Berry, 164)
The natural or normal course of human growing up must begin with some sort of rebellion against one’s parents, for it is clearly impossible to grow up if one remains a child. But the child, in the process of rebellion and of achieving the emotional and economic independence that rebellion ought to lead to, finally comes to understand the parents as fellow humans and fellow sufferers, and in some manner returns to them as their friend, forgiven and forgiving the inevitable wrongs of family life. That is the old norm. (Berry, 164-165)
The new norm, according to which the child leaves home as a student and never lives at home again, interrupts the old course of coming of age at the point of rebellion, so that the child is apt to remain stalled in adolescence, never achieving any kind of reconciliation or friendship with the parents. Of course, such a return and reconciliation cannot be achieved without the recognition of mutual practical need. In the present economy, however, where individual dependences are so much exterior to both household and community, family members often have no practical need or use for one another. Hence the frequent futility of attempts at a purely psychological or emotional reconciliation. (Berry, 165)
The loss of local culture is, in part, a practical loss and an economic one. For one thing, such a culture contains, and conveys to succeeding generations, the history of the use of the place and the knowledge of how the place may be lived in and used. For another, the pattern of reminding implies affection for the place and respect for it, and so, finally, the local culture will carry the knowledge of how the place may be well and lovingly used, and also the implicit command to use it only well and lovingly. The only true and effective “operator’s manual for spaceship earth” is not a book that any human will ever write, it is hundreds of thousands of local cultures. (Berry, 166)
Lacking an authentic local culture, a place is open to exploitation, and ultimately to destruction, from the center. (Berry, 166)
Mark Weisbrot: Democrats Need New Electoral Strategy
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Democrats Need New Electoral Strategy
George W. Bush has been returned to office, with an increased Congressional majority for his party. Amazingly, he achieved this after dragging the country into a disastrous war that had nothing to do with our national security, and on the basis of lies. And after sacrificing the lives of more than 1100 Americans and probably 100,000 Iraqis (mostly innocents).
On the home front, he was the first president in 70 years to preside over a net loss of jobs. Wages have been falling even as the economy grows. He rewrote the tax-code to favor the richest Americans, and stuck the rest of us with a bill in the form of the largest national debt -- as a share of the economy -- in more than half a century.
This election result cries out for explanation, and unfortunately all the wrong answers are flooding the media. The pundits tell us that people don't vote their economic interests, that September 11th changed everything, that "values" are what really matters. Disillusioned and depressed Democrats blame the ignorance of the American electorate, an explanation that resonates abroad.
Ignorance is a problem, although it is a willful ignorance that has little to do with formal education. A poll last month found 75 percent of Bush supporters believing that Saddam Hussein gave substantial support to Al-Qaeda, and 72 percent asserting that Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction or major WMD development programs.
But Bush's vote total was less than 27 percent of the electorate, even with the record turnout. Compared to other democracies, this country discourages voting. If we held our elections on the weekend and allowed for same-day registration, a much bigger and more representative electorate would choose our government. The Republican party as we know it would have little chance at capturing the presidency or Congress.
Even today, Democrats could win by appealing to voters' economic interests. Hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters lost their jobs during the Bush presidency, but what could John Kerry tell them would change if he were elected? The leadership of his party supported most of the policies that have -- over the last 30 years -- eliminated decent-paying jobs for working people and caused a massive redistribution of income from working and middle-class Americans to the rich.
What if the Democrats put forth a real alternative, including health coverage for everyone, family leave, affordable college and child care, for example? This is not pie in the sky but the rights of citizenship in most European countries that are no richer than we are.
Of course Democrats would have to deliver the goods. But once they began to do so, Republicans would have a hard time cobbling together "majorities" on the basis of issues such as gay marriage, gun control, or coded appeals to racism.
As for terrorism, people in New York and Washington DC -- the sites of the 9/11 attacks and the most likely victims of future terrorism -- voted overwhelmingly (82 percent in Manhattan and 90 percent in DC) to oust Bush. Most of the rest of the country is also capable of understanding that wars of conquest against the Arab and Muslim world will only blow up in our faces. But the Democrats will have to be much more honest in explaining these things.
Proof from Wisconsin: Democrat Russ Feingold just won his third term in the U.S. Senate by a comfortable margin, in a state where Kerry barely squeaked by. Feingold has a clear and consistent populist economic appeal to his working constituents, strongly opposed the Iraq war, and was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. There is the future of the Democratic party -- if they have the guts to try it.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Democrats Need New Electoral Strategy
George W. Bush has been returned to office, with an increased Congressional majority for his party. Amazingly, he achieved this after dragging the country into a disastrous war that had nothing to do with our national security, and on the basis of lies. And after sacrificing the lives of more than 1100 Americans and probably 100,000 Iraqis (mostly innocents).
On the home front, he was the first president in 70 years to preside over a net loss of jobs. Wages have been falling even as the economy grows. He rewrote the tax-code to favor the richest Americans, and stuck the rest of us with a bill in the form of the largest national debt -- as a share of the economy -- in more than half a century.
This election result cries out for explanation, and unfortunately all the wrong answers are flooding the media. The pundits tell us that people don't vote their economic interests, that September 11th changed everything, that "values" are what really matters. Disillusioned and depressed Democrats blame the ignorance of the American electorate, an explanation that resonates abroad.
Ignorance is a problem, although it is a willful ignorance that has little to do with formal education. A poll last month found 75 percent of Bush supporters believing that Saddam Hussein gave substantial support to Al-Qaeda, and 72 percent asserting that Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction or major WMD development programs.
But Bush's vote total was less than 27 percent of the electorate, even with the record turnout. Compared to other democracies, this country discourages voting. If we held our elections on the weekend and allowed for same-day registration, a much bigger and more representative electorate would choose our government. The Republican party as we know it would have little chance at capturing the presidency or Congress.
Even today, Democrats could win by appealing to voters' economic interests. Hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters lost their jobs during the Bush presidency, but what could John Kerry tell them would change if he were elected? The leadership of his party supported most of the policies that have -- over the last 30 years -- eliminated decent-paying jobs for working people and caused a massive redistribution of income from working and middle-class Americans to the rich.
What if the Democrats put forth a real alternative, including health coverage for everyone, family leave, affordable college and child care, for example? This is not pie in the sky but the rights of citizenship in most European countries that are no richer than we are.
Of course Democrats would have to deliver the goods. But once they began to do so, Republicans would have a hard time cobbling together "majorities" on the basis of issues such as gay marriage, gun control, or coded appeals to racism.
As for terrorism, people in New York and Washington DC -- the sites of the 9/11 attacks and the most likely victims of future terrorism -- voted overwhelmingly (82 percent in Manhattan and 90 percent in DC) to oust Bush. Most of the rest of the country is also capable of understanding that wars of conquest against the Arab and Muslim world will only blow up in our faces. But the Democrats will have to be much more honest in explaining these things.
Proof from Wisconsin: Democrat Russ Feingold just won his third term in the U.S. Senate by a comfortable margin, in a state where Kerry barely squeaked by. Feingold has a clear and consistent populist economic appeal to his working constituents, strongly opposed the Iraq war, and was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. There is the future of the Democratic party -- if they have the guts to try it.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Gary Leupp: Democratic Elections in Historical Perspective
Counterpunch
An excerpt:
Read the Entire Essay
An excerpt:
In this country, your location and economic status consign you to school systems where your thoughts and attitudes are largely formed. The needs of capital determine your job options and hours. Such factors shape how much attention you can pay to the news ---the whole world outside your immediate circumstances---and how critically you digest what you consume. A handful of corporations feed you the news, accompanied by assurances that this transmission is "fair and balanced." Meanwhile popular culture generally suggests you should be "proud to be an American, 'cause at least" you "know" you're "free"---even if you'd be very hard-pressed to argue that you're freer than a Swede, New Zealander or Japanese. Influential religious voices (in today's America and the France of 1848) preach that God Himself opposes significant social change, and wants you to vote for His chosen candidate.
...
One final example of this disparate phenomenon, "democracy." Our word itself comes from Greek (democratia, rule by the people), and from the political system in ancient Athens, where any adult male citizen could vote in the agora. No fallible equipment cast doubt on the accuracy of the poll. Voting was direct and open. But this admirable form of "popular" rule excluded women and slaves. Two and a half millennia later, in most places, full adult suffrage is the norm; men and women of all classes perform the ritual of casting ballots for those who claim to represent them. Whether or not the vote is "fair" from a Carter Foundation or Human Rights Watch perspective, it is conditioned by a class structure limiting its legitimacy every bit as much as slavery limited Athenian democracy.
Who is party to the discussion, allowed to publicly debate? Who pays to ensure that a candidate's voice is heard? Who markets the "facts" under discussion, decides what questions get asked? CNN routinely polls its viewers (democratically, you might say), posing questions like "Who do YOU think should be the next target in the War on Terrorism?" plainly indicating to the masses that the war by general consent is really a war on "terrorism" and really should continue and the informed viewer really ought to prefer one or the other war expansion choices. Such polls never give one the option of saying, "Your question is loaded; I reject all the options you give me." Similarly the U.S. political system, harnessed to corporate power, provides options between which those questioning corporate power itself have little reason to choose. One might of course prefer slow poison to hanging, but why should one have to select between such alternatives? Humanity can do better.
Read the Entire Essay
Pa'lante
(a letter I received yesterday--with permission)
------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends, (disculpa que no está traducida al Español)
Most of you on this list are friends from other countries. By now I'm sure you've heard about the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States. It's not that bad, it's worse.
Not only was he elected by the electoral college as in 2000, but he also won the popular vote. Unlike when Al Gore ran against Bush, yesterday more Americans decided that Bush would make a better president than Kerry. A better leader of the most powerful country in the world. They chose to support the president, his conservative values, and his doctrine of pre-emption to police the world as he - and a select few - see fit.
Sadly, looking over the names on this list, it's clear to me that the majority of you are better informed about America's system of governance and the repercussions of yesterday's vote than my own fellow citizens. Still, I want to make it clear that America is a sophisticated democracy of checks and balances which limit the power of our president. I won't turn this email into American Government 101 but suffice it to say that American policy is shaped not by a single C student, Born-Again, megalomaniac, but also a house of regional representatives and state senators as well as a court of judges who interpret our constitution.
What absolutely devastates me about this election is not that Bush got re-elected. Rather it's how yesterday's vote - despite a still divided country - so greatly skews the balance of power away from liberals and towards conservatives. The conservatives expanded their lead in the senate and even defeated the Democratic senate leader. As our chief justice William Rehnquist failed to return to work yesterday because of thyroid cancer, it is clear that the supreme court will become radically more conservative over the next four years. This will inevitably result in several steps back in the fight for civil rights as well as - most likely - the outlawing of abortion throughout most of our country. Finally, you can count on the executive branch of our government to become more radical in it's Neo-conservative ideology. As Daniel Shorr explains, it is unlikely that Colin Powell (a surprising voice of reason and moderation) will remain Secretary of State in Bush's second term. You can expect a more conservative replacement whose focus will not be fixing Afghanistan and Iraq and intervening in Sudan, but rather invading Iran and North Korea.
I see very little silver lining in all of this. I laid in bed this morning for two hours staring at the ceiling. I feel a mix of depression and anger that the girl next to me is knitting and talking excitedly about a punk show tonight.
What has become clearest to me is that the majority of Americans really do want a conservative government. And so, looking towards the future, it's not just a matter of political change, but also sociological revolution. Our society is clearly confused. It happens to good people. It happened to Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco. Now let's be honest with ourselves, the re-election of George W. Bush is nowhere as grave as those four examples, but it does represent a step in the wrong direction.
Only the future will tell if Bush's re-election was the beginning of our downfall or one step back for two steps forward. I know I will do my best to make sure it is the latter. Over this past year we have seen new technologies force the kind of networking, transparency, and critical thinking that regimes like our current one detest. Bloggers are uniting. Independent voices are making podcasts heard by more and more people each week. Via instant messaging and cell phones and text messages we are in constant communication. This media revolution is the start of the sociological revolution that needs to take place in America for us to once more progress in the right direction.
The only way the majority of Americans will begin to realize the folly of their decision yesterday is if a broad discussion takes place. The internet is the best place for that to happen, but we need to deliver it to those who still depend on cable television and AM radio for all their information. Typing these emails is not enough, writing on a blog is not enough, reading the newspaper is not enough. All we're doing is preaching to our own choir, patting ourselves on the back.
Nick Lewis and a number of other quality bloggers have started the Progressive Bloggers Alliance. It has done well so far attracting intelligent, progressive bloggers eager to make change. But the word needs to be spread beyond bloggers and the internet savvy. We need outreach. We need to make posters, to mail out press releases to traditional media, to make and display bumper stickers that will get people to the discussion. I'm not talking about propaganda, but engagement. Bringing people to the discussion. It's not even a matter of conservatives versus liberals. There are a number of very intelligent conservatives out there (David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Francis Fukuyama) and most of them did not vote for George W. Bush ... for obvious reasons.
So I ask for your help. I ask you to come visit the blog I write on with two friends and participate, to comment. Start your own blog. It's free with Blogger. Join the Progressive Bloggers Alliance. Make posters, write press announcements, call into talk shows, stay up to date on the newspapers, show up to rallies. Network, network, network. No matter where you live, your opinions and comments and perspectives can have an effect on thousands of Americans who ever more increasingly turn to the internet for their news and discussion of issues.
That's all for now. I'm sorry this has gotten so long. It's a bitter and painful day for America. I know how much anti-Americanism already exists in the world. I've probably talked to each of you about it while traveling. But I ask you to not just hate America, but help change it.
With love,
David
------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends, (disculpa que no está traducida al Español)
Most of you on this list are friends from other countries. By now I'm sure you've heard about the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States. It's not that bad, it's worse.
Not only was he elected by the electoral college as in 2000, but he also won the popular vote. Unlike when Al Gore ran against Bush, yesterday more Americans decided that Bush would make a better president than Kerry. A better leader of the most powerful country in the world. They chose to support the president, his conservative values, and his doctrine of pre-emption to police the world as he - and a select few - see fit.
Sadly, looking over the names on this list, it's clear to me that the majority of you are better informed about America's system of governance and the repercussions of yesterday's vote than my own fellow citizens. Still, I want to make it clear that America is a sophisticated democracy of checks and balances which limit the power of our president. I won't turn this email into American Government 101 but suffice it to say that American policy is shaped not by a single C student, Born-Again, megalomaniac, but also a house of regional representatives and state senators as well as a court of judges who interpret our constitution.
What absolutely devastates me about this election is not that Bush got re-elected. Rather it's how yesterday's vote - despite a still divided country - so greatly skews the balance of power away from liberals and towards conservatives. The conservatives expanded their lead in the senate and even defeated the Democratic senate leader. As our chief justice William Rehnquist failed to return to work yesterday because of thyroid cancer, it is clear that the supreme court will become radically more conservative over the next four years. This will inevitably result in several steps back in the fight for civil rights as well as - most likely - the outlawing of abortion throughout most of our country. Finally, you can count on the executive branch of our government to become more radical in it's Neo-conservative ideology. As Daniel Shorr explains, it is unlikely that Colin Powell (a surprising voice of reason and moderation) will remain Secretary of State in Bush's second term. You can expect a more conservative replacement whose focus will not be fixing Afghanistan and Iraq and intervening in Sudan, but rather invading Iran and North Korea.
I see very little silver lining in all of this. I laid in bed this morning for two hours staring at the ceiling. I feel a mix of depression and anger that the girl next to me is knitting and talking excitedly about a punk show tonight.
What has become clearest to me is that the majority of Americans really do want a conservative government. And so, looking towards the future, it's not just a matter of political change, but also sociological revolution. Our society is clearly confused. It happens to good people. It happened to Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco. Now let's be honest with ourselves, the re-election of George W. Bush is nowhere as grave as those four examples, but it does represent a step in the wrong direction.
Only the future will tell if Bush's re-election was the beginning of our downfall or one step back for two steps forward. I know I will do my best to make sure it is the latter. Over this past year we have seen new technologies force the kind of networking, transparency, and critical thinking that regimes like our current one detest. Bloggers are uniting. Independent voices are making podcasts heard by more and more people each week. Via instant messaging and cell phones and text messages we are in constant communication. This media revolution is the start of the sociological revolution that needs to take place in America for us to once more progress in the right direction.
The only way the majority of Americans will begin to realize the folly of their decision yesterday is if a broad discussion takes place. The internet is the best place for that to happen, but we need to deliver it to those who still depend on cable television and AM radio for all their information. Typing these emails is not enough, writing on a blog is not enough, reading the newspaper is not enough. All we're doing is preaching to our own choir, patting ourselves on the back.
Nick Lewis and a number of other quality bloggers have started the Progressive Bloggers Alliance. It has done well so far attracting intelligent, progressive bloggers eager to make change. But the word needs to be spread beyond bloggers and the internet savvy. We need outreach. We need to make posters, to mail out press releases to traditional media, to make and display bumper stickers that will get people to the discussion. I'm not talking about propaganda, but engagement. Bringing people to the discussion. It's not even a matter of conservatives versus liberals. There are a number of very intelligent conservatives out there (David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Francis Fukuyama) and most of them did not vote for George W. Bush ... for obvious reasons.
So I ask for your help. I ask you to come visit the blog I write on with two friends and participate, to comment. Start your own blog. It's free with Blogger. Join the Progressive Bloggers Alliance. Make posters, write press announcements, call into talk shows, stay up to date on the newspapers, show up to rallies. Network, network, network. No matter where you live, your opinions and comments and perspectives can have an effect on thousands of Americans who ever more increasingly turn to the internet for their news and discussion of issues.
That's all for now. I'm sorry this has gotten so long. It's a bitter and painful day for America. I know how much anti-Americanism already exists in the world. I've probably talked to each of you about it while traveling. But I ask you to not just hate America, but help change it.
With love,
David
Lakshmi Chaudhry: The Unbearable Darkness of Being
Sorry folks I'm not going to get along for the good of the nation:
Alternet
An excerpt:
Entire Article
Alternet
An excerpt:
John Edwards was right in a way. There are two Americas: one that values tolerance, justice, and equality; the other that believes in Divine Will. But now that the Democrats lost the election – and control over every branch of government – I get to live in their America. And Carville wants me to talk to these guys? Or is he really saying that I need to be more like them? After all, it's not like I have any values that might be worth holding on to. Why not just put my silly liberal preoccupations with choice or sexual freedom aside so we can all come together as one nation – one nation under God, Guns, and (hating) Gays.
Entire Article
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Learning From This Election...
There is much to be learned from this election (no matter our perspective):
1) Democracy relies on active engagement and participation
2) Voting is not enough--its just the bare minimum of democratic participation
3) For liberals/progressives this shouldn't be a time of mourning and for conservatives this shouldn't be atime of celebration--we have to step up and say to our country, our localities, our neighbors, our fellow citizens... what can we do to make this a better place, a better nation a better world. Our nation is facing a serious democractic crisis--and it won't be solved by quit acceptance or celebratory high-fives--no matter our perspectives/worldviews we should be concerned about our democractic process and the deep divisions within this country.
4) Think movement--elections are not the end of our political involvement. A groundswell of people voicing their concerns and active democratic engagement with the system is what will make systematic changes.
Time to revisist the civil rights movement, the workers movements, the suffragettes, stonewall, 1968, even the conservative revolution (as a progressive I think we have a lot to learn from them--not to imitate, but at least to understand their appeal and methods), etc... elections never truly brought about these changes, people raising their voices, not afraid to speak their minds and organizing to address social injustices... this is what wins hearts and brings about true change!
This appeal to fear and panic will only last so long--what will fill the vacuum that will appear?
4) Can we ever again doubt that our electoral system is not seriously flawed? Ask yourself why neither the republicans or the democrats want to change our voting system (and the multi-million dollar campaigns)? Once again think "systematic" change!
5) Count every vote! Why would this be unamerican or unreasonable? Count every vote! Isn't this what we would demand of Afghanistan or Iraq in their elections? Count every vote! Even if it takes two weeks. Count every vote. We can spend the time discussing the problems with the system. Count every vote!
6) What do you think? We must hear from everyone!
1) Democracy relies on active engagement and participation
2) Voting is not enough--its just the bare minimum of democratic participation
3) For liberals/progressives this shouldn't be a time of mourning and for conservatives this shouldn't be atime of celebration--we have to step up and say to our country, our localities, our neighbors, our fellow citizens... what can we do to make this a better place, a better nation a better world. Our nation is facing a serious democractic crisis--and it won't be solved by quit acceptance or celebratory high-fives--no matter our perspectives/worldviews we should be concerned about our democractic process and the deep divisions within this country.
4) Think movement--elections are not the end of our political involvement. A groundswell of people voicing their concerns and active democratic engagement with the system is what will make systematic changes.
Time to revisist the civil rights movement, the workers movements, the suffragettes, stonewall, 1968, even the conservative revolution (as a progressive I think we have a lot to learn from them--not to imitate, but at least to understand their appeal and methods), etc... elections never truly brought about these changes, people raising their voices, not afraid to speak their minds and organizing to address social injustices... this is what wins hearts and brings about true change!
This appeal to fear and panic will only last so long--what will fill the vacuum that will appear?
4) Can we ever again doubt that our electoral system is not seriously flawed? Ask yourself why neither the republicans or the democrats want to change our voting system (and the multi-million dollar campaigns)? Once again think "systematic" change!
5) Count every vote! Why would this be unamerican or unreasonable? Count every vote! Isn't this what we would demand of Afghanistan or Iraq in their elections? Count every vote! Even if it takes two weeks. Count every vote. We can spend the time discussing the problems with the system. Count every vote!
6) What do you think? We must hear from everyone!
Fast Food Nation and McDonaldization
"Its not enough that you go for the head, you must aim for the heart"
Caller on Air America as I post this...
No matter what happens we need to think about the system--what is wrong with it and how can we make systematic changes.
Below sources for my students, but they can fit into this discussion...
Info on Eric Schlosser and his books/writings/activism
Info on McDonaldization as a social problem that extends past the "fast food industry
Caller on Air America as I post this...
No matter what happens we need to think about the system--what is wrong with it and how can we make systematic changes.
Below sources for my students, but they can fit into this discussion...
Info on Eric Schlosser and his books/writings/activism
Info on McDonaldization as a social problem that extends past the "fast food industry
Thom Yorke: If There is a Devil At Work...
"If there is a Devil at work then he rests in institutions and not in individuals. Because the beauty of institutions is that any individual can abdicate responsibility. The assumption that we're all utterly powerless, that's the Devil at work." - Thom Yorke
The clearest stats so far...
The ones that seem to be the most cautious are Yahoo's: I Yahoo, Because I Don't Have To Listen to Experts! Prattle!
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Election Day Joke
(I voted in my area at 12:20 PM, there are 825 people registered in our district, and the election official told me so far 375 had voted, making it at that early time a huge turnout)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. It could not only dispense drinks flawlessly, but also -- like any good bartender -- engage in appropriate conversation.
A man enters the bar, orders a drink. The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, then asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "150." And the robot proceeds to make conversation about Quantum physics, string theory, atomic chemistry, etc. The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool."
He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man responds, "100." And immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, baseball, cheerleaders, etc.
Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He goes back in, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "50." And the robot says, "So, you gonna vote for BUSH?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. It could not only dispense drinks flawlessly, but also -- like any good bartender -- engage in appropriate conversation.
A man enters the bar, orders a drink. The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, then asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "150." And the robot proceeds to make conversation about Quantum physics, string theory, atomic chemistry, etc. The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool."
He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man responds, "100." And immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, baseball, cheerleaders, etc.
Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He goes back in, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "50." And the robot says, "So, you gonna vote for BUSH?"
Important Links to Keep Track of Election Day Events
(courtesy of Jules Marshall who posted these at MediaSquatters)
State-by-state provisional ballot rules
How the electoral college works
FAQs, such as what happens if neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, or what happens if candidates tie in a state's popular vote or there is a dispute as to the winner
Each state's law on what triggers a recount
Handy links for state elections:
Quick links to all state election sites
State-by-state legislative results
You can view preliminary legislative election results here, displayed by party control of legislatures, state control, and gubernatorial control. These preliminary results will be provided on this page beginning at 8 p.m. mountain time on November 2. The results will be updated throughout the night. Viewers will need to reload each page to view new updates.
Ballot initiative information
Tracking voting problems:
Election-day voter reports
A group of non-partisan organizations and academic institutions have set
up a Voter Alert Line (1-866-MYVOTE1) at the National Constitution Center
on Election Day from 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. NBC News will be reporting on the
problems called in on air and on this Web page
And lastly complaints from the far right about voter fraud (I especially like his association of liberals with cappucinos--see the Hillary picture on the left)
Voter fraud stories
Bill Hobbs, a former Nashville journalist who's now in PR, is tracking voter fraud
stories on his weblog (see Harry's response to this posting for more background).
State-by-state provisional ballot rules
How the electoral college works
FAQs, such as what happens if neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, or what happens if candidates tie in a state's popular vote or there is a dispute as to the winner
Each state's law on what triggers a recount
Handy links for state elections:
Quick links to all state election sites
State-by-state legislative results
You can view preliminary legislative election results here, displayed by party control of legislatures, state control, and gubernatorial control. These preliminary results will be provided on this page beginning at 8 p.m. mountain time on November 2. The results will be updated throughout the night. Viewers will need to reload each page to view new updates.
Ballot initiative information
Tracking voting problems:
Election-day voter reports
A group of non-partisan organizations and academic institutions have set
up a Voter Alert Line (1-866-MYVOTE1) at the National Constitution Center
on Election Day from 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. NBC News will be reporting on the
problems called in on air and on this Web page
And lastly complaints from the far right about voter fraud (I especially like his association of liberals with cappucinos--see the Hillary picture on the left)
Voter fraud stories
Bill Hobbs, a former Nashville journalist who's now in PR, is tracking voter fraud
stories on his weblog (see Harry's response to this posting for more background).
Operation Hard Drive-By
|
FBI Wanted For Data Theft! |
 Action to Protest International Seizures of IndyMedia Hard Drives |
Lowell Monke: The Ecological Impact of Technology
This is one of the better essays on technology and education that I have read lately--it questions the unquestioned assumptions of the necessity of computers and our frequent blindness to the negatives of computer-based education:
Education Next, Fall 2004
"The Human Touch" by Lowell Monke
An excerpt:
Read the Entire Essay
Education Next, Fall 2004
"The Human Touch" by Lowell Monke
An excerpt:
As the promise of a computer revolution in education fades, I often hear promoters fall back on what I’ll term the neutrality argument: “Computers are just tools; it’s what you do with them that matters.” In some sense this is no more than a tautology: Of course it matters how we use computers in schools. What matters more, however, is that we use them at all. Every tool demands that we somehow change our environment or values in order to accommodate its use. For instance, the building of highways to accommodate the automobile hastened the flight to the suburbs and the decline of inner cities. And over the past 50 years we have radically altered our social landscape to accommodate the television set. In his seminal book Autonomous Technology, Langdon Winner dubbed this characteristic “reverse adaptation.”
Consider the school personnel who already understand, intuitively, how this principle works: the music teacher whose program has been cut in order to fund computer labs; the principal who has had to beef up security in order to protect high-priced technology; the superintendent who has had to craft an “acceptable use” agreement that governs children’s use of the Internet (and for the first time in our history renounces the school’s responsibility for the material children are exposed to while in school). What the computers-are-just-tools argument ignores is the ecological nature of powerful technologies—that is, their introduction into an environment reconstitutes all of the relationships in that environment, some for better and some for worse. Clinging to the belief that computers have no effect on us allows us to turn a blind eye to the sacrifices that schools have made to accommodate them.
Not only do computers send structural ripples throughout a school system, but they also subtly alter the way we think about education. The old saw, “To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail,” has many corollaries (the walls of my home once testified to one of my favorites: to a four-year-old with a crayon, everything looks like drawing paper). One that fits here is, “To an educator with a computer, everything looks like information.” And the more prominent we make computers in schools (and in our own lives), the more we see the rapid accumulation, manipulation, and sharing of information as central to the learning process—edging out the contemplation and expression of ideas and the gradual development of meaningful connections to the world.
In reconstituting learning as the acquisition of information, the computer also shifts our values. The computer embodies a particular value system, a technological thought world first articulated by Francis Bacon and René Descartes four hundred years ago, that turns our attention outward toward asserting control over our environment (that is essentially what technologies do—extend our power to control from a distance). As it has gradually come to dominate Western thinking, this ideology has entered our educational institutions. Its growing dominance is witnessed in the language that abounds in education: talk of empowerment, student control of learning, standards, assessment tools, and productivity. Almost gone from the conversation are those inner concerns—wisdom, truth, character, imagination, creativity, and meaning—that once formed the core values of education. Outcomes have replaced insights as the yardstick of learning, while standardized tests are replacing human judgment as the means of assessment. No tool supports this technological shift more than computers.
Read the Entire Essay
Uruguay Swerves Left
Karlo scoops the silent mainstream press in letting us know that Uruguay has joined the leftward shift in South America:
Uruguay Swerves Left
And Anarchogeek refers us to IndyMedia Uruguay
Uruguay Swerves Left
And Anarchogeek refers us to IndyMedia Uruguay
Monday, November 01, 2004
Recap of the GOP's Message: Fear. 9/11. Did we mention fear?
(courtesy of Lip)
FEAR. 9/11. Did we mention fear?
Check out this clip of Republicans hammering home their essential message: 9/11, fear, terrorism. . .
A Message of Fear
FEAR. 9/11. Did we mention fear?
Check out this clip of Republicans hammering home their essential message: 9/11, fear, terrorism. . .
A Message of Fear
William Blake: The Movie
(courtesy of the Poetry Hut)
Its about time--hope they don't muck it up!
Britart star to make Blake the movie
Its about time--hope they don't muck it up!
Britart star to make Blake the movie
Jay Lemke's Meaning Center
I finished Jay Lemke's powerful and subversive book "Textual Politics" (Taylor and Francis, 1995) which proposes that we carefully re-consider how we "make meaning." I highly recommend this book for any reader-writer, especially ch 7 and ch. 8 on knowledge, literacy and praxis. I decided to search for more writings by Lemke and found this very extensive archival website:
Meaning Center
Meaning Center
Jonathan Rauch: Why Conservatives Should Support Same-Sex Marriages
The homophobes in my state have a ban against same-sex marriage on the ballot, with some of the most hateful ads I have seen scaring citizens into supporting it. Who could be against love?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(published by The Atlantic)
Last year the Census Bureau reported a statistic that deserved wider notice than it received: during the 1990s the number of unmarried-partner households in the United States increased by 72 percent. Cohabitation has actually been on the rise for decades, but it started from a small base. Now the numbers (more than five million cohabiting couples) are beginning to look impressive.
Marriage, meanwhile, is headed in the other direction. The annual number of weddings per 1,000 eligible women fell by more than a third from 1970 to 1996. A lot of factors are at work here—for example, people are marrying later—but it seems clear that one of them is the rise in cohabitation. Couples are simply more willing to live together without tying the knot.
Whether this is a bad thing is a contentious question, but it is almost certainly not a good thing. Cohabitation tends to be both less stable and less happy than marriage, and this appears to be true even after accounting for the possibility that the cohabiting type of person may often be different from the marrying type. Research suggests that marriage itself brings something beneficial to the table. Add the fact that a growing share of cohabiting households—now more than a third of them—contain children, and it is hard to be enthusiastic about the trend.
Whom to blame? In part, homosexual couples like me and my partner. Cohabitation used to be stigmatized. "Living in sin" it has been called in recent memory, even among the educated classes. Today cohabitation is often viewed as a different-but-equal alternative to wedlock. Although the drift toward cohabitation would no doubt have happened anyway, the growing visibility and acceptance of same-sex couples probably speeded the change. As one gay activist told the Los Angeles Times last year, "Just the term 'unmarried partner' gave it a dignity and social category."
So (conservatives say) it's true! Homosexuals undermine marriage! To the contrary. The culprit is not the presence of same-sex couples; it is the absence of same-sex marriage.
The emergence into the open of same-sex relationships is an irreversible fact in this country. Traditionalists may not like it, but they cannot change it, so they will have to decide how to deal with it. The far right's plan—try to push homosexuals back into the closet—is not going to work; the majority of Americans are too openhearted for that. Indeed, the currents of public opinion are running the other way. An annual survey of college freshmen found that last year 58 percent—a record high, and up from 51 percent in 1997—thought that same-sex couples should be able to marry.
Seeing those numbers and others like them, conservatives are desperate to stave off same-sex marriage. For that matter, many moderates remain queasy about legalizing gay marriage; they are sympathetic to homosexuals, but not that sympathetic. Liberation-minded leftists, who spent the 1970s telling us that our parents' marriages were outdated and stuffy, were never crazy about matrimony to begin with. As for gays, the vast majority want the right to marry, but most agree that domestic-partner benefits and other "marriage-lite" arrangements are a lot better than nothing.
The result is the ABM Pact: Anything But Marriage. Enroll same-sex partners in the company health plan, give them some of the legal prerogatives of spousehood, attend their commitment ceremonies, let them register at city hall as partners—just DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. In America, and in Europe, too, ABM is rapidly establishing itself as the compromise of choice. Gay partnerships get some social and legal recognition, marriage remains the union of man and woman, and everybody moves on. A shrewd social bargain, no?
No. The last thing supporters of marriage should be doing is setting up an assortment of alternatives, but that is exactly what the ABM Pact does, and not only for gays. Every year more companies and governments (at the state and local level) grant marriagelike benefits to cohabiting partners: "concessions fought for and won mostly by gay groups," as the Los Angeles Times notes, "but enjoyed as well by the much larger population of heterosexual unmarried couples." To which might be added what I think of as the Will & Grace effect: homosexuals are here, we're queer, and nowadays we're kind of cool. ABM, perversely, turns one of the country's more culturally visible minorities into an advertisement for just how cool and successful life outside of wedlock can be.
I doubt that most homosexuals would take their marital vows less seriously than heterosexuals do, as some conservatives insist. Even if I'm wrong, however, surely the exemplary power of failed or unfaithful gay marriages would pale next to the example currently being set by a whole group—an increasingly fashionable group—among whom love and romance and sex and commitment flourish entirely outside of marriage. And can you imagine social conservatives telling any other group to cohabit rather than marry? Can you imagine them saying, "The young men of America's inner cities won't take marriage as seriously as they should, so let's encourage them to shack up with their girlfriends"?
Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM make a mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.
Article Link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(published by The Atlantic)
Last year the Census Bureau reported a statistic that deserved wider notice than it received: during the 1990s the number of unmarried-partner households in the United States increased by 72 percent. Cohabitation has actually been on the rise for decades, but it started from a small base. Now the numbers (more than five million cohabiting couples) are beginning to look impressive.
Marriage, meanwhile, is headed in the other direction. The annual number of weddings per 1,000 eligible women fell by more than a third from 1970 to 1996. A lot of factors are at work here—for example, people are marrying later—but it seems clear that one of them is the rise in cohabitation. Couples are simply more willing to live together without tying the knot.
Whether this is a bad thing is a contentious question, but it is almost certainly not a good thing. Cohabitation tends to be both less stable and less happy than marriage, and this appears to be true even after accounting for the possibility that the cohabiting type of person may often be different from the marrying type. Research suggests that marriage itself brings something beneficial to the table. Add the fact that a growing share of cohabiting households—now more than a third of them—contain children, and it is hard to be enthusiastic about the trend.
Whom to blame? In part, homosexual couples like me and my partner. Cohabitation used to be stigmatized. "Living in sin" it has been called in recent memory, even among the educated classes. Today cohabitation is often viewed as a different-but-equal alternative to wedlock. Although the drift toward cohabitation would no doubt have happened anyway, the growing visibility and acceptance of same-sex couples probably speeded the change. As one gay activist told the Los Angeles Times last year, "Just the term 'unmarried partner' gave it a dignity and social category."
So (conservatives say) it's true! Homosexuals undermine marriage! To the contrary. The culprit is not the presence of same-sex couples; it is the absence of same-sex marriage.
The emergence into the open of same-sex relationships is an irreversible fact in this country. Traditionalists may not like it, but they cannot change it, so they will have to decide how to deal with it. The far right's plan—try to push homosexuals back into the closet—is not going to work; the majority of Americans are too openhearted for that. Indeed, the currents of public opinion are running the other way. An annual survey of college freshmen found that last year 58 percent—a record high, and up from 51 percent in 1997—thought that same-sex couples should be able to marry.
Seeing those numbers and others like them, conservatives are desperate to stave off same-sex marriage. For that matter, many moderates remain queasy about legalizing gay marriage; they are sympathetic to homosexuals, but not that sympathetic. Liberation-minded leftists, who spent the 1970s telling us that our parents' marriages were outdated and stuffy, were never crazy about matrimony to begin with. As for gays, the vast majority want the right to marry, but most agree that domestic-partner benefits and other "marriage-lite" arrangements are a lot better than nothing.
The result is the ABM Pact: Anything But Marriage. Enroll same-sex partners in the company health plan, give them some of the legal prerogatives of spousehood, attend their commitment ceremonies, let them register at city hall as partners—just DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. In America, and in Europe, too, ABM is rapidly establishing itself as the compromise of choice. Gay partnerships get some social and legal recognition, marriage remains the union of man and woman, and everybody moves on. A shrewd social bargain, no?
No. The last thing supporters of marriage should be doing is setting up an assortment of alternatives, but that is exactly what the ABM Pact does, and not only for gays. Every year more companies and governments (at the state and local level) grant marriagelike benefits to cohabiting partners: "concessions fought for and won mostly by gay groups," as the Los Angeles Times notes, "but enjoyed as well by the much larger population of heterosexual unmarried couples." To which might be added what I think of as the Will & Grace effect: homosexuals are here, we're queer, and nowadays we're kind of cool. ABM, perversely, turns one of the country's more culturally visible minorities into an advertisement for just how cool and successful life outside of wedlock can be.
I doubt that most homosexuals would take their marital vows less seriously than heterosexuals do, as some conservatives insist. Even if I'm wrong, however, surely the exemplary power of failed or unfaithful gay marriages would pale next to the example currently being set by a whole group—an increasingly fashionable group—among whom love and romance and sex and commitment flourish entirely outside of marriage. And can you imagine social conservatives telling any other group to cohabit rather than marry? Can you imagine them saying, "The young men of America's inner cities won't take marriage as seriously as they should, so let's encourage them to shack up with their girlfriends"?
Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM make a mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.
Article Link
Phil Ochs: What Are You Fighting For?
(courtesy of Mason)
What Are You Fighting For?
By Phil Ochs
Oh you tell me that there's danger to the land you call your own
And you watch them build the war machine right beside your home
And you tell me that you're ready to go marchin' to the war
I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Before you pack your rifle and sail across the sea
Just think upon the government of the land that you call free
Oh, there's many kinds of slavery and we've found many more
I know you're set for fightin', but what are you fighting for?
And before you walk out on your job in answer to the call
Just think about the millions who have no job at all
And the men who wait for handouts with their eyes upon the floor
Oh I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Turn on your TV, turn it on so loud
And watch the fool a smiling there and tell me that you're proud
And listen to your radio, the noise it starts to pour
Oh I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Read your morning papers, read every single line
And tell me if you can believe that simple world you find
Read every slanted word till your eyes are getting sore,
I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
And listen to your leaders, the ones who won the race
As they stand right there before you and lie into your face
If you ever try to buy them, you know what they stand for
I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Put ragged clothes upon your back and sleep upon the ground,
And tell police about your rights as they drag you down,
And ask them as they lead you to some deserted door,
Yes, I know you're set for fightin', but what are you fightin' for?
But the hardest thing I'll ask you, if you will only try
Is take your children by their hands and look into their eyes
And there you'll see the answer you should have seen before
If you'll win the wars at home, there'll be no fighting anymore
What Are You Fighting For?
By Phil Ochs
Oh you tell me that there's danger to the land you call your own
And you watch them build the war machine right beside your home
And you tell me that you're ready to go marchin' to the war
I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Before you pack your rifle and sail across the sea
Just think upon the government of the land that you call free
Oh, there's many kinds of slavery and we've found many more
I know you're set for fightin', but what are you fighting for?
And before you walk out on your job in answer to the call
Just think about the millions who have no job at all
And the men who wait for handouts with their eyes upon the floor
Oh I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Turn on your TV, turn it on so loud
And watch the fool a smiling there and tell me that you're proud
And listen to your radio, the noise it starts to pour
Oh I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Read your morning papers, read every single line
And tell me if you can believe that simple world you find
Read every slanted word till your eyes are getting sore,
I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
And listen to your leaders, the ones who won the race
As they stand right there before you and lie into your face
If you ever try to buy them, you know what they stand for
I know you're set for fighting, but what are you fighting for?
Put ragged clothes upon your back and sleep upon the ground,
And tell police about your rights as they drag you down,
And ask them as they lead you to some deserted door,
Yes, I know you're set for fightin', but what are you fightin' for?
But the hardest thing I'll ask you, if you will only try
Is take your children by their hands and look into their eyes
And there you'll see the answer you should have seen before
If you'll win the wars at home, there'll be no fighting anymore
New Site to Access Eminem's Mosh Video
New Easy-Access Site to Watch Mosh
In a previous post about Mosh an anonymous respondent criticized this video:
I thought about it and replied:
I'm seeing this video everywhere with few responses--what do other people think?
In a previous post about Mosh an anonymous respondent criticized this video:
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Eminem. His debut is the only time I have been ahead of the curve...I walked into a mall music store in early 1999 looking for his first album... and they didn't know who Eminem was! I don't listen to him much anymore, but his first record was pretty incredible at the time. Point is, are we now going to champion this guy- this guy's message- just because he put out an anti-bush song? Come on, his lyrics are misogynist, anti-gay, etc, etc. He claims of his lyrics that they're all just a good joke. Aren't we in the business of calling bullshit on that kind of cop out?--I don't go for the "shock America out of complacency" excuse. If yes, then shouldn't we pause and carefully consider our reception of this latest work? If no, all the liberated bullshit we spout is just that. If it's just good business, taking advantage of the moment to get rich... well, even W. could appreciate that. Finally, I don't necessarily regard your posting of these links as an endorsement. merely as an opportunity for others to respond.
I thought about it and replied:
I usually don't reply to anonymous comments b/c it is difficult to develop a dialogic sense of who is communicating (even pseudonyms provide a cohesive voice for responses) and how I should interpret the response (context of a message is important and they can be framed by tone/style of previous responses).
Just let me mention the Beastie Boys and their journey to activism/respectability. Remember they also sang misogynistic/homophobic messages, but as they developed/matured and met more progressive individuals, they became aware of their messages and cultivated a more sophisticated/concerned outlook toward life and their fans.
Now Eminem could be pursuing a cold, calculating path here... but on the other hand he could be meeting some people and learning new perspectives. I think it is telling that the video was produced by Guerrila News Network and gives an ideal of the crowd he may be influenced by... this is not just a hollywood production.
One other thing, to be honest, when I was younger I also held racist, homophobic and misogynist views (especially through involvement in crime and gangs). I was raised to adapt the Tough Guise in order to function in a violent community. Slowly I developed new perspectives through involvement with caring people that taught me to also care about others... I changed ... Beastie Boys changed... perhaps Marshall Mathers can change?
Lets see... whatever else, his message will reach legions of fans and the video is a powerful statement even if it is manufactured--you can be assured, even if, as you think Eminem is faking it, GNN's Ian Inaba is most definitely real and taking it to the enemy.
I'm seeing this video everywhere with few responses--what do other people think?
Jesus General: On This Pivotal Moment
(courtesy the The All Spin Zone)
Jesus General drops the satire and gives a powerful statement about the importance of tomorrow's presidential election.
Jesus General drops the satire and gives a powerful statement about the importance of tomorrow's presidential election.
Berkeley Breathed: The Last Minute Election Revelation
(courtesy of Wealth Bondage, source, my all-time favorite comic artist/writer Berkeley Breathed)
Can A Hamster Kisser Fight Terrorists!
Can A Hamster Kisser Fight Terrorists!
Eric Hansen: On Writing
Writing forces me to go deep within myself, to search for layers of meaning on a daily basis. To create beginnings, middles and ends from chaos. I am probably best known for my travel writing about journeys to far off places, but what I have finally come to realize is that one of the most interesting places on earth is my mind and where it takes me when I let it wander.
--Eric Hansen, in a Powells Books interview
Source Link
60 Minutes Report: GIs in Iraq, Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets
(courtesy AMERICAblog)
60 Minutes' Steve Kroft talks to a general, soldiers in Iraq and their families about a lack of armored vehicles, field radios, night vision goggles and even ammunition - as the military spends billions on pork.
GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets
60 Minutes' Steve Kroft talks to a general, soldiers in Iraq and their families about a lack of armored vehicles, field radios, night vision goggles and even ammunition - as the military spends billions on pork.
GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri: Multitude--War and Democracy in the Age of Empire
(sparked by Lundi's post on "Controlling the Multitude")
I just picked up a copy of Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (Penguin Press, 2004)
More Reviews
Guardian Article on their previous book "Empire"
More Reviews/Commentary About Empire
This very cool person also supplies the entire text of Empire in a PDF file--get it while you can!
I'll post more as I read the book...
I just picked up a copy of Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (Penguin Press, 2004)
More Reviews
Guardian Article on their previous book "Empire"
More Reviews/Commentary About Empire
This very cool person also supplies the entire text of Empire in a PDF file--get it while you can!
I'll post more as I read the book...
Dave Isay's Story Corps Project
StoryCorps, created by Dave Isay. In the Grand Central Terminal sits a spaceship-like booth. Enter the booth, pay $10, and you get to interview anyone you want. Isay and his team facilitate your interview, give you a copy and file another with the Library of Congress. Isay's WPA-inspired project strives to "document the lives of ordinary people."
Check out the newest sampler of people's lifestories:
Story Corps Sampler
Part of the Third Coast International Audio Festival and hosted by Chicago Public Radio station: WBEZ
When you are done listening to these stories get off your ass and record the stories of families and friends and make your own sampler!
Check out the newest sampler of people's lifestories:
Story Corps Sampler
Part of the Third Coast International Audio Festival and hosted by Chicago Public Radio station: WBEZ
When you are done listening to these stories get off your ass and record the stories of families and friends and make your own sampler!
If You Are A Bush Supporter... and No Stolen Elections
Harry over at Scratchings has a very interesting argument on why Kerry would be the better candidate to carry out the Bush agenda (scary in its logic--unfortunately true).
So what the fuck happens after Kerry wins? Same ol' song and dance? What if we are sick of the tune and want something different?
On eve of 2004 election: US faces unprecedented social conflict
This just showed up in my email tonight:
Dear Friends,
We are all working hard to ensure a free and fair election. But unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that the outcome may be marred by fraud. That¹s why tens of thousands have already signed the No Stolen Elections pledge. If there is significant election fraud, we are committed to be out on the streets protesting as long as necessary to ensure that every vote is counted.
Many national groups and well-known personalities such as Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson and Dolores Huerta have become part of this Urgent Response Network. Late on election night, November 2nd, we will put out the word through the No Stolen Elections website, an 800 number, text
messages and massive emailing--about whether or not we will activate the network.
Here is what you can do right now:
1. Sign the pledge on the No Stolen Elections site that says: "I remember the stolen presidential election of 2000 and I am willing to take action in 2004 if the election is stolen again. I support efforts to protect
the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 2nd. If that right is
systematically violated, I pledge to join nationwide protests starting on November 3rd, either in my community, in the states where the fraud occurred, or in Washington DC."
2. Prepare Your Local Response - Go to No Stolen Elections and click on "Directory of Local Actions² to see if someone in your community has already organized a rally. If so, please contact them and help them out. If not, please take steps to plan such an event, and post the details about it on the website.
Click on What You Can Do for tips and
suggestions for your local organizing, and for a PDF poster you can download for local use.
3. Spread the word - Tell everyone about it! Go to the website and click on Spread the Word Use the form that is there to send out a letter to everyone you know asking them to join you in signing the pledge. On that same "Spread the Word" page there is also a banner at the bottom. Click on that to see an array of banners and buttons you can add to your website as links to the No Stolen Elections campaign.
Thanks so much for joining us in these preparations. We sincerely hope we won't have to activate this campaign, but we certainly want to be ready...just in case.
Best,
Deborah James & Medea Benjamin
No Stolen Elections
So what the fuck happens after Kerry wins? Same ol' song and dance? What if we are sick of the tune and want something different?
On eve of 2004 election: US faces unprecedented social conflict
This just showed up in my email tonight:
Dear Friends,
We are all working hard to ensure a free and fair election. But unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that the outcome may be marred by fraud. That¹s why tens of thousands have already signed the No Stolen Elections pledge. If there is significant election fraud, we are committed to be out on the streets protesting as long as necessary to ensure that every vote is counted.
Many national groups and well-known personalities such as Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson and Dolores Huerta have become part of this Urgent Response Network. Late on election night, November 2nd, we will put out the word through the No Stolen Elections website, an 800 number, text
messages and massive emailing--about whether or not we will activate the network.
Here is what you can do right now:
1. Sign the pledge on the No Stolen Elections site that says: "I remember the stolen presidential election of 2000 and I am willing to take action in 2004 if the election is stolen again. I support efforts to protect
the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 2nd. If that right is
systematically violated, I pledge to join nationwide protests starting on November 3rd, either in my community, in the states where the fraud occurred, or in Washington DC."
2. Prepare Your Local Response - Go to No Stolen Elections and click on "Directory of Local Actions² to see if someone in your community has already organized a rally. If so, please contact them and help them out. If not, please take steps to plan such an event, and post the details about it on the website.
Click on What You Can Do for tips and
suggestions for your local organizing, and for a PDF poster you can download for local use.
3. Spread the word - Tell everyone about it! Go to the website and click on Spread the Word Use the form that is there to send out a letter to everyone you know asking them to join you in signing the pledge. On that same "Spread the Word" page there is also a banner at the bottom. Click on that to see an array of banners and buttons you can add to your website as links to the No Stolen Elections campaign.
Thanks so much for joining us in these preparations. We sincerely hope we won't have to activate this campaign, but we certainly want to be ready...just in case.
Best,
Deborah James & Medea Benjamin
No Stolen Elections
Fact Check: The Whoppers of 2004
If anything, no matter who wins, hopefully we have learned how seriously broken our democratic system is... are critically-aware, informed citizens necessary to this process? Where do most people get their information? Do people access multiple sources (with multiple biases)? Does anyone bother to read information sources that are coming from outside the US? How much money was spent in campaigns this year to manipulate us and how much of it was taxpayer money? Why should we care about these questions? Who has the time anymore--working multiple jobs, commuting long distances, eating toxic foods, and worrying about too many things...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact Check
The Whoppers of 2004
Bush and Kerry repeat discredited claims in their final flurry of ads. Here's our pre-election summary of the misinformation we found during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign.
Summary
As election day neared, both candidates continued to twist and falsify in their final TV ads -- and in a blizzard of expensive mail as well.
Bush continued to accuse Kerry of proposing government-run health care and more taxes for middle-income persons, and of voting in the past to "slash" spending on intelligence and of opposing mainstream military weapons. Kerry claimed Bush would cut Social Security benefits 45% and that he subsidizes companies that send jobs overseas. And those are just some of the untruths the candidates are feeding to voters.
In this article we again take on those claims, and summarize the major misrepresentations made by both sides since the start of the general election campaign last March when Kerry sewed up the Democratic nomination.
The full article with links and charts (and bells and whistles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact Check
The Whoppers of 2004
Bush and Kerry repeat discredited claims in their final flurry of ads. Here's our pre-election summary of the misinformation we found during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign.
Summary
As election day neared, both candidates continued to twist and falsify in their final TV ads -- and in a blizzard of expensive mail as well.
Bush continued to accuse Kerry of proposing government-run health care and more taxes for middle-income persons, and of voting in the past to "slash" spending on intelligence and of opposing mainstream military weapons. Kerry claimed Bush would cut Social Security benefits 45% and that he subsidizes companies that send jobs overseas. And those are just some of the untruths the candidates are feeding to voters.
In this article we again take on those claims, and summarize the major misrepresentations made by both sides since the start of the general election campaign last March when Kerry sewed up the Democratic nomination.
The full article with links and charts (and bells and whistles)
No Surprise
|
You Are a Pundit Blogger! |
 Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read. Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)