shoplifters unite!

Occupy the Courts!

2012-01-21T07:00:00.000-08:00

I had the privilege of speaking to about 200 people outside the 9th Circuit Court building in San Francisco yesterday as part of Occupy the Courts (this is despite the rain). Up the street in the financial district thousands were marching about and closing down banks on a day of action called Occupy Wall Street West. It was all connected. Two years ago the Citizens United ruling – which allowed corporations to give large sums of money to politicians – came down and an already flawed democracy got even worse. You could say that decision was like the fox in the henhouse deciding that gluttony is ok – a country where wealth is more consolidated than it has ever been had its highest court declare that big money is free to use it's money to subvert democracy as much as it wants.

Here is more or less what I said:

First, since I was speaking for the National Lawyers Guild, I mentioned the group and the part of our founding document that says human rights should be regarded as more sacred than property interests. The Citizens Unitedcase is a classic example of the clash between the two and ourfederal courts proved they are incapable of protecting human rightsover property interests.

Corporations are human creations; theyare legal entities – created by the state, given certain privileges by the state, and regulated by the state. Unlike human beings, they can live forever;Unlike all of us, many of them make billions of dollars and may paylittle or no taxes. There is no reason why they're spending onpolitics can't be limited through democratic means. Nonprofitorganizations are limited in their political spending. Churches andcharitable organizations are limited. So why not for-profitcorporations?

All of us ordinary human beings face time, place, and mannerrestrictions – many of which I disagree with (and even if I think there are some fair time/place/manner restrictions; they are often enforced in a discriminatory or arbitrary way against ordinary people). Nonetheless, these courts have largely condoned such restrictions because there is acompelling state interest. Permit requirements, amplified soundrestrictions, free speech zones, and nuisance laws – these are the hurdles to free speech most burdensome to us non-corporations. There is no more compellinginterest than protecting democracy.

I asked the people assembled "who here likes democracy?" The response was unanimous.

Reflections on the Recent Winter Holidays

2011-12-21T16:25:00.000-08:00

I'm no grinch! If other people enjoy the winter holidays – more power to them. Especially kids. That is the one redeeming part of the holiday season – kids love it. I was really glad to see my niece and nephew and I hope they liked the gifts I got them. So I'm no grinch – a creature who was so upset that others enjoyed the holidays, or so the story goes, that he attempted to ruin it for everyone.

Another redeeming quality of the holidays – they are an excuse to take time off work. But besides time off and happy kids, the holidays suck.

If I were Christian or Jewish or had a faith-based reason to celebrate, then maybe that would help. I'm not. But plenty of people still enjoy the traditions without being particularly religious – even the religious traditions. Maybe there are one or two traditions I enjoy – the lights certainly put a warm glow on an otherwise cold, grey time of year; though they certainly waste a lot of energy. A mug of egg nog with a spot of adult beverage included is also soothing after a busy and stressful time of year at work; though egg nog is pretty high in calories and fat; and most sold is not organic.

Still, I'm willing to concede that the time off work, giddy children, lights and nog are redeeming qualities. Besides that, the holidays are miserable.

There is community and family. Back in olden times holidays probably made more sense because people lived near each other – your family stuck around and you were likely to stay with your community longer. Without digging up any data, I would posit that modern times have scattered our families and friends about the globe; also communities are much more fluid than in times past. Just the fact that we are able to travel so easily now than, say, 100 years ago, is reason enough for that phenomenon – people are scattered in really distant places from those whom they know and/or are related. But the annual celebrations continue as if we could all just wander to the town square or shout out of a glass-less window to our distant cousins, inviting them to come over and enjoy a hearty meal.

I am one of a few members of my family who lives far away from home base in South Texas. So coming together for the holidays also means getting to the airport, taking off my shoes and belt, removing my laptop from my bag, waiting in line, sitting very close to people I don't know for hours while fighting gravity and risking my life. I do this once before the family celebration and again after; all for a few hundred dollars. Millions do the same – polluting the environment and crowding airports with miserable passengers.

Oh and (obviously) X-mas is so horrifically commercial – another crappy thing about the holidays. To put this in perspective: Imagine that the "Where's the beef?" commercial, of 1980s Wendy's Hamburger fame, came on for a month every year, maybe two, year after year; perhaps July and August; every year. Sure it was different every time – the old ladies changed slightly. Maybe one year they are dressed up as rapping grannies, the next they're wearing skinny jeans. Maybe on one station they're hocking burgers with square patties, but on another they're asking the Progressive insurance lady where the beef is. "There is no beef here," she replies grimly. "This is just a store for insurance – really boring – it might look like there is something more substantive we're selling – but really just various options to insure your motorized vehicle or vehicles."

So Christmas, with its overwhelming commercialism, is the same advertising campaign year after year. The stuff Santa is selling us may be different, but the template is basically the same. It might be exciting for kids – and I suppose that's why most adults give it a pass – but we'd all be smashing our television sets if we had to watch the same Madison Avenue characters every year for every ad on everything everywhere.

That is the worst aspect of the holidays – commercialism. We were expected to believe, this year for example, that Old Navy sweaters are made by a festive "grandma bot," knitting such a high volume of material that the chain store can sell tons of sweaters at rock-bottom prices. Don't ask about who actually makes those sweaters. It's Christmas! Could it be sweatshop workers? ---blah blah blah -- IT'S CHRISTMAS!!!

But alas, I cannot wall myself off completely from a society that teaches us from such a young age that consumer culture is a major reason why we are here on planet earth and a primary way for us to acquire joy during our short lives. Now that I think about it, maybe that is a reason why I shouldn't be so pleased about happy children this time of year – they're happy for the wrong reasons. That's an aside that I'll put out of my mind for the time being. Getting gifts is nice, and giving them ain't bad either.

Except that we are told that we must buy gifts at one of a number of major retail outlets; we must get the hottest gifts of the season; and we must wake at 4 AM to get the best deals (or spend the night outside the Best Buy or pepper spray competing customers or some combination). There is another option; and I don't know which is worse. We must buy local; buy organic; buy from small businesses; buy sustainable gifts. The latter option – consumerism with a conscience – is probably better for our communities and the environment, but it's also somewhat elitist and sometimes downright obnoxious.

So what to do about that? We could create an alternative holiday – maybe sometime in February. We could give gifts all year round – gifts we made from scratch - perhaps a homemade gift card offering one free back rub from your favorite friend and/or relative. I don't want to remake the whole holiday though. This is about trying to reckon with a holiday season I don't care for (except for those few things I like about it), which is fairly impossible to escape.

I have no solution. Do you?

Troy Davis: Another Reason Why I Oppose the Death Penalty

2011-09-21T21:40:00.000-07:00

The Troy Davis case got my attention more than any case since Shaka Sankofa. I went to jail in Austin over Shaka's case; and my heart broke because although I never met him personally, I felt that I knew him and I was sure he was innocent. At any rate, he was a human being – an African American man the state of Texas wanted to kill; and he wasn't going down without a fight. It was hard to concentrate on work today. I was thinking about Shaka; and Troy's case got me thinking about why I oppose the death penalty and why, I think, I always have.

There is not enough due process in the universe to justify capital punishment. That, to me, is the heart of why I oppose the death penalty in all cases and for all time. Death is final and we will never be able to eliminate all doubt in our criminal justice system, indeed we've exonerated 138 people who were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death, yet in most cases we don't have evidence, such as DNA evidence, that would clear death row inmates to the satisfaction of authorities. We will also never be able to ensure fairness and equity - in other words, even if we're sure someone did what they are accused of doing, the application of the punishment is likely to be arbitrary, or worse, tainted by prejudice. The death penalty is full of both problems - I have no doubt innocent people have been executed and it is obvious that people of color, especially if their victim is white, are more likely than others to be sentenced to death. We simply should not be killing people when we know there is a chance we will kill an innocent person or when we know that some people will be killed and others spared based on their race, their economic status, or other factors that should not affect justice.

The other major reason why I oppose the death penalty is because the state should never dole out such harsh and final punishments when it presides over such an unjust society. If we lived in a society that was prosperous and fair, then this would be a more difficult argument. But we live in a society where the state cuts services to the poor, cuts education, cuts mental health services yet when people commit heinous acts hurting and maybe killing others, the state jumps in with mountains of resources to prosecute, jail and sometimes execute people – maybe the people who committed the heinous act, maybe not. And it isn't as if we just live in an unjust world but our government is doing its best and striving to work against all that. The powerful politicians who hold the fate of people on death row, a death row full of people who are always poor and often people of color, are the same politicians who kiss corporate, Wall Street ass to ensure they can get elected again. They care neither for justice nor fairness – those who deny clemency one day and drink champagne with corporate donors the next.

One final reason I oppose the death penalty is because of how sick it is to take someone's life when that person is not a threat to anyone. The state has someone in its control who is breathing and who has loved ones. The state has someone in its control who gets sleepy and falls asleep and dreams about being outside the prison walls. The state has someone completely in its control who talks to his family, her children, his wife, or her friend since elementary school about what life might be like if their sentence is ever overturned and maybe even their conviction. The state takes that mom, brother, lover, father, friend; that person with hopes about the future and an understanding of fate, death and eternity; and the state moves them from a secure cell to a gurney, then injects them with poison until their heart stops. It is sick that some people justify that but scream bloody murder when doctors help women with their reproductive health needs. It takes a really perverse person who wants to deny women reproductive freedom and support a flawed system that kills living adults yet calls himself "pro-life."

We have a lot of work to do, and I hope Troy Davis has not died in vain. I hope that in my lifetime we abolish the disgusting state murder system and maybe even hold some of the people responsible for that system accountable in a just, humane, but decisive way.

Death and Perspective On The War In Afghanistan

2011-08-10T10:21:00.000-07:00

This past weekend the United States lost 30 troops in one incident in the war in Afghanistan. As much as I despise American imperialism and oppose our wars abroad, I still mourn for the loved ones of those who died. However, there is critical perspective we cannot forget: our war in Afghanistan is immoral, unnecessary and unpopular with the American people; the soldiers who died were engaged in warfare inside a country their government is occupying; and thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed as a result of our war.

As Americans we are far more likely to hear about fallen American soldiers than foreign victims of our wars abroad, especially after a tragedy of this magnitude. As we think about these deaths and sympathize with victims' families, we should also think about this (from The Independent):

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Unama) has found that the rate of civilian casualties has reached a record high, with 1,462 killed in January to June this year.

Unless we consider these other victims to be less than human, then we must sympathize for them as well. This point may be even more difficult to accept: since they are victims in a war that is not their choosing, their deaths are more tragic than the deaths of soldiers who have chosen to engage in war. Yet many Americans rarely if ever think of civilian deaths in Afghanistan but feel overwhelmingly moved by American soldier deaths.

We do tend to sympathize more with those with whom we share more in common and that includes those who speak our language, live in our communities, and share many of our cultural norms. That's one explanation for the lack of concern over Afghan civilian deaths in this country. Naturally the families and friends of the soldiers who died have every right to feel distraught and angry even as they ignore the deaths of others; they're grieving, and any of us who have lost a loved one knows it can be intensely painful. The lesson here, however, in a conflict that is so lopsided, is that Afghans have the same emotions, feel the same pain. For every lost life, there are dozens of friends, family members, and loved ones who are affected. Multiply that by thousands, and it provides a critical context to our war in Afghanistan and the reaction of the Afghan people.

Remember these are civilians, not soldiers, not terrorists; and they are civilians in an impoverished country that is currently occupied by the most powerful nation and most powerful military on earth. Their deaths are not just tragic, but horribly unjust. Our war is not justified and it is not making Americans safer. The evidence suggests that our war in Afghanistan is more likely to inspire (or enrage) future terrorists–people who might otherwise never think of using violence against the U.S. or Americans had it not been for the fact that their family or friends were killed by U.S. bombs.

While most Americans want an immediate drawdown in Afghanistan, politicians and warmongers, like Leon Panetta, continue to justify continuing our war by claiming the objective is to ensure Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. Even if you buy that nonsense, how could it possibly be worth the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians (or if you prefer thousands of American troops)? This war is not about making Americans safer, it is about making Lockheed-Martin more profitable. It is not about stopping terrorism, it is about terrorizing an entire population for American imperialism. Simply securing cabin doors in airplanes did more to keep Americans safe than our reckless and expensive war in Afghanistan, which in all likelihood is making Americans more of a target.

Regardless of our view on the justifications for war, we all have an obligation to understand the conflict in a way that humanizes all sides and includes the context of the Afghan experience; to do otherwise is to dehumanize the victims of war. With that in mind, we should grieve not just for the families of the fallen soldiers but also for the families of the Afghan civilians our military, with our tax dollars, killed. Once we do, our reaction to such a tragedy ought to be to demand an immediate end to an immoral and unnecessary war.

Hate Visits The Castro

2011-06-17T20:25:00.000-07:00

This evening I decided to head out to the LGBT Film Festival in the Castro–not to see any films but to join a protest against the Israeli Consulate's sponsorship of the Festival. The action was organized by the group Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism. Why? Because the state of Israel has a vigorous PR campaign promoting itself as an island of gay tolerance in a sea of backwardness and hate. It is designed to deflect attention from Israel's horrific human rights record against Palestinians and Arabs, and the gay film festival shouldn't let itself be used as a propaganda tool.

It started as I would have expected, with a small number of pro-Israel Zionists separated from a small number of pro-Palestinian/anti-apartheid activists. There were Israeli flags and American flags on one side, streamers of black, red, green and white and placards on the other. I joined the anti-apartheid side–a mostly queer group with all kinds of diversity: Jewish lesbians, African American men, white, brown, Arab, young and old. The other side was overwhelmingly white and did not seem all that queer (but I didn't ask anyone about their sexual orientation).

As things got started, our side outnumbered the other side at least 3 to 1 and was getting a lot of encouragement from onlookers. An older man with his partner said "good for you" and flashed the peace sign. Passing cars honked their horn and gave us the thumbs up. A few of our folks, with instruments in hand, started to play. The drums pounded as some of us chanted: "Frameline members take a stand, pinkwashing is a scam!" (Frameline is the organization that runs the Festival).

The Israeli flags and ridiculous signs saying things like "Queers for Palestine is like turkeys for Thanksgiving" (because, you know, there are no gay people in Palestine getting killed by the IDF, they've all been murdered by terrorists and savages, or some such bigotry) were to be expected. But the most disgusting tactic used by the ultra-Zionists (I can only assume people who would hatch up such a stunt must have the "ultra" attached to their description) was a person dressed in a ~~full hijab~~ burqa with a sign that read "Pinkwash This" and who kept trying to stand in front of the anti-apartheid group. It was undoubtedly hate speech. Imagine someone mocking the pro-Israel side in a kippah or mocking a group of anti-segregation activists while wearing black face. It was a perfect example of what the staunchest defenders of Israel are resorting to–trying to sell ignorance and hatred in a neighborhood that has a history of fighting for human rights and human dignity. The liberal Zionist agenda is clearly in crisis when Islamaphobia like this is used in a futile attempt to win over gay folks in the Castro, who know hate when they see it.

American Empire and the Killing of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-04T23:45:00.000-07:00

I’m not sure the killing of Osama bin Laden was a good thing. I find the acts he’s said to have masterminded to be horrific. I also recognize that in some cases killing is necessary and even produces positive results, such as the necessary killing of someone to protect the lives of others. So I neither have sympathy for the guy nor am I a pacifist. But my gut reaction on the evening I learned bin Laden had been killed was disgust at the celebrations and concern for what his killing might actually mean for the future of my nation’s “War on Terrror.”

What bothered me most about the celebrations was the inappropriate, and mostly childish, acting out. The images I saw, particularly outside the White House, of an overwhelmingly young, white crowd waving American flags around as if they were at a pep rally; and the fact that the corporate media and most politicians saw these celebrations as appropriate and even moving, made me fear more for the future than a living bin Laden ever did. They demonstrated a boost to American nationalism - at least that’s the way it appeared that evening and in the days following - the kind of sentiment that fuels the killing of millions around the world by American imperialism.

And the high-fives were bipartisan. Some Democrats have been trying to recover their manhood ever since Michael Dukakis rode that tank back in 1988, and this supposed victory by a Democratic president certainly helped. The chest thumping from these liberals (usually men, usually white - see Chris Mathews or Ed Schultz from liberal network MSNBC), with their inferiority complexes, was intense after the targeted killing of bin Laden.

What will the opposition do? The chance that Republicans will cede that ground to the Democrats, cut defense spending and focus on domestic issues, is slim to none. It is far more likely they will find a way to outdo their corporate-funded counterparts. Boots on the ground in Libya? Maybe take on North Korea? Definitely no draw down in our current escapades though.

No doubt some would relish that, but I’m not as concerned with those folks. They are a lost cause, at least for now.

There is another group of people, some political allies, who argue that celebration is wrong, but the world is a better place without bin Laden. Maybe. We would absolutely have been better off had we never trained and funded him and his Mujahideen decades ago, chasing other demons in the region; but had bin Laden just rotted away in hiding while Arab revolutions made him more and more irrelevant, I would not have cared; and maybe that would have been better. Better because of the real possibility that this killing will embolden American imperialism and fuel an expansion of the “War on Terror.”

It didn’t take long after bin Laden was shot and dumped in the ocean for both Republicans and Democrats to start the saber rattling about Pakistan - a nuclear power mind you. It didn’t take long for right-wingers to call the killing a vindication of water boarding. It didn’t take long for the FBI to announce it was stepping up its counter-terrorism efforts in case a “lone wolf” decided to seek revenge or strike out of frustration.

Then there is the problem of how he was killed. There is good reason to question whether the action was legal and whether there was ever an intent to capture Bin Laden as opposed to merely execute him on the spot. For those good people who were uneasy about the celebrations but who nonetheless think bin Laden’s killing was positive, the precedent of his killing (as we continue to cobble together facts and clarify the initial story told by official sources) should be cause of serious concern. Why wouldn’t the U.S. use his killing as a perfectly good justification for other targeted executions? Why not go after Ahmadinejad in Iran or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela?

If there was solid evidence that bin Laden’s death would lead to less war or less terrorism, maybe even a little less human suffering, I might be more hopeful. But since when has a victory by a brutal empire ever led to a pulling back or a humble reexamination of foreign policy? The only time that ever happened in the United States was following a powerful anti-war movement and a military defeat in Southeast Asia. But the hawks regrouped and American Empire is back out on multiple battlefields. I just don’t think a perceived victory in their War of Terror is going to make them reconsider their plans.

Is The United States the Greatest Country In The World?

2010-12-24T10:54:00.000-08:00

I don't think so, but I'm in the minority; 73% of Americans do.

So which country is the greatest? Paraguay of course. No, but I do imagine that many Americans when asked whether the U.S. is the greatest might ponder, "If not the U.S., then what other country could be the greatest? China? Canada? Russia? Some European country?" I think it's odd to think of any country as the greatest - at least in a literal sense. The same way with cities. I think San Francisco is a far greater city than Houston, but I have close friends who think Houston is the best (possibly because they love sprawl, humidity, and freeways). So who is right? Me or those Houston loving weirdos? In reality, neither of us is right. There are advantages and disadvantages, pluses and minuses, in both places and we probably measure those things differently based on our own likes and dislikes as well as our values. I don't see things any differently when talking about nations.

Had I been born and raised in China, I might think it was the greatest country on earth. Crazy right? But not all Chinese people are walking around with their shoulders hunched over depressed about their horrible state of affairs. This isn't to downplay the fact that many people suffer in China, but plenty of people suffer in the U.S. as well. Over 2 million of us are in prison, and most of the rest of us lack the standard of living that exists in other industrialized countries because of poor health care, declining education budgets, and the like.

Of course I like it here. The people I care about all live here. It is a familiar place and a very beautiful place. I like how uniquely diverse and multicultural we are as well as many of the ideals that exist in our laws and culture. As much as it can be watered down and sometimes cast aside altogether, we have a Bill of Rights, and it is often meaningful. We also have a rich history with both good and bad, but lots of inspiring struggles from the very first against a monarchy to labor fights, the civil rights movement, women's rights, gay rights, immigrant rights and other movements for liberation. I'm sure someone from El Salvador could say many things she loved about her country, and I certainly wouldn't cut her off and say, "no way El Salvador is better than the U.S.A.; you're nuts lady!"

In fact the respondents to the poll cited above probably had much more nuanced feelings about their answer to the question than it might initially appear. The question asked: "Because of the United States' history and its Constitution, do you think the U.S. has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world, or don't you think so?"

First, it's kind of a loaded question. Like when those canvassers for the ACLU ask me on the street as I'm trying to get to a meeting, "Hey friend, care about free speech?"

"No, fuck you," I say, but I really just don't have time to talk to them.

So when confronted with our history and Constitution I imagine a lot of people would answer "yes" to any question. "Because of the United States' history and its Constitution, do you think OJ was innocent?" "Yes!"

Plus, if you say "no" to the question, you may feel like you are also saying "no" to the idea that the "U.S. has a unique character."

The U.S. does have a unique character and I do like certain things about its history and think the Constitution rocks (which is why, by the way, I actually like the ACLU and encourage people to donate). But I would be with the minority, still a significant enough minority that I don't feel too lonely, and probably larger in San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley than in other parts of the country. I do not think the U.S. is the greatest country in the world and in fact I think it is one of the most notorious countries in recent decades when it comes to human rights abuses around the globe. I connect those abuses more with the nation-state (the government) and American corporations, not really with my neighbors, friends and family. I'm an internationalist who thinks we should be working towards more open borders, because I happen to like freedom of movement and think human rights are universal.

In that sense I do think there is a critical way to measure nation-states - by the way they use their power to maintain and further human rights. As I said, the U.S. is one of the worst. There may be places that are worse internally, but few that exert their power externally, the way the U.S. does, to subvert freedoms and liberties around the globe. Even the simple "right to life," that so many anti-choice zealots claim to believe in, is easily cast aside when some of those same conservatives cheer on foreign wars that kill thousands of innocent civilians, pregnant women and their fetuses included.

Most Americans don't cheer on war, however. That's why our government has to make up reasons for war, because most of us wouldn't support such terror without a really, really, really, really good reason; and the real reasons are never good enough. Some people see right through them. It is those Americans - the ones who burned their draft cards in the 60's and the ones who camped out at George W. Bush's ranch - who make this country truly great. Not the greatest, but great. People like them exist all over the world. I may not speak their language or practice their religion, but I see neither them nor their country as inferior.

Dear Attorney General Eric Holder

2010-12-06T12:57:00.000-08:00

I want to "sincerely" thank you. I understand that you are personally working hard to keep me ignorant about the actions of my government and to treat that website guy like the worst terrorist in the world - maybe not as bad as Osama Bin Laden, but still really bad.

I know that the people who lied about the reasons for war in Iraq and the people who lie about progress in Afghanistan are lying to me because they know what's best.

I also understand that the people who broke some stupid law about torture did it because they were trying to keep me safe - and anyway we need to look forward not backward and they tortured innocent people many months ago now, unlike the wikileaks that keeps posting the truth about world affairs every day and promises to keep doing it in the future.

I also understand that the government needs to monitor my phonecalls and other communications without a valid warrant because they are keeping me safe. Terrorists want to take away my freedom after all, so I'm really grateful that torture, spying, and infringements on free speech are all being championed by you and your administration to help protect freedom.

Please use more of my tax dollars pursuing this evil, terrorist, truth-teller and in the meantime I'll be sure to not read anything the wikileaks publishes or the new york times for that matter.

"Sincerely,"
C Villarreal

p.s. we need more of this too

Dear US State Department

2010-11-28T10:44:00.000-08:00

Regarding your letter to Wikileaks. You write:

As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.

It is a shame that you would concern your self with the violations of law of someone simply making information public while you brush aside the torturers and war criminals you harbor.

It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents. Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:

* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals -- from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;

Lets hope that the names of anyone at risk are redacted, but I understand it will be challenging because you refuse to help redact those names. You clearly care more about keeping your secret information secret than actually keeping people safe. More than likely this is just propaganda - it is all you have to counter the truly life-threatening operations your administration continues to engage in. How many soldiers have been killed needlessly in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under your administration's watch? If you truly care about journalists, why does your administration defend the murder of journalists by U.S. forces in Iraq? Why is the previous administration not held accountable for imprisoning and torturing an innocent journalist in Guantanamo Bay for 6 years of his life?

* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,

The U.S. military is engaged in reckless, unecessary and deadly military occupations in two countries and engages in other abuses within the borders of other sovereign nations across the globe - killing thousands of innocent people (including many children). If any of these operations are put at risk, it will be a blessing.

* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries - partners, allies and common stakeholders -- to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.

Like our cooperation with (not to mention the billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars going to) countries like Israel and Egypt, who have horrific human rights records and tremendously disrupt the stability of their region? Pandemic disease? You mean like all the aid and doctors we send to Haiti?

In your letter, you say you want -- consistent with your goal of "maximum disclosure" -- information regarding individuals who may be "at significant risk of harm" because of your actions.

Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks' databases.

Sincerely,
Harold Hongju Koh

Mr. Koh, as someone who has vigorously defended the right to kill people in Pakistan and Yemen with aerial drones, you have no standing to lecture an organization that is simply shedding light and bringing the truth out in the open. For those of us who's careers and ambitions are not tied to empire, Wikileaks is doing a great service. The concerns you raise are mostly disingenuous and clearly a well-tailored message that seeks to deflect any embarrassment from the release of information you consider classified. Maybe if you spent as much time and energy trying to improve how the U.S. acts around the globe and support real accountability, transparency and the rule of law, the secrets of the people you work for would not be so embarrassing.

Please stop lying and, if you have a shed of humanity, consider resigning from your position in protest.

Sincerely - C Villarreal

Avoiding A Future Harvest of Hate

2010-09-10T23:25:00.000-07:00

Another seemingly reasonable objection to the Park 51 Community Center in Lower Manhattan comes along. Roger Cohen's Op-Ed comes down to this: the community center is simply not sensible in the face of so much anger.

His caricature of this anger in the U.S. does begin with 9-11, but includes the longer-term context of 9 years of foreign wars and a more recent economic slump. His psychoanalysis of America takes up most of his piece:

"The Sept. 11 attacks ... shattered America’s self-image."

"Two wars ... deepened the trauma."

Discussing similar anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe he notes: "The self-image of a Christian continent persists, drawing lines between insider and outsider."

But who exactly is Mr. Cohen psychoanalyzing? Do Jews, Hindus, Muslims and atheists in Europe really cling to an image of Europe as a "Christian continent"? Did African Americans, Japanese Americans, queer Americans, farmworkers, reproductive health practitioners, and other Americans really hold the belief that the U.S. was a "continent-sized sanctuary, flanked by the shining waters of two oceans" until 9-11? Pearl Harbor and the Oklahoma City bombing were blips apparently.

It seems he, like a gentle yet firm scout master, is explaining to Muslims that they best not camp here, lest they attract the pack of wolves. Lay low, maybe even camouflage your faith, until the pack moves on.

Cloaked in compassion, his Op-Ed dissects the opposition, generalizes its sentiment to bitter Americans, and raises the specter of the holocaust: "Less than a decade separated the Nazi book burning of 1933 from the crematoria of the Final Solution."

But Mr. Cohen is presumably not Muslim (not even American despite the certainty he uses to describe the American experience and sentiment since 9-11), yet he has chosen to use his column in one of the most widely-read publications to lecture Muslims and specifically those who want to build a community center in Lower Manhattan. My question to him is: "Where do you stand?"

Of course he is correct to note how easily such reactionary scapegoating can turn into a widespread movement with deadly consequences, but he is wrong to place the only obligations on the targets of that scapegoating and to counsel that their obligation is to give into the wrong-headed bigotry demanding that they move.

Where does he stand on the the scapegoating itself? He doesn't say. It would be a much better use of column inches were he to denounce it. After all, when Nazis were burning books, the answer was not for Jews to hide and give in, it was for people everywhere, of all faiths and every ethnicity, to stand up to the bigotry before it really gets out of hand. It is particularly important for people in positions of power, like say anyone who has a national audience in a major newspaper, to speak out.

"Good sense is needed when a harvest of anger is in," he writes. True enough, but giving in to hate does not make good sense, particularly when what we're seeing is less a harvest, and more an attempt to plant seeds.

Howard Dean's Ignorant Anti-Muslim Community Center Argument Dissected

2010-08-19T13:10:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean explains on Salon.com why he thinks the Muslim Community Center in Lower Manhattan Should Move. Let's take his thesis apart. His words are in italics.

First of all, I am not going to back off.

That's a shame. You really should be mature enough to admit your mistakes.

The reaction did surprise me because most of the negative reaction had to do with defending the constitutional rights of the builders of the center. Of course I never attacked those rights; I explicitly supported them, as the president also did this week. Nor did I side with the Islamophobic rhetoric of Newt, Palin et al. There are a great many people in this debate talking past each other, as is often the case these days.

OK. They have the right, and we need to have dialogue. What else?

Here is my case. First, no one who understands the American Constitution can reasonably doubt the right of the builders to build. Secondly, the building site is very close to the site of a violent tragedy that seared the soul of every American, including Muslim Americans. Thirdly, the builders of the proposed Islamic Center say they want to help heal the nation and there is a preponderance of evidence that that is true, based not least on the fact that the last administration viewed the leadership of this group as a pro-American bridge to the Muslim world.

It is noble that they want to help heal the nation, but that surely isn't the main reason they want to build a community center in their own community. And how are they supposed to help the community heal from way over there in whatever neighborhood they are supposed to move to?

Fourth, there are many Americans, about 65 or 70 percent, including many family members of the victims, who have very strong emotional resistance to building on this site. Some of them may have other feelings such as hate, fear, etc., but the vast majority of these people are not right-wing hate mongers.

I've seen polls with those numbers but are those feelings really about "very strong emotional resistance"? My guess is a lot of folks polled care far more about other matters - like health care, the state of the economy, etc. So, maybe you're projecting, but you're definitely not helping.

And yes, not all those who oppose the community center are "right-wing hate mongers," that doesn't mean their feelings are valid. Their feelings are largely based on ignorance, as yours appear to be, and many of them would pay little attention to this building were it not for a campaign led by right-wing hate mongers and enablers like yourself.

My argument is simple.

Simplistic perhaps.

This center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are "justified" or not.

I disagree that they should have to do this, but the fact is they are doing this. They have started a dialogue, have been meeting with 9-11 families and even opportunistic politicians. Why aren't you lecturing the people who will accept nothing short of the center moving? Aren't they the ones who need to make a real attempt to understand the simple fact that Muslim terrorists have nothing to do with Muslims generally?

No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to have an open discussion about why this is a big deal, because it is a big deal to a lot of Americans who are not just right-wing politicians pushing the hate button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully, whether they are right or whether they are wrong.

They do need to be heard respectfully, because so far they have been largely shut out of the discussion. Those voices have just been buried. All we hear from on cable news is Muslims going on and on about their rights. Can we please give a voice to these poor, oppressed Americans who just want the Muslim Center built somewhere else?

This has nothing to do with the right to build, and unlike same-sex marriage or the civil rights movement, it is not about equal protection under the law. The rights of the builders are not in dispute. This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides. I personally believe that there are other possible solutions that could result from such a process and that a genuine exploration of those possibilities is something we ought to try.

Great. So when Prop 8 is overturned, I hope gay couples will start a dialogue with those people who really feel strongly that they should not get married. Gay couples, once they have the right to marry, should really consider some compromise with those people who will go so far as to make a national campaign out of demonizing gay people who dare to do what they have the right to do. Maybe with a little dialogue, we can all agree that domestic partnership is just fine.

That is, of course, the kind of thing that happened during the civil rights movement. Sure at first some people insisted on riding in the front of the bus and sitting in at white-only lunch counters, but eventually African Americans did the right thing and started a dialogue with those reasonable people who supported segregation. They explored possible compromises, like moving the "blacks only" water fountain a little closer to the "whites only" fountain - a little less separate but equal. In the end it all worked out and we remember the politicians who stepped in to save the day and work out these compromises as champions of equality and civil rights.

Mr. Dean: Americans were attacked on 9-11. Americans are Muslim, Christian, atheist, Arab, South Asian, Anglo and ...... To buy into the rhetoric that the Community Center should be moved (or that there should be some other compromise?) is to buy into the notion that Muslims are not as American as everyone else on the list. It is a notion that is not always shouted or filled with hostility, but it is always based on ignorance and fear. You should be rallying Americans to support this Center, not shamefully promoting that same ignorance and dressing it up in the language of "dialogue" and "understanding."

The Muslim Center in NYC Can and Should Be Built

2010-08-18T09:55:00.000-07:00

The "mainstream" (corporate media, beltway politician) discussion regarding the Muslim community center near the former site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan (a.k.a. the giant mosque at Ground Zero) has been framed as follows: "they have the right to do it, but should they?" My response: "Why shouldn't they?" and "Now that Gingrich, Palin and the right-wing bigots have made it their idiotic (yet dangerous) cause, it really should be built."

For one thing, it would be a message to the world about our values as Americans. I know some on the right think "they" hate us for our freedoms (perhaps that's why those folks on the right are trying so hard to extinguish those freedoms - to keep them from hating us); but those of us who understand that people the world over are just as logical and moral as Americans, understand that people dislike the U.S. because we bomb them and occupy their countries, not because of our freedom. As an antidote to our official actions in the Middle East and South Asia, allowing and even celebrating the building of this Islamic Center would be a powerful step in the right direction.

The only arguments against the Muslim Community Center being built are based on bigotry, ignorance and fear, nothing more. Plus, since this became controversial and a few evil weirdos got obsessed with it, it has become ever more important to actually build the thing. Giving in to the right-wingers now could be disastrous. It would be a victory for people who would redouble their fear-mongering. They would be empowered to move on to the next target: it might be another mosque, or it might be a Christian church that marries gay people, or it might be a group that leaves water in the desert of Arizona for people who may be struggling to cross the border, or it could be something that affects you (if none of those other examples resonate with you).

These wingnuts, who build themselves up by tearing others down, are clearly not fans of Democrats, so it is sad that some Dems have refused to defend the project, even sadder that others have followed the lead of the right-wingers and publicly stated that the community center should be built elsewhere. The political opportunists in D.C. have, by and large, treated this issue in the most opportunistic way, but even leftists have made some weak arguments. In attacking the right-wing "they have the right but should they" rhetoric, some have said that it shouldn't matter whether they should or should not; they have the right and that's the end of the story. That argument, however, misses the most critical aspects of this campaign of hate - the "hate" part.

The argument throws our Muslim sisters and brother under the bus by embracing this logic: "Sure, some people hate you, but rather than quibble with their ignorance and bigotry, we're just going to argue that it doesn't matter because they have the right and that's all that should matter"?

I actually agree with the underlying logic of "just because someone or some group has the right to do something doesn't mean they should." For example, I don't think those nuts who show up at funerals of American soldiers with signs that read "God Hates Fags" should do that - even if they have the right to do it. If those same cult-members wanted to protest in San Francisco, I would recognize that they have the right to, but I would help organize a protest to kick them out of town.

Similarly, I've heard some on the left emphasize that the center is not really a mosque and really not at "Ground Zero." But if it was an actual mosque, should we not defend it just as much? And, if they were planning a mosque right at Ground Zero, that might be problematic, but only because, if it is going to be a public monument, it really shouldn't have any places of worship or should somehow be inclusive of all faiths (symbols representing particular individuals who died would make sense and perhaps a place for reflection and/or prayer would be o.k. but not a Christian chapel and not an Islamic mosque).

The community center should be built, because there are no good reasons not to, and because, if it isn't built now, the most wretched characters who thrive on scapegoating, racism and Islamaphobia will be emboldened.

There are instances where actions are legal but offensive. Even in those cases, there should be a very high bar before ordinary Americans raise any objections (much less politicians or state actors). The building of a Muslim Center in Lower Manhattan in the midst of a controversy among right-wing, reactionary, ignorant, demagogues, is not only something that can be done, but something that should be done.

Van Jones Gets It Wrong At Netroots Nation

2010-07-23T20:08:00.000-07:00

A lot of folks I know respect and even idolize Van Jones. Following his demonization by right-wing bigots and subsequent forced resignation as Green Jobs Czar in the Obama administration, there was a real need for progressives to call out the red-baiting and racism. That's understandable. The man is undoubtedly super smart and has innovative ideas, and that can't be downplayed. But having seen him speak a few times and read some of his writing, I can't join the chorus of supporters who give him rock star status. He may have been a radical at one point in his life, but at this point seems more interested in supporting a moderate Obama administration than real change from below. This came through loud and clear in his latest speech before the 2010 Netroots Nation where he lectured the assembled bloggers about being too hard on the current administration.

The general message seemed to be that we should hold Obama accountable, but we should do it in a nicer way, or else the far right will come to power. The "or else" part is actually a fairly old game of lesser-evilism and scaring progressives into silence and support for the Democratic Party. Check out this excerpt:

... the last time we had a Democrat in the White House, Democrats controlling the Senate, Democrats controlling the House, energy prices through the roof, jobs going down was Jimmy Carter. And we had four years of that and 12 years of Reagan-Bush. If we are not careful, if we are not smart, this could be four years as a precursor to the kind of right-wing backlash that will make us miss John McCain. Make us miss George W. Bush. Don't think it's not possible. There are dragons on the Right who in their anti-immigrant hatred, in their war mongering jingleism, in their commitment to drill and burn their way out of our energy crisis will make you miss John McCain.

I would actually compare Obama's presidency to Bill Clinton's not Carter's. Clinton's triangulation, his calls for smaller government, saber rattling on Iraq, welfare reform, Defense of Marriage Act, and other moderate, even conservative, policies delivered this country to George W. Bush; the critiques from progressives and radicals on the left certainly were not responsible for the Bush "victory." Of course Bush did not really win that first election, but it was as close as it was in large part because people who cared about all of those liberal/progressive issues, people whose lives were actually effected by those reactionary decisions during the Clinton years were not motivated to vote. Once Bush was in power, and despite the fact that most Americans did not believe the rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction, it was still easier for Bush to invade Iraq because of Clinton's own support for occasional air attacks, sanctions that resulted in the deaths of a million Iraqis, and the demonization of Iraqi leaders. It was easier to cut social services to the very poor and taxes on the very rich following Clinton's supporting the very ideas underlying those cuts.

The Obama administration is setting up the next right-wing government by sending national guard troops to the border, adopting policies of extrajudicial killings of American citizens overseas, increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, and rejecting a public option in favor of a healthcare bill that may be a bad deal for most people forced to buy bad health insurance.

Of course that same healthcare bill may help some people - particularly those Americans who were denied health coverage - that is yet to be seen. And, there have been some good policy decisions from the Obama administration, not to mention generally better nominees to federal courts (if not nearly as good as they could be). The danger is that if we follow Van Jones' lead, the Obama presidency may end in 2 years or 6 years and be decidedly more like the Clinton presidency than the Carter presidency - giving a liberal stamp of approval to many of the policies and ideals expressed by Republicans, moving Washington to the right and keeping progressives scared and divided.

I don't want to take away from the great ideas Van Jones has about the environment and the economy. Much of his speech made some strong points about the need for green jobs, but he also seemed to have a false analysis of where power lies and how best to wield that power.

For example, he said that, "we have to change the terms of debate going through the fall. We have been getting our butts whooped by this drill, drill, drill mantra and it's time for us to seize the terms of debate and show that we have the answers and we have solutions. That is going to be primarily up to you." Have we really been getting our butts whooped on this issue? Even while the Gulf of Mexico is filling with oil? Is it really the job of the "netroots" to change this message? Not that bloggers and independent journalists shouldn't attack the "drill baby drill" mentality, but it wasn't bloggers that gave a speech from the presidential pulpit calling for more deepwater drilling just days before one of the worst ecological disasters in history.

Yes the "netroots," not to mention the millions of ordinary Americans who don't happen to have a blog, can have an effect on what Washington does and the future of our country and this planet, but you can't blame them (blame us) for the bad policies and decisions of this President, his administration, and the other powerful politicians in D.C.; and you can't argue that there is some smart, strategic way to save the planet and get what we deserve out of this administration but first all us bloggers and lefty activists need to get on the same page and figure it out, and in the meantime stop picking on the President.

The truth is I'm not sure Jones actually wants us to hold this President accountable, maybe because its success has something to do with his own success, or maybe because he knows Obama and genuinely likes him, or maybe for some other reason. But his speech seemed at time schizophrenic, at once interested in pushing policies this President hasn't championed while simultaneously trying to discourage criticism of this President - we should hold this President accountable, but we should do it in the right way, and I'm not going to explain what that right way is. It is unsurprising to hear this from an individual who has been both an outsider and an insider at the highest levels at a conference that attempts to position itself on that same fine line.

So here is what Jones says about accountability and our role as citizen activists:

... there's been a lot of talk about your need to hold the new president accountable. I agree with that. Frankly, I think we have been putting too much faith and confidence in our president. Frankly, I never agreed with that. My basic view is we don't need the president to fix everything, we just need the president to stop breaking everything, that would be my first order of business. But the challenge here for you is that you have to figure out a way now as you go from opposition to proposition, from protest to governance, how to hold somebody accountable in a way that doesn't mean beating them accountable, kicking them accountable, spitting on them accountable.

First, shouldn't he be giving this lecture to Rahm Emanuel who called plans by liberal groups to target moderate Democrats on healthcare "fucking retarded," or Democrat Barney Frank who called protests for the Employment Non Discrimination Act “a stupid thing to do” and “immature”? Is it really progressive critics of the President who need to figure out how to hold this administration and Democratic leaders accountable in a nicer way? I could write a love letter to Nancy Pelosi, but my guess is she is more interested in currying favor with people who can write checks than with people who can write love letters. At any rate, the left showed Obama a tremendous amount of support. Progressives voted for him in droves and told everyone they knew to do the same. Now, despite our disappointment, we are asked to continue to rally around him? Should progressives ever expect more from our political leaders than they expect from us?

We do not have to figure out how to govern because we don't govern. President Obama isn't our peer; he's the leader of the most powerful empire in the history of the world. I understand he isn't a dictator, but the point is his administration has tremendous power and a mandate. Many of us may have helped get Obama elected, but that doesn't mean we are now in power. Majorities can support an end to the war in Afghanistan, a health care public option, genuine Wall Street oversight, but that doesn't translate into legislation or executive orders. The notion that being nicer to politicians would help, ignores what has actually worked historically for ordinary Americans - strikes, protests, demonstrations, and movements that make demands and speak truth to power.

I'm all for moving from opposition to proposition, but it isn't true that progressives are simply about opposition. A public option is a proposition, investing in solar and wind power is a proposition, supporting gay marriage is a proposition, an amnesty for undocumented immigrants is a proposition. When political leaders ignore those propositions, or worse oppose those propositions, or worse propose something awful, the only way to hold them accountable is to call them out and, maybe not spit on them, but at least criticize them harshly, if appropriate.

Van Jones would like to see a large scale investment in projects that both create jobs and help the environment. I agree. We absolutely need that. But the last time we had anything close to that kind of public works program, it followed intense labor struggles - there were sit down strikes and entire cities were shut down (or rather run by the working class not the bosses). Unfortunately, Jones' recipe for similar change relies on being nicer to people in power and hoping that will save the world. For those of us without access to power and wealth, this is a recipe for failure. To unleash our power, we must fight for our ideals, independent of political party.

Obama seems like a nice guy and I'm glad he's in the White House if McCain was the alternative, but so far his presidency is a big disappointment and he needs to know I feel that way. I think he can handle it.

Oakland Police Department Restraint

2010-07-12T22:24:00.000-07:00

Following the Mehserle verdict last Thursday, the local corporate media decided that the OPD acted with restraint and if it weren't for a handful of outsider, anarchists, there would have been no problems at the protests that reacted to that verdict. But Attorney Walter Riley, who was arrested by law enforcement, has a different message. Then there is Oakland School Board member Jumoke Hinton Hodge who was also arrested for some reason. Also a 69-year-old former school principal was beaten over the head and arrested. And there was a journalist whose arm was broken by the cops and charged with some ridiculous, trumped-up charges. Those are just a few stories. We're also finding out details of the disgusting conduct of law enforcement in general, including the conduct of law enforcement in the jails where arrestees were held.

So what did a conviction, however weak, of a police officer actually do to temper the overwhelming power of law enforcement on our streets?

Mexico 2010

2010-06-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

I know this is old hat for some folks who've been to Latin America a million times, but besides border towns, this was a first for me. I was warned by some that Mexico was dangerous. My understanding is that the major violence right now is mostly in the North and particularly along the border with the U.S., such as in Ciudad Juarez. Of course Mexico City is a large city with far more poverty than most American cities, that just makes certain kinds of crime more likely. Hell, if I were living in a Mexico City slum I'd try to rob Americans too (I may be kidding, but at any rate it makes some sense, regardless I would never physically hurt anyone (indeed, I doubt I could physically hurt anyone since I'm an enormous wimp)).

Transportation

AeroMexico was awful. First, they moved my flight from an early morning flight arriving in the afternoon to an overnight flight arriving early in the morning. I somehow managed to sleep on the way down despite the fact that I was in a row, in front of the emergency exit row, that did now have reclining seats. I slumped over sometime after the awful movie and woke up after 90 minutes or so with a back ache and a crick in my neck. They fed us at 2 AM. Honestly, I'd give up the in-flight meal for a more comfortable flight. Give me a bag of peanuts and a pillow - I'm good to go. Then on the way back, the flight was hot. You know how sometimes the passenger cabin is hot while you're on the ground, but once you take off the air starts flowing and it actually gets cold? Bring on the blankets and all. But, for some reason, it stayed about 85 degrees the whole way home. I mean we were thousands of feet above the surface and it was probably freezing outside, what with hardly any atmosphere and everything. The only way it could have been so hot is if they were blowing in air from the engines or the heater was stuck in the "on" position. The only good thing about AeroMexico? Free booze. After our meal (a ham sandwich by the way), a cart with bottles of whiskey, tequila, rum, wine and I think beer came down the aisle. If you asked, you could get seconds too. Come to think of it, that was probably the only way I managed to sleep on the way out there.

Another couple of notes about the flights to and from Mexico. First, why do neither the Mexican nor the American immigration and customs areas have pens available? Cheap pens or pens connected with chains, like they have at the post office? I did not think to pack a pen on my trip and there were forms we had to fill out. The forms were passed out in the plane and of course the AeroMexico crew didn't have pens either (at least not for passengers; I find it hard to believe there wasn't a pen on the plane). Luckily I was able to convince some fellow immigrants to loan me a writing instrument, or I might have been stuck in the airport forever.

Second, a lot of the people I was traveling with, in fact most of the people who looked like American tourists, were simply going through the Mexico City airport on their way to beach resorts. I can't imagine how tired and frustrated those poor souls were with all the hassle of travel and AeroMexico.

When I arrived in Mexico, I was tired and wasn't interested in attempting to brave the subway during morning rush hour. So I went with an official airport taxi with a fixed rate - I think it was $125 pesos. Cheap by American standards and fairly fast - it helps to have a courageous taxi driver, though the lack of available seat belt in the rear seat was a bit of a concern.

Generally I found taxi drivers were eager to find ways to get extra pesos out of amateur tourists - whether by not using their meter or by using the meter but going in a roundabout way to your destination - this last technique is particularly helpful during off-peak hours. Still, 40 pesos versus 80 pesos versus 100 pesos really comes down to 4 American dollars versus 8 American dollars, versus 10 American dollars for a ride through the city (on one occasion we had 5 people sitting on top of each other on a cab ride) somewhat difficult to complain about for an American who throws down 2 to 4 bucks for coffee and 8 to 12 bucks for lunch in the states.

To avoid the taxi drivers trying to squeeze out an extra 2 dollars from Americans, the subway is a good alternative. A ride is always a flat rate of 3 pesos (like 30 cents) with unlimited transfers. The trains come every few minutes; I never had to wait longer than 5 minutes. Peak hours, however, are way too crowded and hot for anyone who has the slightest bit of claustrophobia or anxiety. Pick pockets, gropers, and people shoving their way into and out of trains are also problematic at these times. But all other times, if you are heading to one of the many places the metro goes, it is by far the best, cheapest and easiest way to get there; just ignore the people selling pirated software, music and movies.

Hotel Isabel

We stayed at Hotel Isabel the first few nights. I had reservations to stay in the very hotel 3 years prior, but tragic circumstances forced me to cancel my trip. I was excited to make it this time, and the fact that I had just learned that John Ross - the author of El Monstruo - had been living there since the 1985 earthquake made it all the more meaningful. And it was a cool hotel. There was a great bar, a decent restaurant, a nice and comfortable lobby, helpful staff, and nice plants/gardens/courtyard. The main problem was with the actual rooms. I could care less that they were small, that the lighting was crappy and the shower floor was also the bathroom floor. I could forgive the fact that there were mosquitos and it was hot with no airconditioning and the shower was a mere trickle. But I could not live with the uncomfortable mattresses, and worse, the thin, single, pillow on each bed. Perhaps I've grown needy and difficult to please in the years since I slept on the floor of the University of Texas tower during a 48-hour protest, but I need at least a Wal-Mart-grade pillow these days. So after a few days we moved out of the Hotel Isabel and into a new, more comfortable place away from the city center. We still went back to the bar to enjoy karaoke, Cuban rum and the Centro Historico - which I found to be the most interesting part of the city.

The City

The oldest and best part of the city is the Centro Historico - the oldest, central part of the city surrounding the main Zocalo. Rough around the edges, but the most down-to-earth, lively part of the city, full of monuments, history, and cobble-stone streets. It is also the political center of the entire nation. The president's official home is there, though I think he is generally out in the Chupultepec at a place called "Los Pinos;" and the legislative body is there. The Palacio Nacional is where the law-making happens and we found it to be a really beautiful structure, full of soldiers and, for some reason, tons of kitties.

The Zocalo is also a common place of protest. While I was in town teachers and electrical workers were on strike and camping out in the Zocalo.

A number of streets around the Zocalo are closed off to vehicle traffic, so wandering about on foot is super easy. Though, it isn't clear that jaywalking is a crime in Mexico, whether a particular road is open or closed to vehicle traffic.

The city center also includes a number of old buildings now housing cafes, Sanborn's, and other retail outlets and restaurants. One of the cool things about a really old city like this is how modern spaces take over fairly ancient edifices. I didn't go into any of the American chains, but there were plenty around - Burger King and Starbucks to name just two. To all the moron Americans complaining about immigrants coming to the U.S. to take jobs and resources - you do know that we live in a global economy right?

There are cops everywhere in the city center and beyond. It was actually difficult to tell the difference between cops, soldiers, private security and accordion players. Law enforcement/militaristic uniforms were fairly ubiquitous, whether the individuals wearing them had any authority or not.

There are gay couples in the the city center and beyond. I actually saw more same sex couples holding hands on Mexico City streets than I normally see in San Francisco. The concentration was like the Castro in SF, but the area was much greater.

Food & Drink

I was only slightly weary of eating the food in Mexico. For the most part I didn't think about the common myth that illness is inevitable. In fact I ate plenty of tacos, huaraches, birilla, gorditas and plenty of other meaty, cheesy, fried foods that you can get from street carts and small holes-in-the-wall. I never got sick once and the food was super-good. There was even one stand where the guy had goat heads right out in front that he would bash open to get meat from upon request and toss the brains or whatever on a hot surface for tacos - very fresh I guess, but that was a bit much for me.

One reason for how tasty and non ill-making the food was, as many more seasoned travelers told me, was that Mexico doesn't really have the factory farms that dominate the U.S. food markets. The goats, cows and chickens come from smaller farms where animals roam about, don't get injected full of hormones and antibiotics, and aren't slaughtered in dingy rooms where the entrails of thousands of other animals rot away on the floor. That makes sense. The entrails, by the way, were also in a lot of the tacos in Mexico.

I also got to taste pulque, which my fellow travelers attempted to explain to me tasted like a liquid fart. I actually found it to be far more enjoyable. A little like liquid yogurt, with plenty of flavors, or plain if you like. In case you weren't aware, pulque was the precursor to tequila and does have alcohol, though far less than tequila.

Art, Churches, Museums and Everything Else

I couldn't stop going into churches. The murals and statues and mystery of these enormous Christian temples amazed me. I grew up Catholic, and that is part of my attraction, but I also feel like Catholic churches in Latin America are often some of the most beautiful, elaborate buildings in otherwise poor communities. The fact that in Latin America there is more mythology around various saints and legends is a bonus.

I was pining to see some mummies while down in Mexico also, but went to the museum at San Angel on the one day it was closed. I still got to check out a couple of churches there and also got to see a plaque dedicated to some Irish soldiers who defected to Mexico from the U.S. during the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 and were supposedly executed in the village (now part of Mexico City) of San Angel by some filthy American gringos.

El Museo Nacional de Antropología is a standard tourist stop, but not at all a tourist trap. It is definitely worth it. The Aztec and Mayan parts of the museum are pretty incredible, in particular the enormous Mayan heads and equally enormous Aztec calendar that may not actually be a calendar are very much worth a visit. Those heads are like the size of 1000 human heads.

Also at Chupultepec Park is Chupultepec Castle. A fairly fancy structure that was once the scene of children jumping to their deaths rather than surrendering to the filthy Americans during the Mexican American war.

The castle is also the place where Maximilian and his wife lived like European royalty back in the 1860s. The Castle includes a lot of exhibits including a small number of murals - the one with the kids who jumped to their death is pretty incredible.

The pyramids were huge, but in retrospect I think I liked the town nearby and the bus ride to and fro more than the pyramids themselves. The pyramids were great, don't get me wrong, but they felt a bit touristy, and that watered down their authenticity - at least their feel of authenticity. The constant sound of jaguars - actually jaguar whistles that dozens of people were trying to sell the tourists - was part of it.

I was also pretty anxious to see some famous murals by Diego Rivera - murals I'd seen in books and online many times before. The huge murals at the Palacio Nacional were pretty incredible, featuring Karl Marx, Frida Kahlo, the Aztecs and a lot of other people. The great thing about murals is that they generally have a lot of people busy doing fairly mundane, yet significant acts. Rather than simply a moment in time, they often represent a great swath of time and even a grand history.

The David Siqueiros murals we saw certainly represented a story of time and history. Siqueiros, who tried to kill Leon Trotsky, has a more demented vision it seemed. We found his murals in a few locations - a random piece guarded by two men near Tlatelolco, a couple more at Chupultepec Castle and a giant, 360 degrees, cavernous project at something called the Polyforum Cultural Siqueiros at the Mexico City World Trade Center. I found his art to be the type you appreciate more the more you stare at it. I also imagined that he did a lot of drugs.

Speaking of Leon Trotsky, the last tourist thing I did was go to the Trotsky museum - located at the home where he was eventually murdered. I felt oddly calm there, despite the fact that I wasn't sure how I was going to get my stuff and make it to the airport on my own, as my more experienced traveler friend had already left for the military outpost of San Diego.

The Trotsky museum was the sight of a tragedy, but it reminded me of the old friend who suffered his own tragedy and for whom Trotsky was such a role model.

Tragedies - as gut wrenching as they can be - require those who go on in this world to find peace and hope. And Trotsky's museum was both peaceful and hopeful. Peaceful because it was quiet and full of beautiful flora growing about a serene brick and mortar home. Hopeful because it was full of revolutionary history, yet almost everyone I saw there was younger than me and really curious, perhaps wondering what the future of politics, revolution and creativity would bring humanity.

I took a bunch of other pictures while I was in and around Mexico City. You can find them by clicking here.

I enjoyed spending time with my friend David and meeting his brother, his co-worker and their fellow musicians/family-members. We got lost once or twice and chased down a party in Coyoacán that seemed to be a near riot of 15-year-old Chilangos by the time we showed up with a bottle of tequila. So we left, but we still had a good time in the lobby of the Hotel Isabel.

Constitutional or Not, Isn't It Wrong to Force Everyone to Buy Private Insurance?

2010-03-25T20:26:00.001-07:00

I understand the Republicans are hypocrites and right-wingers are nuts about this healthcare thing. But I find it troubling that so many liberals are mocking the idea that mandating that every American purchase private health care is unconstitutional. I'll be honest. I haven't taken the time to research the legal issues regarding this. Nonetheless, it just bothers me that everyone has to do this or face a penalty.

We all have to buy auto insurance, but we don't all have to own a car. Right, I know, sometimes people really do have practically no choice but to own a car, but my point is simply that there is something less sinister about forcing people to buy auto insurance if they want to drive. Everyone needs health care. I can't imagine anyone who can live there entire life without needing health care of some sort. And anyway, this law doesn't say, "IF YOU WANT TO ACCESS HEALTH CARE ... YOU MUST ..." It says, everyone, EVERYONE, must buy it from a private company - no public option, sorry. Imagine if your town had no public transportation, but everyone was forced to buy a taxi pass. Imagine if your state had no public schools, but everyone was forced to pay tuition to private schools.

Many people are uninsured and that leads to multiple problems and expenses and increases in the cost of healthcare because, for example, people seek care in emergency rooms and then can't pay their bills, or they don't get the care they need because they can't afford it. In order to alleviate some of these problems or blunt the worst of them, we must all buy Anthem, or Kaiser, or Aetna or Blue Shield or some other policy from a company raking in billions in profits, AND if we don't, we get fined?!? What a crappy mandate! Give your money to these corporations, it may help some people and may lower some healthcare costs, we aren't completely sure, but either way, give your money to them or we'll fine you.

That may or may not be constitutional. That may or may not be reform. That is not progressive, so don't call it that.

Health Care Reform: Somewhat Good or Very Bad

2010-03-22T19:38:00.000-07:00

Either way, I don't understand why this is seen as a "historic moment" except to those who simply want Democrats and/or our current President to have a victory against Republicans, right-wingers, and/or tea partiers, regardless of substance. Since Democrats tend to be to the left of Republicans (though the whole political spectrum moves rightward without real agitation from below), I suppose a victory over the right-wing is a good thing. What I can't get over is how this so-called victory could have been a far more substantial victory for American's healthcare and how this victory - touted as "historic" and cheered on by so many politically powerful liberal groups - may make real substantive change more difficult.

Health insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions or to children, eventually. If someone gets sick or files a claim, insurance companies won't be allowed to drop them. Poor Americans will have help paying for health insurance - which is good since they will be forced to buy it. There will be increased competition, though it isn't clear that competition does anything to bring down costs. Those are all debatably positive, but rather mild reforms, particularly compared with the bad in this bill and with what we could have had.

However, what is to stop health insurance companies from raising premiums by 1000%? Nothing. What is to stop pharmaceutical companies from chargins $500/pill? Nothing.

We could have real healthcare reform; not health insurance reform. There is no reason why President Obama and the Democratic leadership could not have delivered, at least, a public option. It is popular with Americans, and Obama ran his campaign, in part, on support for such an option and was publicly supporting it all along. A supermajority was an obstacle for awhile, but then that smoke screen fell apart. Yet, now we have a bill that will force Americans to buy coverage from private health insurance companies, which continue to rake in billions and raise premiums, and does nothing significant to control costs or CEO bonuses.

Now that we have this enormous piece of legislation with private insurance as central to the whole plan, and a lot of Democratic political capital gone, does a public option or anything better stand a chance? With liberal organizations like MoveOn and liberal politicians like Dennis Kucinich cheering this on or at least dropping all opposition and telling everyone else to fall into line, can we look to our liberal Democratic politicians and those liberal/progressive organizations with a small amount of power in Washington to really fight for improvements to this legislation? This looks bad. We may have given up something great for something maybe ok, and that makes something somewhat good actually very bad.

Sure, as merely a peon in this empire of a "democracy" I may have to cut my losses on this one, but why should I excuse those politicians and organizations who have real power inside the beltway? Maybe there are some positive things in this legislation, that is not clear, but either way, I know we could have and should have had something better. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi could have delivered something far better, and instead they decided to cut deals with big, multi-billion dollar industries, just so they could get their "Mission Accomplished" moment for this president and this political party. Well, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a human being who despises and fears illness and poverty and pain and hates the fact that the richest country in the world still has to settle for wealthy industries buying wealthy politicians while the rest of us cheer on or despise our political theater, but still get sicker.

A lot of people I respect, and even love. like this legislation and are happy that it is going to pass. A lot of people I can't stand hate this bill and think Obama is a socialist Nazi. I personally think they're both wrong, and I hope the former will understand and accept my humble opinion. I myself could be wrong, my friends, and I genuinely respect your opinion. I hope the latter will stop watching Fox News and wake up, or otherwise shut the hell up.

J Street's Goal: Peace and Security, but Not Justice

2010-03-04T12:30:00.000-08:00

J Street, the more moderate pro-Israeli group that serves as a bit of a counterweight to the right-wing AIPAC, is publicly opposing Israel Apartheid Week and connecting it to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) Movement. They argue as follows:

The BDS movement, whose dogmatic, counterproductive approach underlies “Israel Apartheid Week,” aims to delegitimize Israel’s very existence - making no distinction between West Bank settlements and Israel proper, and refusing to support a two-state solution that results in a viable Palestinian state and a secure, democratic Israel that is a homeland for the Jewish people, living side by side in peace and security. The BDS movement’s lack of support for a two-state solution puts it well outside the mainstream of the entire political leadership of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the United States.

This is incredibly revealing. In order to have a "secure, democratic Israel that is a homeland for the Jewish people" Palestinians must be treated as second class citizens. Because underlying the BDS movement is simply the demand for equal treatment and justice for Palestinians. Here are the simple demands made of Israel:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

One state? Two states? More important than those questions is ensuring that all the people in the region have human rights. If Israel surviving in its present state requires denying those rights to Palestinians, then we really should delegitimize the state. If that changes, then defenders of human rights around the world can debate one state versus two states, but until then the injustice exists, and it should be countered.

Furthermore, until Israeli authorities use the same state power they bring down on Palestinians day after day also, or instead, against Jewish settlers taking over West Bank land, the "West Bank settlements and Israel proper" (which seems to grow every few decades) cannot be separated. Some supporters of the State of Israel may talk about living side-by-side with Palestinians in peace, but until the actions of the State of Israel demonstrate that commitment, it is a hollow statement.

We also reject comparisons of Israel to South African apartheid. The analogy clearly implies that Israel is illegitimate, that it deserves a wholesale boycott, and suggests a single state for Israelis and Palestinians would be some sort of solution to the conflict, when in reality, it is a recipe for further violence, strife, and insecurity.

Interesting how a paragraph seeking to distance Israel from South Africa sounds so similar to the kinds of arguments made by white South Africans during apartheid. As Avika Eldar wrote in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

One of the myths among whites in South Africa was that "blacks want to throw us into the sea." Many of apartheid's practices were formally based on security, mostly those involving restrictions on movement. Thus, for example, at a fairly early stage, black citizens needed permits to move around the country. During the final years of apartheid, when the blacks' struggle intensified as did terrorism, its practices became more severe.

Today there is less violence, less strife, and far less insecurity in South Africa. Why couldn't that happen in Israel/Palestine? Are Arabs inherently violent? Are Jews?

The J Street statement continues:

The BDS movement wrongly places the entirety of blame for the conflict on Israel. Responsibility for the conflict does not rest exclusively with either the Israelis or the Palestinians, and moreover, this conflict will never be truly resolved if one side wins only at the other’s loss.

If the Palestinian side has ever won anything, please share. Anyway, the BDS movement is about equality. If that is a victory for any side, it is only the side of justice. Again, the J Street statement reveals more than intended. Supporting Israel as it exists today requires support for grave injustice; countering that means Israel loses.

Of course, Palestinians and their various leadership bodies have made statements and endorsed practices that may be worthy of condemnation, firing rockets into civilian communities and blowing up buses are awful acts; but on the other hand, Palestinians are not occupying Israel; Palestinians are not oppressing Israelis; Palestinians do not receive billions of dollars from the United States; Palestinians do not have nuclear weapons. Making the argument that there are two sides and those of us who care about human rights shouldn't pick one over the other, or should condemn each side equally ignores the reality, asymmetry, and history of the conflict. It is tantamount to arguing that black South Africans were responsible for the conflict there.

The approach of the BDS movement only serves to deepen Israel’s sense of isolation and thus harden Israelis against the compromises necessary to achieve peace, undermining the regular and inspiring cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians on the ground. This is singularly unhelpful particularly as the United States works to re-launch negotiations and as the window of opportunity for achieving a viable two-state solution grows ever smaller.

Do you want to know what isolation feels like? Try living in the Gaza Strip. Hardened to the compromises? Like slave owners in the American South who eventually fought a war instead of making the "compromises" necessary. Well, I'd say J Street would do more good to speak out against that hardening, and if the U.S. actually works on negotiations with a real chance at justice for Palestinians, I have no doubt the BDS movement will find ways to be more helpful; but as long as the U.S. government continues to send billions to Israel even as its leaders continue to build walls and allow settlements, the BDS movement ought to focus on helping the growing movement among Arabs and Jews to end Israeli apartheid.

Therefore, we strongly oppose Israel Apartheid Week because we believe that it employs inflammatory, inaccurate language, misrepresents the complex truth of the conflict, undercuts debate, alienates significant numbers of students, and advances the agenda of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

J Street ought to identify exactly what it finds "inflammatory" or "inaccurate" so that advocates of Apartheid Week can address these claims. Of course the situation is "complex." Oppression and injustice often involve complex politics, history, and social circumstances; but we're all intelligent enough to recognize when injustice exists.

We’re proud to continue J Street U’s “Invest, Don’t Divest” campaign, which gives pro-peace students a concrete alternative to the BDS movement and an opportunity to invest in their campus debate, in their communities, and in the Israelis and Palestinians who will bring about the positive change needed to finally achieve two states and real peace and security for all.

Still the emphasis is on security and peace, but peace without justice is simply not the goal of the BDS movement or Israeli Apartheid Week. If it is J Street's goal, then they should acknowledge that openly.

The Foolish War on Terror and a Student Essay on CNN

2010-02-06T11:01:00.000-08:00

CNN has this ridiculous essay up on its site today about our response to terrorism. There is actually little substance to it, and oddly features a big picture of The Who in concert. Why? They sang their song "Won't Get Fooled Again" at a concert to benefit the victims of 9-11 a few weeks after the tragedy occurred. Apparently this was particularly memorable for the author as he witnessed "the crowd, as if one, raised their fists in the air and let out a scream of their own:'WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!!'"

Very good Mr. Zickar! You get a B+ on your essay about "What 9-11 Means To Me."

He continued with this narrative: "At that same moment, one could almost picture President Bush watching from the residence at the White House doing the same thing."

Really? You imagined President Bush watching on his television, raising his fist, and screaming? Bush probably was watching television, but my guess is that Dick Cheney was the person thinking most intently about our response to the September 11 attacks; and the scene was probably far more sinister.

But Zickar believes that "if anyone had reason to vow to never let something like this happen again, it was the one individual who took an oath to keep this nation secure." He may or may not be right about what was going on in Bush's head, but it simply isn't true that the president takes such an oath. Rather, the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," not to "keep this nation secure."

Apparently for Zickar, The Who song is really the perfect explanation for everything the Bush administration did in their so-called "war on terror." It doesn't really matter whether the decisions they made were horribly wrong; this "Won't Get Fooled Again" idea was driving it and it ought to be driving our decisions today.

Zickar argues: "The decision to invade Iraq is a good example. The wisdom of invading this country is still being debated, but the rationale behind the decision to do so was clear: Saddam Hussein claimed he had weapons of mass destruction, and most of the world's leading intelligence agencies claimed he had them, as well." Well, that's true if you turn the clock back to the 1980's and early 90's, but by 2001-2003 that is just false. Leaving aside the factual dishonesty, however, even shaky information justifying war seems good enough for this author.

Sure, we now know the intelligence community felt like its information was being misused and there was enormous pressure on some to produce a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but ultimately we did get some information about yellow cake uranium or something, and that ought to be good enough. That's where the "Won't Get Fooled Again" part comes in: "In light of the fact that he had ignored intelligence reports before 9/11, it is understandable that Bush did not want to make the same mistake again."

Well good. Sure thousands of soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead; and yes, we've spent billions of dollars on that war, but "as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently stated, 'I'd rather, in the interest of protecting people, overreact rather than underreact.'"

Well then, why not presume people guilty until proven innocent? Why not allow police to get a search warrant after they invade peoples' homes? Better to put a thousand innocent people behind bars than let one guilty person go free. Right Dianne? Can you hear me from inside your enormous mansion in Pac Heights? That kind of idea is what our country is built on right?

But wait! I'm talking about crime; This high school essay is about war; And not just any war; The war on terror - a war that is everywhere and has no end in sight.

Zickar writes, "The administration now reports the would-be [underwear] bomber [Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab] is cooperating and providing useful information. That may be true. But it's also true that we are engaged in a conflict that cannot be litigated. We are fighting a war, not fighting crime."

So even though the war in Iraq was an enormous, tragic mistake, and even though providing Abdulmutallab with his Constitutional protections appears to be providing law enforcement with more reliable information than the sadistic practices at Guantanamo ever did, we are supposed to buy this guy's argument that the Obama administration isn't doing enough and not acting with the "sense of urgency" they ought to be?

That is the point of his term paper: the lessons of 9-11 were that we are fighting a war, terrorists or enemy combatants don't deserve Constitutional protections (which after all are just privileges only lucky people deserve), terrorists or enemy combatants should be tortured and humiliated if the President thinks it's a good idea, and if we can scramble together some information connecting any country to terrorism or a terrorist organization, we ought to seriously consider starting a multi-billion dollar, deadly war with that country, lest we "get fooled again."

You understand? Yes in some ways one could argue that we were fooled into invading Iraq, and we were fooled into believing Guantanamo was full of evil terrorists (many of whom have been released after being held and tortured for years because they weren't guilty of anything - oops), but the real fools are those who would not allow our government to engage in more of this recklessness.

Why? Because "According to Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, an attack could come in the next six months." You should be very afraid! You should be so afraid you would be willing to send your children to die in unnecessary wars and give up your Constitutional rights. Come on. Don't get fooled again.

Can Texas Beat Alabama?

2010-01-01T18:06:00.000-08:00

I'm worried. Texas has not had as challenging a schedule as Alabama, and has had some close games against teams they should have easily dominated.

Wyoming was the first team to raise doubts about Texas as a championship team. Texas had a tough time making much happen in the 1st half, scoring only a field goal in the 1st quarter and leaving the field at half time with only a 13-10 lead. Texas dominated the second half, but fans expected a bit more of a consistent domination, particularly against a team like Wyoming - a team that would later lose to Colorado.

Colorado, after all, ended the year 3-9. They shut out Wyoming 24-0, but also provided Texas with its second scare of the season. The Buffaloes were ahead at the half with 14 points to Texas' 10. Each team had 2 turnovers and about the same number of rushing yards - Colorado with 42 and Texas with 46.

The so-called "Red River ~~Showdown~~ Shootout" against Oklahoma ended with a close 16-13 win for Texas. True, it was a rivalry game, which always changes the dynamic. But this was an Oklahoma without Sam Bradford (at least after early in the 1st quarter when he was injured). Yet with their backup quarterback for most of the game, Oklahoma still had 200 more passing yards than Texas.

Texas A&M is the other big rivalry, but Texas A&M just has an awful team (sorry to my family and friends who are alumni and fans); and Texas should get up for this game as much as A&M. Yet at the end, only 10 points separated the two and only 7 points separated them at half time. In other words, the game was always within reach; and it shouldn't have been.

The Big 12 Championship game against Nebraska - another big game for both teams and one that is notorious for underdog wins - was still closer than it should have been. Texas was barely victorious; and some people doubt their fraction of a second field goal victory (13-12 victory). The clock was at 0 with Texas behind; the game was lost it seemed. After reviewing the play, however, a second was added to the clock ... field goal ... victory. I do think there was a second remaining, but should a victory against Nebraska really depend on one disputed second at the end of the game?

Texas also had plenty of easy wins over plenty of not-so-great teams: Baylor, Kansas, the University of Central Florida, and the University of Texas El Paso.

Alabama, on the other hand, beat Virginia Tech and LSU - both top 15 teams, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee - all solid "honorable mention" teams, and of course Florida. Alabama also beat most of those teams (Virginia Tech was close, but that was their first game of the season) quite definitively.

I'm sympathetic to the notion that Alabama v. Florida was the real championship game. Alabama beat Florida 32 to 13, yet Florida dominated Cincinnati in its bowl game (Cincinnati coming to the game with an unbeaten season, though admittedly not the most challenging schedule), with a final score of 51 to 24.

Of course, as a fan, I'm optimistic about a Texas win. As much as I doubt Colt McCoy's skills and consistency, he has an impressive completion record of over 70% this year. Florida's Greg McElroy is a little over 60%, but perhaps a tougher schedule can explain that (he was nearly 67% against Florida).

I think Texas has a chance if Colt is up for it - consistent, solid and with receivers open. That means, among other things, fewer interceptions and sacks. Even if he's "up for it," his receivers will need to be open and the 'Horns will need a stellar running game. Most critical 3 things: interceptions, sacks and rushing yards. Those are the 3 that will carry Alabama to a national championship over Texas.

Finally, I hope Mack Brown will consider a better wardrobe.

What exactly is in your pocket Mack?

I hope you lose, but you are looking sharp Saban.

Ordinary People Making Positive Change Are Always On The Left

2009-12-14T09:57:00.001-08:00

Howard Zinn's The People Speak aired last night on the History Channel and it was incredibly moving. I love how it is driving the right-wing crazy, but they can't really dispute the content. The best they can do is call Zinn a Marxist, which he is, and demonize the whole thing as a collaboration between a radical historian and liberal Hollywood types.

They could never compile their own right-wing, ordinary, people speak compilation because there simply aren't people like that on the right. First, they'd have to disavow the right-wingers who almost everyone agrees were on the wrong side of history: the pro-slavery, anti-civil rights, KKK crowd. Then they would be hard pressed to find anti-union voices who weren't bosses, but they could, perhaps, find some pro-war voices here and there.

The biggest problem for them is that all their right-wing counterparts throughout history either speak without passion, or if they have passion it is usually dripping with ignorance and/or contempt for others.

Their production would make for either a dry, sterile production, or a frightening, ominous one. Maybe Fox News would pick it up.

There is No Such Thing as a Military Victory in Afghanistan

2009-12-01T19:33:00.000-08:00

Following up on Obama's speech this evening about escalating the war in Afghanistan, presumably to get us out of it in 2011, I was struck by the vague idea of "victory." Many liberals asked, "what would you do?" to anti-war detractors. "To accomplish what?" I would ask. Even David Sirota, with whom I generally agree, tweeted that "as much as I oppose Afghan escalation and think its doomed, I still HOPE it succeeds. I'm not an 'I hope the president fails' Limbaugh."

That all depends on how you define "success."

There cannot be a military success in Afghanistan. It was a failure the moment our troops and weapons hit the ground and adding more troops just adds to that failure. The only success would be a complete military withdrawal, strong support for real democracy in the region, strong support for human rights in the region, and an increase in humanitarian aid. Success would be taking most of the billions of dollars we are set to spend on this war and put it toward health care, education, and the environment. Success would be troop deaths in Afghanistan in 2010 equal to 0. Success would be civilian deaths in Afghanistan from drone attacks or any American weapons in 2010 equal to 0.

How else can one define success in Afghanistan? Capturing Bin Laden? If thousands or even millions of lives are sacrificed senselessly for the head of one overblown terrorist, would it really be worth it? Would we really be safer or would someone else come along to take his place, thriving on his martyrdom and the chaos in the region?

Perhaps success would mean increased security in the United States, but how do we measure that? Is it clear that adding tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan would make us more safe rather than less safe? What about the millions of people in Central Asia and the Muslim world who will see this as more reason to fight against the West? What about the fact that by spending billions on this escalation we are neglecting threats at home, including threats often treated as having nothing to do with spending on war, such as the tens of thousands of people who die each year because of lack of healthcare?

Perhaps success can be measured by bringing real democracy and human rights to Afghanistan. For politicians supporting this escalation, however, democracy already exists. We were waiting for a credible partner after all and, presumably, now we have one. The voices of women and ordinary people in Afghanistan on this matter are not part of this argument, it seems, with a few exceptions. As Malalai Joya, a former elected official in Afghanistan who is now banned because of her outspoken views, has written, "if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies – Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women's rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves."

I do hope Obama succeeds when he chooses policies I agree with. When I disagree, and particularly when I think the consequences of his choices are both deadly and unnecessary, I lean towards failure.

Teabagger for Halloween

2009-11-03T19:39:00.000-08:00

Both sides of my angry, teabagger, 9-12, Glenn Beckista, sign from Halloween night:

For the record, I'm sticking out my stomach.

Halloween Grocery List

2009-10-27T22:40:00.000-07:00

black licorice
pears
bit-o-honey
raisinets
Ludens cough drops
chick-o-stick
tootsie rolls
candy corn
wax lips
lemon drops
miniature bibles
plain M&M's

Are the Longhorns One of the Best Teams in the Nation?

2009-10-11T19:09:00.000-07:00

Next weekend's game will be the real test. They are number 2 or number 3 depending on the poll, but it is difficult to tell if they are actually that good. They haven't really had an adequate test. Worse, they've looked vulnerable at times they should not have - playing Wyoming and then Colorado. At the end of each game the score looked pretty good for Texas, but Texas fans watching the games probably got a bit nervous. At half time against Wyoming, the score was 13-10 Texas; at half time against Colorado the score was 14-10 Colorado. Those are un-ranked teams; and Colorado was playing in Austin.

The problem I see is that Texas doesn't seem to have a top-ranked-team running game. I haven't seen it anyway. Colt McCoy is a talented quarterback, but he needs a Ricky Williams to ensure the kind of team that is worthy of a national championship. Of course, they could still get there, but from what I've seen so far, that is going to take one of two things: Either they are going to have to show some talent they haven't shown yet; or other teams are going to have to falter. Depending so much on a single quarterback is too unpredictable. If Colt has a bad quarter in the wrong game, it could mean the end of the single-digit ranking hopes of the team. If others could pick up the slack, then it wouldn't matter nearly as much.

I'm a Texas fan; but I'm more skeptical this year than previous years. Let's see how they do against Oklahoma.

Preventive Detention: A Way to Win a Game of Chicken?

2009-09-27T12:01:00.000-07:00

In today's New York Times, John Farmer Jr. uses the arrest of Najibullah Zazi as a hook to advocate for a preventive detention statute. The story-line he creates is one of law enforcement investigating terrorism and facing what he describes as a dangerous "game of chicken." They know that they are following and listening to terrorists who want to kill thousands of people, but they don't have the evidence normally sufficient to hold them and/or prosecute them. As that evidence develops, they may have a difficult choice to arrest some but not all, leaving those others to go on and actually kill hundreds of people. Maybe with such dire consequences, he argues, we should consider giving law enforcement the power to imprison people without sufficient probable cause.

He uses some compelling examples of people who got away and actually committed acts of terror. Without examining the extent that those examples are true or simply based on the word of law enforcement, who regularly depend on fear to increase their powers and justify their actions, it is important to note that it isn't actually that difficult to arrest and convict people for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.

Just look at the men accused of plotting to blow up the Sears tower. That case did have to go through 2 mistrials before the government found a jury that would convict 5 of the 7 men, but they still basically got these guys for doing little more than stating their allegiance to Al Qaeda and otherwise not taking any real, tangible steps toward harming anyone.

Then there is the man convicted of providing material aid to a terrorist organization because he allowed a Hezbollah television station to be broadcast on a small satellite service he operated out of New York. Or attorney Lynne Stewart convicted of providing material support to terrorists for passing statements from her client to the media.

If it is already fairly easy to convict people for doing little more than making statements or passing along statements publicly, then what exactly would be sufficient to allow law enforcement to preventively detain someone? They go to the same mosque with someone for whom there is probable cause? They had coffee with that person the day before? Simply knowing that an attorney is willing to represent someone convicted of one of these acts?

Would the risks of giving law enforcement this kind of power seem more dangerous to some if most terrorism suspects were Christian? It does make the risks of giving the state more police power easier to accept when we think of it only affecting other people - especially when those people are foreigners or look different from us or have a different faith.

One of the biggest flaws in Farmer's column is that he never identifies the risks, just that preventive detention is "unpopular;" but it is unpopular for good reason. Law enforcement, the FBI, the Justice Department and similar state entities have a history of using their power for bad ends; whether you consider COINTELPRO or simple (but sometimes deadly) police abuse on city streets. Farmer's formula of easing up on restrictions against the state because of the potential harm that may come from respecting the Bill of Rights and civil liberties is the same formula that led to the forced detention of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. I believe it is the same formula that allows states to convict innocent people and send them to death row. Better to lock up millions of innocent people than let one guilty person go free; or worse, let one soon to be guilty person commit the crime they probably intend to commit.

Running Folsom

2009-08-08T16:36:00.000-07:00

I've written about running in the Mission before. Now that I'm in Bernal Heights, my Mission run is almost always the same - up to 14th Street along Folsom and back (the last leg is up the hill home). It continues to have a lot of the same challenges - dodging cars, people, garbage, encampments, wandering dogs pulling away from their owners and turning their leash into a dangerous trip wire, etc.

The sidewalk is wider than many in the Mission and many in the city for that matter. It is lined with big, old trees on either side, providing shade and a bit of nature. Despite the trees, the sidewalk is kept up relatively well and there aren't a lot of roots buckling the concrete below. While it is mostly residential, there are also places of worship, the original Philz Coffee, schools, parks, a grocery store, a few taquerias, a laundrymat, and a few other commercial buildings.

Today the area around 22nd and Folsom was the highlight. On one side of the street as many as 50 young people - all people of color - having a good time and listening to hip hop. On the other, a handful of young white thrift-store grad-school drop outs listening to disco, or possibly French pop, on an old school radio.

It was a sunny, but hazy day, relatively warm in the Mission. Around 17th Street a big guy listening to a walkman (yes I think it was a walkman, maybe a portable CD player, but not an iPod) called me "Frank" or something along those lines while I ran in place waiting for the light to change. A young woman nearby thought he was talking to her and said, "excuse me." He repeated the incorrect male name and added, "don't want him to get heat stroke." I probably looked a bit dehydrated by then.

At 26th Street four teenage boys walked together as one told a story about getting out of some handcuffs and shooting a weapon into the air. The other boys were amused. I didn't get much more context than that. A dad and his son played soccer at the concrete park - or at least dad was trying to get the ball past his son the goalie. A woman and two young girls were sitting on a couch at the laundrymat laughing about something. New Order was blasting around 20th Street while a young woman took pictures of her friend on a motor scooter.

Good exercise.

Why the San Francisco Daily is More Conservative than San Francisco

2009-05-31T10:17:00.000-07:00

Perhaps because of comments like these most popular comments on a story titled "GOP divided over how tough to be on Sotomayor":

This is the San Francisco Chronicle's new bread and butter. Presumably one of them lives in the Richmond, though it isn't clear that most of the right wing commenters actually live in the city. Even if they do, it is pretty obvious they are not representative of most people in San Francisco - a city where some major elections have come down to a Democrat versus a Green Pary candidate.

Cal Supreme Court: Separate But Equal Just Fine

2009-05-26T11:35:00.000-07:00

The California Supreme Court declared today that separate but equal is acceptable for gays in California when it comes to marriage - indeed it is now enshrined, oddly enough, as an exception to our Equal Protection clause until voters decide to un-enshrine it through a popular vote. Voting was central to the whole case as the court tackled the question of whether a majority of Californians can amend the state constitution at the ballot box to deprive a suspect class of a fundamental right. The majority decided that 50% plus 1 person voting on election day could indeed take such a right away.

In California the initiative process allows a majority of voters to amend the constitution. Until Proposition 8, however, the people have never voted to take a fundamental right away from a suspect class. But for the U.S. Constitution, allowing such a thing would mean Californians could take fundamental rights away from Catholics, or African Americans, or women, simply through this initiative process and a majority vote. In most cases, the U.S. Constitution could be used to strike down any such act, but not in this case when the vote involves a right protected by the California constitution but not the federal constitution. Such rights, regardless of how fundamental and regardless of suspect classification, can simply be voted away by a majority. One wonders if a majority could even vote away the fundamental nature of certain rights or vote away the suspect class designation of any group, regardless of previous supreme court interpretations.

It looks like anything goes as long as it is not considered a revision to the constitution as opposed to an amendment, in which case more than a mere initiative and majority vote would be necessary. This distinction framed the court's opinion today: Proposition 8 was an amendment not a revision, and thus it is now part of the constitution that the court must interpret and enforce. But the court, giving its majority opinion through Chief Justice Ronald George, cobbles together precedent to define "revision" in a confusing and counter intuitive way.

In a nutshell, the test applied by the majority was that a revision to the constitution (as opposed to an amendment) involved "far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan." Here it is stated another way: revision is accomplished when an act "necessarily or inevitably will alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution." One example given by the majority was part of an amendment that was struck down because it included a section that required that the state constitution not provide criminal defendants with greater rights than the federal constitution. The court said this was a revision not an amendment because it vested "all judicial interpretive power, as to fundamental criminal defense rights, in the United States Supreme Court" as opposed to California courts.

I still don't really know what this means, but it may not matter because it isn't clear that precedent really constrains the court to this narrow and bizarre definition. The dissent says the following before going into its own interpretation:

The cases cited by the majority do indeed hold that a change to the Constitution that alters the structure or framework of government is a revision, but these cases do not, as the majority erroneously concludes, also stand for the inverse of this proposition: that a change to the Constitution that does not alter the structure or framework of the Constitution cannot constitute a revision and, thus, necessarily must be an amendment. The reason is simple. None of the cases cited by the majority considered this issue, because it was not raised.

Even the majority seemed to acknowledge that this interpretation of precedent may not be such a bright line, going out of its way to write that gays still have all the underlying rights and privileges of marriage, just not the designation of "marriage" and:

there is no need for us to consider whether a measure that actually deprives a minority group of the entire protection of a fundamental constitutional right or, even more sweepingly, leaves such a group vulnerable to public or private discrimination in all areas without legal recourse ... would constitute a constitutional revision under the provisions of the California Constitution.

Whether or not the court wants to leave such legal writing for future justices with a different more sweeping set of facts, this court actually has made the decision today by clearly limiting its definition of "constitutional revision."

The court had plenty of leeway to make a different argument. Namely, when the change is to the equal protection clause as it applies to a particular class, even a minor deprivation renders the positive right of equal protection little more than a privilege afforded only to those groups and for those rights a majority of Californians are willing to accept. Thus voting to limit such rights is a revision to the constitution not a mere amendment, and more process is required.

But what about expanding, rather than limiting, equal protection rights through a majority vote? The court addresses this:

... under petitioners’ approach, the people would have the ability — through the initiative process — to extend a constitutional right to a disfavored group that had not previously enjoyed that right, but the people would lack the power to undo or repeal that very same extension of rights through their exercise of the identical initiative process.

Heaven forbid! The court goes on ...

Again, neither the history of the provisions governing the making of changes to the California Constitution, nor the many past cases interpreting and applying those provisions, support petitioners’ assertion that the amendment/revision distinction properly should be understood as establishing such a “one-way street” or as mandating such a seemingly anomalous result.

"One way streets" in the law aren't that unusual - indeed the Chief Justice seemed to be following a "one way street" of legal precedent in the midst of a busy downtown clusterf*** with avenues heading in all directions. Equal protection implies protection, not a lack thereof, and it makes sense that narrowing who it applies to and/or under what circumstances it applies would require more judicial oversight. On the other hand, expanding those rights - giving them to more people or under more circumstances - doesn't raise a lot of cautionary red flags within the doctrine of equal protection and its history of protecting the rights of disfavored minorities.

In many ways, when we have expanded equal protection and provided new rights for people, whether at the federal or state level, we are really just finally acknowledging, as a people or as a state, rights that have existed (or should have existed) all along. We never should have denied the right to vote from black people or women. These are inalienable rights, and it just took some time for our government to formally recognize them. Would anyone argue that blacks have the right to vote now, but they should not have had the right to vote in 1860? Discovering those rights collectively usually is a one way street - once "discovered" only the truly ignorant would argue for going back.

We will move on to the next vote on same sex marriage; and equality for gays will be stronger when supported through the ballot box. Practically, that will make our movement stronger; and I favor a ground up approach to human rights over an elitist approach to human rights any day.

The main problem with the California initiative process isn't the voting, it's the money. People or organizations with lots of money can manipulate the voting process; if anyone denies this ask them why people raise money at all if it doesn't play a role (in my opinion a major role) in these initiative elections. It's also true that pure democracy, even without the influence of wealthy, powerful entities, still may require caution when rights for minorities are the issue; but I firmly believe the threat would be far less without that influence of power and wealth.

Regardless, I feel the democratic (litte "d") forces are moving forward and equality for gays is coming whether the California Supreme Court or the Mormons support it or not. That doesn't mean we should all just sit by and wait for it to happen (the other side will take advantage of such inaction); but we must grasp the momentum and make sure it moves us toward freedom.

Vote. March. Agitate. Tell your friends and family to do the same. The Separate but NOT Equal ruling by the Supreme Court of California was an awful opinion by the court that must be overturned. If the people of California have to do it, let's get to work!

State Bar Should Discipline Torture Lawyer Haynes

2009-05-14T09:27:00.000-07:00

My colleague, Sharon Adams, and I published the piece below in the San Francisco Chronicle today. The original can be found here. There is also a counter piece written by William T. Coleman Jr., an attorney with O'Melveny & Myers who served as the secretary of transportation in Gerald Ford's administration. It can be found here.

State Bar should discipline William J. Haynes
Carlos Villarreal,Sharon Adams

As legal professionals, we are aware of the high standards that all lawyers are expected to meet to remain members of the bar in good standing; and as legal professionals who believe strongly in human rights, we are particularly concerned with the role of the lawyers at the Department of Defense and the Justice Department in shaping and covering for the torture policies of the Bush administration.

For these reasons our organization, the Bay Area Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, filed a complaint with the State Bar of California in March against former Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes. Haynes is now registered-in-house counsel for the Chevron Corp. in San Ramon. Unfortunately, for the time being, the State Bar has declined to take action, preferring to forward our complaint to other bar associations where Haynes is registered. We plan to request an official review.

Haynes, unlike John C. Yoo, Jay Bybee and the other high-level lawyers involved in approving torture, is registered with the California bar. The facts implicating Haynes are damning and irrefutably stated in detail by a Senate Armed Services Committee report released last month.

Haynes' office at the Department of Defense sought out illegal interrogation techniques and resistance strategies in December 2001 from military experts. In October 2002, military personnel at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center requested approval from their chain of command to use techniques already practiced at the prison camp. In response, Haynes authored a cursory memo for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommending approval of a variety of techniques, including using dogs and forced shaving of detainees.

Haynes never acknowledged that some of those techniques might violate international and domestic law - including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Haynes also failed to mention strong concerns raised by all branches of the military.

During the time the Haynes memo was in effect, Mohamed al Kahtani was tortured, tainting the evidence against him and forcing a dismissal of all charges pending against him. Among other things, al Kahtani was forced to perform dog tricks, forced to urinate on himself, forced to stand naked, and forcibly shaved. In under two months, Rumsfeld rescinded the Haynes memo and convened a working group to analyze the legality of the harsh interrogation techniques.

Haynes directed the working group to consider as "authoritative" a memo from Justice Department lawyer Yoo. As the Senate report concluded: Haynes' action "blocked the Working Group from conducting a fair and complete legal analysis and resulted in a report that ... contained 'profound mistakes in its legal analysis.' "

These facts are in official reports and on the congressional record, so it is disappointing that the State Bar has decided to wait for other agencies and associations to take action first.

It is an important function of the State Bar to ensure that attorneys meet particular standards of education and ethics. Thousands of attorneys across the country face consequences up to disbarment for actions that do not come close to causing the degree of harm caused by Haynes. He and the other torture lawyers wielded great power with little regard for ethical and legal standards. Their actions led directly to the barbarity of torture and have so far helped shield the various actors from facing consequences for their actions.

Haynes now works for a major oil corporation that has benefited from American foreign policy, and has been accused of its own human rights violations around the world. He could easily transition into a future administration in Washington. The fact that his legal work could still do damage is obvious.

Now that the State Bar of California's chief trial counsel has punted the matter, it is up to the Audit and Review Unit to ensure the State Bar fulfills its role to protect the public from lawyers like Haynes. As Californians we must demand that it conduct a proper investigation of our complaint, revoke Haynes' status as registered-in-house-counsel and apply other appropriate discipline.

Carlos Villarreal is the executive director of the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. Sharon Adams is an attorney in Berkeley and a member of the chapter's executive board.

Pointless Capitalism: The Credit Reporting Industry

2009-05-09T11:44:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I spent 20 minutes canceling my triple advantage freecreditreport.com membership. You can sign up pretty easily online (sometimes without knowing if you don't read the fine print), but to cancel you have to call, wait on hold, respond to various arguments about why you should not cancel, reject a final offer of a 50% discount for one year, and then wait for the cancellation to go through. Plus, be sure to look for the email confirmation.

Just a relatively small example of how much of our resources and human potential we use on matters that are absolutely pointless. Capitalism's superstructure is really a huge waste of time and brainpower, and sometimes creativity (though not necessarily in the realm of the credit monitoring industry).

As consumers in a capitalist world we now have these agencies that assign us credit scores and produce credit reports. That surely takes a certain amount of time and energy on its own. Then we have other businesses that take those reports and send people emails and alerts about them. Those businesses need advertisers - the freecreditreport.com commercials with the dudes singing about their crappy cars and crappy jobs are pretty ubiquitous. They need insurance and banking, and probably have frequent meetings with representatives from both industries. And of course they need telemarketers to convince people not to cancel, among other things. Meanwhile, I, and millions of others no doubt, waste millions of productive hours (collectively) waiting on the phone just to halt a monthly fee.

Yet the credit monitoring industry doesn't really do anything meaningful. It doesn't produce art or expand our understanding as human beings. It doesn't produce any material goods that directly sustain us or meet our immediate human needs. Why can't we just see our credit reports whenever we want without paying anyone anything? They're obviously just sitting somewhere in cyberspace waiting for us to pay someone to unlock them for our viewing pleasure. We can get a free credit report once a year at annualcreditreport.com apparently, but we can't check on whether it is being updated on a daily basis; and as sad as it is, that can be helpful for navigating the world as it presently stands if we someday hope to retire with a roof over our heads and to live into old age with a minimum of suffering.

The money that comes from our labor is sucked into this industry and shuffled around a bit, making a few people rich and providing a lot of other people with salaries that are no doubt sucked into other pointless industries. The people in this industry could be spending their time feeding the hungry, producing art, cleaning streets, building parks, caring for foster children, or giving me a massage - which I need a lot more than an email telling me that my credit report has changed (only to find out that one of the credit reporting companies finally figured out that my address changed a few months ago - there goes another 10 minutes of my time).

By the way what is your credit score? I mean, tell me about yourself.

Prison Riot or Inmate Resistance?

2009-02-01T10:34:00.000-08:00

For the second time in two months there is an uprising at a privately run prison in Pecos, Texas. It is described by the media as a "riot," and it is frustrating to read the various and brief reports on the matter:

The CNN story says, "As many as 2,080 inmates from two of the center's three buildings began fighting in the prison yard about 4:30 p.m. CT, said county Sheriff's Office Dispatcher Anna Granado."

But this story from UPI says that a guard at the prison who described the situation as "out of control" also said that "a medical dispute between inmates and staff may have sparked the riot, the second disturbance at the privately-run prison in two months."

It is not surprising to hear someone from a prison claim that an uprising is actually a fight between inmates even as another official contradicts her statement - prison uprisings are often described as fights, and usually fights between racial groups or various gangs, regardless of the truth. It rarely is described as having anything to do with poor treatment, abuse by guards, or bad management; and of course there is never any commentary about why the U.S. has well over 2 million people locked up in prisons and jails (and many more on probation or parole), whether it is a failing of our other public institutions, or whether we can afford to continue to lock up so many people (in this case it looks like many of these people are in for immigration violations - most likely completely nonviolent offenses - which should also raise questions about the costs of our immigration policies).

Regardless of what guards or officials say, this looks like an uprising of inmates against poor conditions. Even if we doubt the statement from the one guard about a medical dispute, the earlier incident within the two month span is described as follows by the CNN story: "On December 12, inmates took two workers hostage and set fire to the recreation area at the center in Pecos, located about 430 miles west of Dallas. The inmates, who had made several demands, surrendered later that night." Clearly not a fight between inmates but an uprising with demands of prison officials. The latest incident is likely consistent.

If you read this report (pdf) from the GEO Group - the private prison corporation paid by American tax dollars to run this facility - it admits that several incidents have occurred previously at this prison. In 2004 "The entire inmate population (approx. 2100) engaged in a food strike and refused to partake of any meals. The chief complaint of the inmates centered on changes related to food preparation." In 2005, "Approximately 150 inmates in a housing dormitory refused to rack-up due to complaints about a correctional officer." In 2008, "Approximately 14 inmates began flooding the special housing units by using objects to obstruct the drainage in their toilets because they were scheduled to be transferred from the facility."

There are multiple complexes at this prison and these incidents come from the low-custody complexes - the same complexes that appear to be involved in the present uprising; at the minimum/medium complex there are several other incidents of resistance including in 2004 "All Black Inmates housed in C Building (minimum custody) began a work stoppage because a Black Inmate from their housing unit had been placed in detention." And in 2007 "Approximately 340 inmates refused to participate in count. Chemical agents were utilized."

Of course these are the narratives provided by the private prison corporation; there may be other incidents unreported and even these likely leave out critical (embarrassing) details. That is the nature of prisons - it is difficult to actually find out what is going on inside of them; for the media, for attorneys, and for family members. When they are privately run there are more substantial transparency issues, e.g., Freedom of Information Act requests do not necessarily apply. And of course we get contradictory accounts of what is happening inside and reports like this from the AP: "Texas Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange said the disturbance at the Reeves County Detention Center was still going on Sunday. But no details were available on the extent of the riot ... Officials at the prison could not be reached for comment. Calls to the GEO Group, which runs the lockup, were not immediately returned."

What If San Francisco Were Gaza?

2009-01-06T07:50:00.000-08:00

I've been proposing a lot of my own analogies on various website comment sections and facebook discussions ever since I heard Israel's defenders say "the U.S. (or Europe) would never tolerate rocket fire," and "what would you do if you lived in Sderot (though not everyone in Sderot supports the IDF slaughter in Gaza).

My analogy was as follows: What if China or Mexico or Japan (pick your nation-state) took over California and brutally forced most people from a particular ethnic group to move out of their homes and into the San Francisco peninsula. The conquering nation then tightly controlled all the resources into San Francisco, any movement in and out, and regularly fired missiles at the most militant parts of the city (probably the Mission District, maybe the Tenderloin), always alleging they were targeting terrorists. What would the people of San Francisco do? What should they do considering the conquering nation becomes the most powerful force in the region with unwavering support from the most powerful force in the world and San Franciscans are impoverished, sick and hungry?

Contrast this with Haaretz.com's senior editor Bradley Burston's analogies for the situation on his blog. Let's deconstruct them:

*****

Analogy One: A fanatical religious party wins a string of elections in Mexico's northern states, then stages a civil war to drive out the federal government and take full control.

The party's charter demands the return to Mexico of the occupied territories of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas.

Firing homemade rockets and more advanced projectiles smuggled in from Iran and China, the party's gunners can hit a total of one of every seven Americans, or 43,598,000 people, in a broad swath which includes Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Austin, San Antonio and Houston, and Las Vegas.

In all of these areas, pre-schools, grade schools, and universities are all forced to shut down. Families sleep in bomb shelters, and return to them several times a day during air raids. Businesses are shuttered, and the economy shuts down.

*****

The brilliantly evil aspect to this analogy is that it ignores the situation in hypothetical Northern Mexico. As if the U.S. (Israel) were just minding its own business. There are many injustices about how the U.S. and Mexico coexist, but the wars fought over the southwest are nearly 170 years old - the occupation of Palestine began just over 60 years ago and continues to this day. The U.S. does not treat the people of Northern Mexico the way Israel treats the people of Gaza. There are not refugees in Northern Mexico that were forced from their homes in Texas or California just a generation ago. There are controls on the U.S.-Mexico border, but there is also a lot of trade and freedom of movement across that border, and we don't control the miles of coastline or other borders that Mexico has and can use as it pleases. Israel has had vast control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and coastline - and had these powers even before Hamas was elected.

If this was the situation between the U.S. and Northern Mexico, I'd be protesting in
San Francisco just as thousands have protested against the IDF operation in Tel Aviv, Haifa and elsewhere in Israel.

*****

Analogy Two: A man comes into your home. He has a gun he made himself. He points it at your family. He fires, but misses. The gun has little accuracy. He fires repeatedly, missing again and again.

You have a much better gun, made in a real factory. It is in the drawer in the bedroom.

Demonstrators in London and San Francisco - who are distant relatives of the gunman - stage a protest, calling you a murderer and demanding that you keep the well-made gun in the drawer because it would be a disproportionate response.

The man with the homemade gun, it turns out, is a religious fanatic who lives across the street. You were once his landlord. There is much bad blood between you.

He races back across the street. He has a larger weapon that he smuggled in through his basement. He shoots from behind his younger son. He wounds your daughter. You take out a rifle. You aim for him and hit the son, killing the boy.

The demonstrators are now calling you a Nazi and chant "Slaughter the Landlord!"

[In his defense, the neighbor explains that you have kept him and his family locked in the house, and have at times, failed to pay his water, gas and electric bills, causing them to be turned off.

This is some years after the neighbor send out his older son, nicely dressed, to knock on your door. Your older daughter opens the door. He greet her politely, and presses the detonator on a homemade bomb.]

*****

Wow. This one blew me away. Again it is pretty dismissive of the complaints of the Palestinian people. Israel is just trying to live its life and this crazy family keeps trying to kill them.

So, the first major problem here is that it presumes the story starts with a suicide bombing (although that part is at the end). In fact the killing of Palestinians and the injustices they have endured have gone on for decades and continue. Gaza is and has been under a brutal occupation and again, many of the people in Gaza were forced from their homes. A better analogy would be not only that the neighbor and his family have been locked in their home, but that the other home used to be theirs and they were violently forced out, resulting in the death of one of their children. I would add that the neighbor's house is regularly shot at with high powered weapons - at people who are locked inside!

The weapons in the analogy are another problem. An inaccurate gun versus a more accurate gun? It would be more accurate to say an inaccurate bb gun versus automatic weapons and hand grenades. And at the end a suicide bombing - but with so many more Palestinians killed you'd have to change the analogy to say one suicide bombing and a few bb gun shots versus an entire neighborhood of Palestinians wiped out.

*****

Analogy Three: Gaza as the Warsaw Ghetto

Jew-haters the world over adore this one. It solves a number of problems at once:

It denies and diminishes and exploits the Holocaust, does disrespect to Holocaust victims and survivors alike, alleviates European guilt over complicity with the Nazis, alleviates American guilt over inaction in the face of the annihilation machine, misrepresents both the cruel reality of the Gaza Strip and the cruel reality of the ghetto, dismisses the humanity and the vulnerability of the million Israeli Jews and Arabs within rocket range, and ignores completely the role of Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in having sent thousands and thousands and thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel.

As a bonus, pro-Palestinian demonstrators in San Francisco [where else?], referencing the the Warsaw Ghetto analogy, recently beat up a small number of pro-Israel demonstrators, reportedly shouting "Slaughter the Jew" at them in Arabic.

Way to bring peace.

*****

How does this analogy deny the holocaust? In fact it acknowledges the injustices endured by the Jewish people and attempts to assert that we must condemn injustice regardless of who the perpetrator is or who the victim is. The people I know who use this analogy are people who, when thinking historically, condemn American inaction against the Nazis. The comparison to the Warsaw Ghetto is not an attempt to say the situations are exactly the same, it is a way to say in one short message, that we condemn anti-Semitism and bigotry toward Palestinians, and we respect the rights of all people to resist injustice.

Finally, I live in San Francisco and have not heard of anyone being beat up or shouting hateful slogans at the multiple protest that have been happening here against the Gaza slaughter. No arrests, no mention in the local media, nothing. And there are plenty of reporters and cameras at these protests. Perhaps such a serious allegation was mentioned without reference to sources because it was just in a blog on the Haaretz site, but considering the reputation of Haaretz and the way these rumors spread over the internet and influence opinion, this seems pretty irresponsible.

Even if true, however, it in no way justifies anything that Israel is doing in Gaza. Israel continues to kill hundreds of people with multi-million dollar weapons, chemical weapons, shelling schools, mosques and homes.

Way to bring peace.

*****

UPDATE

John Stewart tackled the analogies rather well tonight: "I guess it depends if I forced that guy to live in my hallway, and make him go through checkpoints every time he has to take a sh**t." If impatient, scroll forward to 4:24:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Strip Maul

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Gaza Action: American Divisions Not Reflected in Washington, Corporate Media

2009-01-02T16:33:00.000-08:00

A poll out December 31 showed Americans were about evenly divided over whether or not they supported Israel's military bombardment of the impoverished Gaza strip. The same poll also showed a majority, 55%, of Democrats are against the action. Glenn Greenwald analyzes this issue fairly well, though I think he is too ambiguous and unwilling to condemn the belief, whether held by political leaders or ordinary Americans, that Israel is simply defending itself and has every right to bomb Gaza

Israel does not have the right to bomb Gaza - a land that it occupies and controls, a land full of refugees that it created, and a land that is punished daily in multiple ways by Israel, and was even before the latest escalation. This part of the story is rarely acknowledged by political leaders or the American corporate media, who tend to simply repeat what Israeli officials say or at least treat their words as their starting place and maybe add a bit about the unfortunate suffering of civilians in Gaza.

See Nancy Pelosi's view that "when Israel is attacked, the United States must continue to stand strongly with its friend and democratic ally," this story on the White House spokesperson's statement that Israeli actions were "in response to the mortar and rocket attacks on Israel," and rather than sift through the right wing and reactionary cable news pundits' views on this, try the liberal Rachel Maddow who describes Hamas rocket attacks as "unprovoked" and concedes that Israel was a country "conceived by war," but not because of the war and ethnic cleansing it conducted against the Arab inhabitants of the land it desired (even before declaring independence), but because a day after it declared independence, neighboring countries declared war on it?!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is why the poll showing Americans are about evenly divided is so remarkable. Despite all of the propaganda from and unity among American politicians, and despite all the misinformation and biased coverage in the American media, ordinary Americans have not entirely bought the lies. As more Americans learn the truth about the situation in Israel/Palestine and that their tax dollars are largely paying for the injustice, I hope American policies toward Israel will finally begin to move in the right direction.

Excellent Visual Representation of Israel's Terrorist War on Gaza

2008-12-29T12:19:00.000-08:00

First soldiers near the Israeli-Gaza border celebrating:

Then one of their victims at a bombed Gaza prison:

New York Times Pro-Israel Bias on Display Again

2008-12-27T17:09:00.000-08:00

Israel began a bombing campaign against the people of Gaza, which they will always describe publicly as a campaign against Hamas. Keep in mind that the borders of Gaza, the flow of good in and out, the movement of people in and out, the air space, and the shore, are all completely controlled by Israel. Recognize that Israel enters Gaza at will, sometimes with boots on the ground, often with sophisticated aircraft. Gaza includes many people who were (or whose parents or grandparents were) forced out of their homes during the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel. Israel is the most powerful nation-state with the most powerful military in the region while Gaza is one of the most impoverished (largely because of Israel's actions) regions. Yet here is the photo on the New York Times homepage:

Over 200 people killed in Gaza but the people in Israel are featured on the Times site. The story goes like this: Hamas wants to destroy Israel and they keep sending bombs into southern Israel terrorizing innocent people. Isreal, the innocent victim, has no choice but to take action. So Americans are shown images like this because we should sympathize with the Israelis not the Palestinians. It is emphasized in the subheadline that the attack is a response to the rocket attacks from Gaza - it is a fact that is worthy of headline status - not even up for debate. When the rocket attacks are reported, they are never described as a response to anything - not a response to missile strikes or to a blockade that is starving innocent children, just crazy, anti-Semitic terrorists who want to destroy Israel.

The Times reports: "A military operation had been forecast and demanded by Israeli officials for weeks, ever since a rocky cease-fire between Israel and Hamas fully collapsed a week ago, leading again to rocket attacks in large numbers against Israel and isolated Israeli operations here." But "rocket attacks in large numbers" are fairly meaningless when most if not all fall harmlessly in the desert because of their crude nature; on the other hand, "isolated Israeli operations" are very significant when carried out be a regional superpower with fighter jets, missiles and bombs (often paid for by American tax dollars). But the message Americans are given is of Israeli restraint and hysterical, diabolical actions by Palestinians.

This cannot end well for Gaza, but I'm hopeful Israel will not get everything it wants out of this operation.

2008-12-05T10:18:00.000-08:00

Why Won't UC Berkeley Investigate John Yoo?

The National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, the organization I work for, has asked the University of California to "initiate an investigation into whether Professor Yoo’s 'outside professional conduct,' as an attorney of the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, violated the Faculty Code of Conduct as set out in the University of California Academic Personnel Manual (Section 015)." The University, through a statement written by Law School Dean Edley, a letter written by Chancellor Birgeneau, and a statement by a University spokesperson, has refused to do so misstating University regulations and the need for a criminal conviction (and possibly even jail time) before they can move forward with any sort of disciplinary action. Such a policy would be illogical; which is probably why it really is not the policy at all.

As our letter to the University points out, the UC Academic Personnel Manual’s Faculty Code of Conduct "specifically identifies outside professional conduct that can lead to formal investigation. While it includes violations of the law resulting in convictions, the list of unacceptable faculty conduct it enumerates is specifically noted as 'not exhaustive.'" So there is no need to wait for a criminal conviction before the University takes action.

It would be bad policy for a University to have to wait for a conviction, particularly when the bad acts are as serious as those committed by Yoo. What if President Bush were to issue a preemptive pardon to Yoo and others for any wrongdoing associated with interrogation policies during his administration? The University ought to be able to investigate wrongdoing even if a conviction is blocked by a President.

Try a simpler example: what if a professor were cleared in a criminal court but found culpable in a civil court and ordered to pay millions to his victims? A University should not have to ignore a civil court ruling simply because the professor was not "convicted of a crime and sent to jail."

On the other hand, if it were true that a conviction and perhaps even jail time were necessary precursors to any sort of academic investigation, then relatively minor acts, such as possession of marijuana, would be sufficient to trigger an investigation as long as there was a conviction, even as war criminals remain safe. Even worse, a professor arrested for nonviolent, civil disobedience, such as blocking the gates at San Quentin to oppose the death penalty, would be fair game for the University administration.

There may be another reason to defer to a court of law, whether civil or criminal, before taking action against a professor. Courts are better suited to gather evidence, present both sides, subpoena witnesses, and utilize other tools that a University does not have. A former professor of mine at the University of Texas School of Law, Brian Leiter, made an argument like this on a radio debate with a colleague of mine, Attorney Sharon Adams. The argument may apply in certain circumstances, such as if a lone accuser were to approach administrators with a claim about a faculty member believed to be the perpetrator in a hit-and-run. Such a charge should probably be tested in a court of law before University officials begin to hire private investigators and collect photos of the crime scene. But in this instance there is a growing body of evidence in the public domain - from the actual memoranda Yoo authored, to his Congressional testimony.

While the investigation and hearing may still not be as thorough as one in a court of law, the potential consequences are far less. Hundreds of thousands of people are in prisons in the United States for actions that did not cause nearly the level of harm that John Yoo and his co-conspirators caused. I have no doubt that many of those in prison are completely innocent. As thorough and fair as our courts ought to be, they remain incredibly flawed and unfair, particularly to poor people and people of color. But in theory, the more serious the consequences, the more safeguards are provided and the more tools are given to courts. Simply disciplining a professor who, as ample evidence demonstrates, provided legal cover for some of the worst crimes of the Bush administration, ought to involve a certain level of due process, but all of the tools of the criminal or even civil courts are not necessary.

There is more of a need for Yoo's employer to take action since it does not appear that any action is going to be taken to hold the architects of torture from the Bush administration accountable at the federal level, at least not without significant pressure from below. While the Obama administration may make some positive changes in policy, there are indications they do not want to use the Justice Department to prosecute. Unfortunately, policy changes can be changed again under future administrations, and unless the individuals who broke the law and committed these bad acts are brought to justice there is little to deter future administrations from re-adopting torture as acceptable practice.

There are other bodies that can take action to begin to build pressure from below and hold people like Yoo accountable. The City of Berkeley will consider on Monday whether it should pass a resolution that, among other things, would officially support our letter to the Chancellor calling for an investigation of Yoo. The University shouldn't require all this pressure; UC officials have a duty to investigate and discipline Professor Yoo and the notion that their hands are tied is at best a misinterpretation of policy and at worst a lie.

2008-10-13T21:30:00.000-07:00

If you look up "ruling class" in the dictionary ...

From the Associated Press: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, left, talking with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. after a dinner at the White House Monday."

2008-10-10T14:57:00.000-07:00

Why Is Everyone on the Floor of the Stock Exchange White and Male?

Here's what I've been seeing everyday that the stock market continues to tank - white men who look stressed out and worried ...

Reuters even has a slideshow with pictures from markets all over the world, with a few exceptions, all white men ...

Here's a woman in Frankfurt who seems less stressed out but still not too pleased ...

2008-09-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

More Thoughts on a Disappointing Candidate

I might disappoint some of my friends by saying that I would probably vote for Obama if I lived in a swing state - even though 4 years ago I vowed I would never vote for John Kerry no matter what. Since I've never lived in a swing state, it has never been a big issue for me. I moved from Red Texas to Blue California and I've discovered that wherever either party has a stronghold, there is a similar frustration - politicians aren't scared of voters; so democracy is at a disadvantage. Indeed that is the analysis even some in the corporate media are applying to yesterday's bipartisan vote against the Wall Street bailout bill: click here for the analysis on incumbents facing re-election and here for the Wall Street money analysis. The fact that we are close to an election where "the people" actually matter a bit more than big money - if for only a few days - probably has a lot to do with why our government is already squeezing taxpayers for billions to boost rich speculators and investment banks.

Still, I think McCain and Palin are far too dangerous a pair to have running the most powerful country in the world - really running the world. Yes I'm coming out as a lesser evil proponent - it has always been a matter of degree; I just finally think the line has been crossed.

But again, I live in California - a state that McCain is very unlikely to win in November and a state where, I believe, it is more important to send a message to the Democrats in November than to boost Obama's winning score.

The message I want to send is that I do not support much of what the big "D" Democrats stand for. Just two examples - untempered support for Israel and support for this Wall Street bailout. Obama is taking an awful stand on both of these issues despite the fact that the American people disagree with him and he probably would be perfectly safe agreeing with them.

Israel

Whereas Obama - the alleged liberal Democrat - spoke before the right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee earlier this year to say "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." The present Prime Minister (recently resigned but still in power) of Israel has said he believes Jerusalem should be divided between and Israeli and Palestinian state. According to Time Magazine: "Olmert says Israel should withdraw from 'almost all' of the West Bank and Golan Heights. A former mayor of 'the undivided capital of the Jewish state,' he now advocates dividing Jerusalem with the Palestinians. He wants to keep some of the Jewish settlements that adjoin Israel's pre-1967 border but accepts giving the future Palestinian state Israeli territory in a land swap with a 'close to 1-to-1-ratio.' 'The notion of a Greater Israel no longer exists,' Olmert says, 'and anyone who still believes in it is deluding themselves.'" Not a great position, but a huge step forward under the circumstances - and far more progressive than Obama's stated position.

Wall Street Bailout

Here's what Obama said about a plan pitched by the wildly unpopular Bush and his wildly unpopular counterpart the U.S. Congress: "To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say: Step up to the plate and do what's right for this country ... And to all Americans, I say this: If I am president of the United States, this rescue plan will not be the end of what we do to strengthen this economy. It will only be the beginning." He went on to say, "There will be time to punish those who set this fire, but now is the moment for us to come together and put the fire out."

It is the same line being pushed by Mr. Bush when he says, "I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later." Regardless of what you think of Mr. Bush or Senator Obama, they seem to agree on this critical matter almost completely. Basically Wall Street made a lot of mistakes, but if we don't bail these banks out to the tune of $700 billion in tax payer dollars, we ordinary Americans are going to suffer; It sucks but we have no choice.

Nonsense.

Hundreds of billions of dollars could go a long way in helping ordinary Americans without fattening the wallets of the speculators and big bank execs. Obama could set himself apart from the Pelosis and Reids in Congress - again leaders of a very unpopular Congress - but instead he seems to be following their lead. He is a cautious fearmonger, but a fearmonger nonetheless. He is providing no leadership on this - not even bad leadership since he is following the bad leadership of Pelosi and other Democratic politicians. He should be providing good leadership - calling for a moratorium on foreclosures and hundreds of billions for ordinary Americans not the super-rich gamblers who created this mess. But alas - he is stepping up the cheerleading to the silence of the liberals and even progressives who will do anything to see him elected. It is appalling.

2008-09-29T17:48:00.000-07:00

Why I'm Celebrating the Defeat of the Wall Street Bailout Today

A financial crisis always hurts poor people and people like me who have a negative net worth (why can't Congress bail me out and pay my student loans?) more than it hurts the ruling class. And there may be that rare elitist or anarchist who wants to see the economy come crashing down because they either don't really have as much to lose or they see it as an opportunity. But that's not me. I'm celebrating because the bill represented the worst of big-money's influence over our democracy: A weak Republican President and a Treasury Secretary who has largely benefited from the schemes that are now bringing down our economy were pressuring Congress and the American people to give them hundreds of billions of dollars - some coming directly out of my indebted pockets - so that a few banks wouldn't go under.

So if the banks go under won't we all suffer? Possibly. However, there was no guarantee that we wouldn't have suffered under the bailout - in fact some economists believed we might suffer even more. AND we can and should still demand that Congress does inject some money into the economy. That money should just go directly to the people who need it - tenants who can't afford to pay rising rents; professionals who are still paying off student loans despite having decent-paying jobs; people who are having trouble paying off their mortgages; the people who lost homes in recent hurricanes; veterans who can't pay their medical bills; and on and on. All of these problems wouldn't disappear if the bailout bill was passed, and they might be exacerbated since tax dollars that could have provided relief might disappear as we discover that the investments that we are bailing out are worth almost nothing and $700 billion disappears into thin air (and perhaps a few of the fattest bank accounts).

I'm also celebrating because of the role in all of this played by some of the worst Democrats. As a progressive I certainly side with the Democrats more than Republicans, but critical moments like this remind me that almost all of them (the one's in Washington not the rank and file folks like my grandmother) are part of the same awful political system benefiting from the worst policies and practices in our system. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barney Frank were cheerleading and fearmongering more than any Republicans, outside of perhaps the White House. Their loss today is a setback to some of the most undemocratic Democrats; and they deserve it.

It was troubling to see the stock market fall over 700 points, but the economy is based on material circumstances on the ground. Either we have resources that will make our economy strong or we do not. They aren't pulled out of thin air on a broker's computer. It was no surprise that the market would plummet - it is dominated by the same forces who wanted this bill to pass. Sure a lot of Americans have small amounts in the market - in 401k's mostly - but most of the stocks on Wall Street are owned by a minority of Americans - the very rich who were more likely to benefit if the bill had passed.

With hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal for investment bank bailouts and pointless wars, the federal government doesn't have to allow a crisis at the top to affect most Americans. But without demands from most of us, Congress still will pass some bad legislation that will probably result in a short-term Wall Street rally but ultimately do very little good for you or me.

2008-08-25T09:51:00.000-07:00

Fuck Fox News

The perfect response to a juvenile question from a wacko Fox News correspondent who asks, "Do you believe in free speech?"

What is going on in the right wing brain here? If you believe in free speech, then you are required to talk to a reporter working for a multi-million dollar corporate media propaganda machine? Or perhaps he was asking the question in anticipation that people would try to cover up his camera or strip away his microphone. In fact most people just tried to ignore him, and when they actually responded, most did so brilliantly: Fuck Fox News! Of course, they couldn't continue to air that, lest the government and their commercial sponsors get upset.

2008-08-15T09:19:00.001-07:00

Morrissey Graffiti in Oakland

Morrissey graffiti, originally uploaded by c.hamamoto.

I see this when I'm on BART heading into Oakland. On the opposite fence there is The Cure graffiti. It's hip to be square.

2008-08-07T08:41:00.001-07:00

I Still Get the Ringtone?

2008-07-12T22:50:00.001-07:00

La La La La La La La Dee Yeah

2008-06-26T09:41:00.001-07:00

Conyers to Yoo: Could the President Order a Suspect Buried Alive?

That is a really tough question. Hmmm. Maybe as long as he's not a Democrat.

2008-06-17T09:26:00.000-07:00

AP Frames Israeli Palestinian Conflict

I read this on MSNBC: GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Gaza's Hamas rulers on Tuesday said they have reached a long-awaited cease-fire with Israel meant to end months of Palestinian assaults on Israeli border towns and bruising Israeli retaliation.

So Israel strikes Gaza in retaliation for Palestinian assaults. That presumes Israel is simply acting in a defensive measure when its military fires missiles into Palestinian homes, stops the movement of food, medical supplies, and people into and out of Gaza, cuts off utilities into Gaza, imprisons Palestinians based on only accusations, turns Gaza into a giant outdoor prison and terrorizes the entire community there - children and seniors included.

And Hamas sends crude rockets into Israel because? Well it must be insanity or perhaps antisemitism. Why else would they continue their assaults that bring such horrible retaliation?

In reality, of course, this is an awful and biased article. It casts Israel as innocent and merely defending itself, when Israel is an aggressor that is occupying Palestinian territory and killing thousands of innocent Palestinians. The article mentions a missile attack that hits a car and "killing the five militants inside." The article doesn't mention how it was confirmed that "militants" were in the car, no doubt this is simply what the Israeli Defense Forces told the reporter.

The article finally gives these two sides: Israel wants the rocket attacks to stop, an end to Hamas' weapons build up, and the release of a single Israeli soldier held by Hamas. Hamas wants an end to Israeli "military activity" in Gaza and lifting of the blockade on Gaza.

The article doesn't mention the 350 Palestinian prisoners that Hamas wants Israel to release, and it doesn't elaborate on the "military activity" that has been far more deadly than Hamas' rocket attacks. And naturally it says nothing of the occupation, the taking of Palestinian land by force, or the racist and humiliating nature of that occupation. It also frames the two sides as somewhat equal, or at least it never mentions that Gaza is a battered and starved 3rd World strip of land, completely surrounded and controlled by the most powerful nation-state in the region - a nuclear power backed by the United States.

2008-06-14T08:01:00.000-07:00

Is That A Keffiyeh On That Violent Israeli Settler's Head?

Hate couture indeed!

2008-06-09T11:01:00.000-07:00

Texas Governor's Mansion Burns

Arson is suspected. I always liked that building - particularly because it was easy to protest. The entire property was on a small city block, which allowed for classic "surround the mansion" protests. I never liked the people who lived there.

2008-06-07T09:19:00.000-07:00

Two-Party Leap Frog

After winning the Democratic primary with a message of "change" and appealing to the anti-war majority in the U.S., Obama speaks to AIPAC talking tough on Syria, Iran, and Hamas - out of line with most Americans and even most Israelis who, among other things, want their government to negotiate with Hamas. The passion in his voice is reminiscent of MLK, except the text reads more like Bill Clinton or even George Bush, as he declares that Jerusalem should be undivided and the capital of Israel. This notion is very controversial in the world and many so-called "moderate" Palestinians see East Jerusalem as a future capital to a Palestinian state.

It is a sharp turn to the right - at least on this issue - but at least he's not John McCain. True, but he certainly plays the role that Democrats have played well since JFK. Speak to the left and move to the right. The Republicans can't have the Dems out maneuver them, so they move even further - where they're most comfortable anyway. And thus McCain now says the U.S. should move its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem (it has been in Tel Aviv). Where does this leave the illegitimate Palestinian authority? Perhaps they can negotiate for a sliver of desert near the Dead Sea. That is unless the two-party power structure in the U.S. decides that can be sacrificed as well.

This little example of Democrats speaking to the progressive mood of the country and moving right, thus pushing Washington as a whole right-ward, reminds me so much of Bill Clinton, it isn't even funny. While watching Obama give his speech to AIPAC, my heart sank. It reminded me of watching Bill Clinton give his State of the Union address calling for "smaller government" to the loud cheers of Republicans.

2008-06-04T08:17:00.000-07:00

Now That It Is Obama Versus McCain

Obama reasserts his hawkish side to AIPAC:

"I'll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything"

According to Haaretz: Turning to the contentious issue of Jerusalem, Obama said that the city must remain the capital of Israel and undivided.

"I will always leave the threat of military action on the table to defend our security, and that of our ally Israel."

On his lapel he wore an American flag pin - actually an American-Israeli flag pin.

Although I still lean toward the notion that his Democratic nomination victory is an overall positive, this AIPAC speech and his recent, and unecessary, resignation from his church, along with other rightward trends, worry me.

I can definitely see this guy attacking Iran and liberals standing behind him or staying quiet because "we can't criticize him lest we bolster the Republicans; wait until after the mid-term elections," or if the attack were to come after the mid-terms, "wait until after the next presidential election."

Now if Clinton gets the VP nod, will an Obama victory in November be more bitter than sweet?

2008-05-19T21:56:00.000-07:00

Al Jazeera's Take on Racism in the Presidential Election

My questions are:

Has the American corporate media reported on racism among white voters in this way?

AND

What did the God-fearing folk featured in this video say when the reporter told them he was with Al Jazeera?

2008-04-27T09:25:00.000-07:00

Justice Department Lawyers: Our Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Allows for Torture

According to the New York Times, "While the Geneva Conventions prohibit 'outrages upon personal dignity,' a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments."

The idea, according to these infamous attorneys, is that conduct that is "outrageous" should be interpreted in light of the threat. If an interrogator is trying to thwart a terrorist attack it should be judged accordingly.

In the letter, deputy assistant attorney general Brian A. Benczkowski writes, "The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act."

This logic is absurd. These illegal acts, particularly as part of interrogation, are always used to try and find out some information that may thwart some sort of attack or at least help the interrogator's side win, not simply to humiliate or abuse (although that may be a big side benefit for the sickos at the CIA). Didn't Japanese prisoners in the 1940's potentially have information about future attacks? It wouldn't have been outrageous, then, to electrocute their genitals to help protect the Homeland would it?

The liberal media, NYTimes, goes on to state, "Determining the legal boundaries for interrogating terrorism suspects has been a struggle for the Bush administration." They have indeed struggled, not unlike the struggles that foreign suspects, often completely innocent, have gone through when they are suffocated, stripped naked, and kicked on a concrete floor. I can see those Justice Department lawyers sitting in their suits and ties struggling to work all this out with the Bush Administration. Poor guys.

It is no surprise that this logic is seeping into the loosening bounds on law enforcement in this country. Why should police be forced to "knock and announce" if they are really trying to protect the community from some imminent threat?

2008-04-22T11:20:00.000-07:00

War Crimes Start at the Top
Professor John Yoo Should be Dismissed From Boalt Law School-And Prosecuted
at Counterpunch and Dissident Voice

By CARLOS VILLARREAL

War crimes start at the top. The torture and deaths at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo; the humiliation of Iraqi and Afghani detainees in the field; extraordinary rendition; the indiscriminate killing by rifles and cluster bombs; these are becoming the new norms of war for which the leaders in the United States are responsible. And as with the war crimes of the past, the spilling of blood began with the spilling of ink. The most culpable are not the young foot soldiers in fatigues holding a naked prisoner with a dog leash; they are the men and women in suits who craft the policies.

John Yoo is one of those men in suits, and it is disgraceful that he is paid by the people of California to shape the law and young minds at one of our most distinguished law schools. As an organization, the National Lawyers Guild released a press release in April stating that Yoo ought to be tried as a war criminal and dismissed by the University of California Berkeley - Boalt Hall, where he is currently a law professor.

Academic freedom is a serious issue and must be addressed in this debate. We've all seen how universities have used tenure and other means to fire and at least attempt to silence leftist academics. But just because University officials have a bad track record when it comes to hiring, firing and promoting professors, doesn't mean we shouldn't push them to do the right thing when the circumstances call for it. In this case, we should acknowledge that the University ought to provide due process, despite the fact that victims of Yoo's legal framework lacked such protection. However, we should urge University officials to move forward with the normal proceedings for dismissing a professor, taking into consideration the seriousness of the harm caused and the power Yoo had in crafting his memoranda.

According to Dean Christopher Edley, neither the harm caused nor the power and responsibility a professor wields constitute the test for taking action against Yoo. As Edley wrote on the Boalt website: "As a legal matter, the test here is the relevant excerpt from the 'General University Policy Regarding Academic Appointees', adopted for the 10-campus University of California by both the system-wide Academic Senate and the Board of Regents: Types of unacceptable conduct: … Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty."

In this case Yoo clearly violated the second part of the standard put forth by Edley, but he has yet to be convicted of a crime by any court of law. It shouldn't matter. The same Personnel Manual Edley sites states that "Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action ..." It also specifically states as a reason for discipline: "Serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty, including but not limited to policies applying to research, outside professional activities, conflicts of commitment, clinical practices, violence in the workplace, and whistleblower protections."

There are a lot of facts for Boalt Hall to consider in the course of a fair hearing. His memoranda and other evidence have been presented in the public domain, and Yoo has not distanced himself from any of it. Hopefully a court of law will eventually come to the conclusion that he (and Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, et.al.) is guilty of a crime, but it isn't clear that the right-leaning justice system in this country will take action without a great deal of pressure, if at all. Regardless, the law is pretty clear about how such prisoners should be treated. More importantly, the fact that Yoo ignored important and universal moral principles in the substance of his memoranda, and the very decision to submit his memoranda knowing what the consequences would be, is shocking. If the University of California discovered that a UCSF medical professor had knowingly contributed to illegal research that harmed human subjects, would they allow her to continue teaching? I sincerely hope not, and depending on the facts, I would urge them to take some sort of action, even if this hypothetical professor had yet to be prosecuted or convicted of any crime.

Boalt ought to also consider the power and responsibility Yoo had when he wrote his memoranda. He wasn't writing an opinion for a small business or county government. He was writing for the most powerful military and most powerful regime on the planet as they engaged in a global war; and he was writing about prisoners who were already captured and fully secured.

The other very live question that lawyers and legal scholars are asking is whether attorneys should face criminal consequences for their purely professional conduct. But this presumes that the issue is merely one of bad or faulty legal advice or that the act is one that falls fully within Yoo's professional conduct. In this case the analogy is more like a lawyer advising his client that committing assault is perfectly legal, where assaulting someone is both illegal and immoral, and the attorney is really just trying to push the limits of the law to provide cover for his client's beating up someone.

There is precedent for criminal liability against attorneys in circumstances not unlike the Yoo case. Philippe Sands, among others, has recently revisited the Nuremberg case of United States v. Altstoetter in a scathing two-part story in Vanity Fair called "The Green Light." Sands writes that the case "had been prosecuted by the Allies to establish the principle that lawyers and judges in the Nazi regime bore a particular responsibility for the regime's crimes." The principal defendant in that case was imprisoned for five years, primarily for performing as an attorney - giving legal advice (or more accurately legal cover) for the "disappearing" of political opponents of the Nazi regime.

John Yoo created a legal framework that would allow torture; and just like the lawyerly work that led to convictions in Altstoetter, it wasn't done as a purely academic or philosophical exercise. He created this framework to enable torturers; to give cover and help set in motion policies that would directly lead to the pain, suffering and death of prisoners held by the United States against accepted international law. This is why Yoo ought to be dismissed by Boalt, disbarred, and prosecuted for war crimes.

2008-04-18T19:59:00.000-07:00

I Ride My New Bike 5.6 Miles to Work

Not every day, but at least a couple of times a week. Coming back has more uphill parts, so its harder. But I travel over 11 miles a day by bike when I bike to work. I figured it out using this website.

Remarkably, and surprisingly to me, when I go running to and through Golden Gate Park and back, I run over 5.8 miles. That's still not even 1/5 of a marathon though.

2008-04-06T11:10:00.000-07:00

Absolut Ad Stirs Controversy With People Who Prefer Moonshine

Read more from the LA Times.

Here's one comment that appears reasonable: "An ad that redraws borders based on some nationalistic fantasy is inappropriate. And no, it doesn't matter that the ad only ran in Mexico. What if Absolut ran an ad in the Deep South showing 'an Absolut World' with the Confederate States of America? Some Southerners still fantasize about that, but it wouldn't make the ad acceptable. Or how about running an ad in Miami showing Cuba as the 51st state? People in Havana would have every right to be offended. I object when our government doesn't respect national sovereignty, and I expect people in other nations to do likewise."

OK but the Confederacy existed to protect slavery - so of course celebrating that is offensive; and Cuba as the 51st state would be glorifying imperialism - regardless of what you think about the Cuban revolution, what would give the U.S. the right to conquer Cuba and make it our 51st state? This ad is not offensive because it is simply playing to a feeling among Mexicans that this land was unfairly taken from them by force, which it absolutely was during the Mexican-American War (talk about disrespect for national sovereignty).

This ad is pretty harmless and the more dangerous "nationalistic" attitude is coming from the Americans who are offended by a vodka advertisement that disrespects the old idea of manifest destiny and our brutal conquering of the American Southwest. How dare they!

2008-03-28T22:33:00.000-07:00

time and
time and
time again
you keep pushing me
what you saying

2008-03-28T22:26:00.000-07:00

All I wanna do is
bang
bang
bang
bang and
$$$$$ and
take your money

2008-03-24T14:02:00.000-07:00

Thinking Of Joining the Army? Check Out This Website First

2008-03-12T12:43:00.000-07:00

ING Direct CEO Sends Members Uninspired Dribble

Here's the email I got:

I am happy to report that ING DIRECT's 2007 financial results are complete. Your confidence in us helped us deliver a record number of new savers, deposits and home mortgage loans. Further, we acquired ShareBuilder so we could offer you a low cost way to invest in stocks and ETFs. I'm proud of our first 7 years, but there's work to be done ...

Further? Should I not be excited about ShareBuilder? Sell it man! Don't you hire someone to write this stuff for you? If not then why do you send them to us?

The fact that ING DIRECT was not adversely affected [by the subprime mortgage market crisis] is a testament to our operating philosophy that, as Americans, we should only buy houses we can afford. That way we can keep them for years to come. We believe a mortgage is a contract that both parties should execute in good faith and expect to see through to its conclusion. We will not waver from our sworn promise to provide you with great value, service and convenience.

As Americans? What about Italians? Japanese? What if housing isn't affordable? Aren't the risks working families take to put a roof over their heads worthy of far less condemnation than the risks taken by big banks and financiers to get even more exceedingly wealthy by offering people "easy money"?

To whom did you swear? I'll look back at the original contract I clicked "Yes I agree" to.

Thank you for your continued trust in us. Stay tuned in 2008 for new ideas we'll offer to help you save your money.

Arkadi Kuhlmann
The CEO of Saving

I don't really trust you Arkadi; I just put some money in your online account because I wanted a higher interest rate (which incidentally keeps going down lately). I have an idea for helping me save my money: don't spend time or money sending out these messages. They are pointless and cause me to waste time on my blog.

2008-03-06T08:28:00.000-08:00

TERROR STRIKES NEW YORK CITY!

A bomb exploded outside of a New York City military recruiting station and police are looking for a man on a bike (although it is possible that he is not on a bike right at the moment; he may be on a unicycle or roller blades; anything is possible). According to Mayor Bloomberg the "coward" attacked New York City. He added, "The fact that this appears deliberately directed at the recruiting station insults every one of our brave men and women in uniform stationed around the world fighting to defend our freedoms and the things we hold so dear."

OK I don't condone this act, mostly because it will probably taint all the nonviolent protests going on at recruiting stations around the country. Look at how Bloomberg already appears to say that directing something at a recruiting station is an insult to all American military personnel, everywhere in the world, who, by the way, are all fighting for freedom and "the things we hold so dear" (he must mean cheap gas). So bombs, rocks, paint balls, shouts, sit ins, letters to the editor - whatever you direct at buildings that hold military recruiters, you direct against every single soldier, all our freedoms, and all we hold dear. Wow.

And how is this guy a coward? Bush always uses that line against anyone he describes as "terrorists" also, so this is not a new tactic. Perhaps this guy is a coward because he rode off on his bike instead of waiting around to accept his punishment? Considering the potential consequences I'd say the assailant had some guts, just not so much wisdom.

I also thought it was interesting how the online news sites were handling the story. The New York Times described it as a "small blast" and it was a small headline, relatively low on the page. But the 24 hour cable news tabloid networks naturally had it as the major story of the day. Check it out ...

2008-03-05T15:39:00.001-08:00

Want to Reduce Crime? Try Deporting Citizens.

No that's silly. But new data from the Public Policy Institute of California reinforces the fact that "immigrants are far less likely than the average U.S. native to commit crime ..."

2008-02-29T12:29:00.000-08:00

Israeli Minister Vows Palestinian Holocaust; American Media Takes No Notice

According to the British Telegraph: "A senior Israeli politician provoked controversy today when he warned that Palestinians firing rockets from Gaza would be punished with a 'bigger holocaust' from Israeli armed forces." A simple google news search of the story found headlines in British, Canadian, Irish, Australian, Iranian, and Arab media sources, but almost nothing in the American press - Democracy Now being one exception.

Now there is debate over the translation of the actual word used: "shoah." Though even the Israeli newspaper Haaretz admits that "shoah" is "the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster ... the word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust..." But even without the "holocaust" statement, the threat is still grave and ought to provoke a response of outrage from Americans. In the past 3 days 33 Palestinians have been killed, including 5 children playing soccer, all allegedly in response to rocket attacks that have killed one Israeli in the same time period. The minister's statement, along with threats from many other Israeli officials, appear to be leading up to a possible ground invasion of Gaza, but certainly a military escalation. No doubt many more children and innocent civilians will be killed needlessly.

Needlessly because Hamas has offered a cease fire and negotiations which nearly 2/3 of the Israeli population supports. Unfortunately, the military leaders and right-wing politicians in Israel probably have too much at stake in refusing negotiations, escalating their state terror campaign against Gaza, and continuing to label Hamas "terrorists" while they exact collective punishment against the people in Gaza.

2008-02-28T14:49:00.000-08:00

The Alternative

The predictable response from the corporate daily in San Francisco: "Outspent 5-to-1, Gonzalez gave Newsom - and the city's Democratic establishment - a big scare by drawing 47 percent of the vote ... There is no need to recount all the reasons why Gonzalez was ill suited to be mayor of San Francisco. Let's just say that an aloofness and ideological rigidity that sometimes undermined his effectiveness at City Hall - in his first two years as supervisor, he would not meet with Mayor Willie Brown - is not going to play in Peoria."

Something tells me the imaginary Peoria residents the Chronicle Board imagines wouldn't think much of Willie Brown either. But the Board must not think much of the residents whose ideas they ought to reflect (though most people that actually live in the city don't really think they do). Being outspent 5 to 1 and still garnering nearly half the vote is a huge accomplishment. It isn't hard to imagine that if the playing field had been level, Gonzalez would have won in a landslide. But half of San Francisco doesn't move the Chronicle Board and a majority probably wouldn't either.

Then they pull this tired argument out of their dusty top hats: "Nader expresses not the least bit of remorse that his 2000 run on the Green Party ticket helped tilt Florida, and thus the presidency, to George W. Bush, in an excruciatingly close race." Of course the facts that the difference was so small that 4th and 5th party tickets could be described as "stealing" the election, or that voters are smart enough (even in Florida) to know all the consequences of casting their vote without a lecture from people who wouldn't support Nader anyway, doesn't illicit any remorse from the Chronicle Board.

And why cricitize Nader in an editorial that is allegedly criticizing his choice of runningmate? Because it really doesn't matter who he chose as runningmate since the Chronicle Board thinks he's a spoiler anyway. They just couldn't resist another childish jab at Gonzalez, just as he's getting his first taste of national exposure in some years.

Nader/Gonzalez '08 - ya I'm taking them seriously.

2008-02-27T15:49:00.001-08:00

obama for president? maybe not?

First I watched part of the debate last night with Hillary Clinton and listened to Obama go out of his way to describe America's relationship with Israel as "sacrosanct," which dictionary.com defines as "extremely sacred or inviolable ... above or beyond criticism, change, or interference." Beyond change? That kind of clashes with the Senator's motto.

Then I listened to him join Hillary in ratcheting up a new Cold War with Russia and referring to President Putin over and over again as merely "Putin," but it sounded like this: poot'n. Hillary pronounced it similarly, but with an Arkansas-New York accent.

Then I listened to a story this morning about the new border fence in Texas requiring eminent domain seizures of property some people have had in their family for centuries, but bypassing properties owned by wealthy land owners with connections (see the article in The Texas Observer). Apparently I missed the part of the debate where both Clinton and Obama said they were opposed to the way the fence was being built and would revisit the issue if President. But revisit they must, because both of them voted for the "border security" bill as Senators.

And there's more of course, as outlined by former Green Party San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez in this article on BeyondChron.

But the question all this begs is what, or who, is the alternative? Perhaps Cynthia McKinney - whom, along with Dennis Kucinich, I am a fan of on my facebook page. But now with Nader having a greater profile, I'm not sure what 3rd party campaign to commit myself to.

And I'm not convinced that Obama would not be more open to progressive pressure than Clinton. Someone commented on my previous post, implying that the main difference between Clinton and Obama was that Clinton was more predictable. But my fear with Clinton is that she may move sharply to the right of her rhetoric, as the previous Clinton administration had a tendency to do; Obama may as well, but the hope I see in his potential presidency is that he may actually stick with a lot of his rhetoric and, unpredictably perhaps, even move to the left. Unlike many others, he has said he would meet with leaders in Cuba and Iran. That's real progress. And there are pictures on the web of him with Al Sharpton and Edward Said. I doubt you'll find similar photos of Clinton. This is a tough one.

2008-02-25T10:47:00.001-08:00

obama for president?

Maybe. At least if he won it would be a victory against the bigotry and nationalism that is now being used to attack him. There is this photo of him in Somali garb that is circulating on the internet. Big deal - check out Bush and Putin ( below right).

Then there are the claims that he is unpatriotic. For me, when Americans talk about "patriotism" they are usually, perhaps unwittingly, really talking about "nationalism." The brand of "nationalism" that seeps into the realm of fascism, racism and xenophobia - America: Love It Or Leave It; England for the English; and so on. It tends to be uncritical of a nation's problems or excesses and a belief in global superiority is at its core: We're the best and all those other countries (or sometimes peoples) suck.

Then there is all the symbolism - flags, flag pins, flag bumper stickers, eagles, eagles with flags clutched in their claws, etc. This is what is getting Obama into trouble. He just isn't white enough, doesn't seem like the type that drives an SUV, and it is hard to picture him landing on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight jacket. Thus the photo from Africa, and the critique that he doesn't wear an American flag pin, and once sang the National Anthem but didn't put his hand on his chest. Frankly I would support him more if he remained seated and didn't sing the song at all, but I'm kind of left wing like that.

Then there is the statement from his wife: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." What? Hasn't she been exceedingly proud of her country for the past 50 years, throughout the awe inspiring pursuit of freedom we've led in Southeast Asia, Central America and now the Middle East? Wasn't she proud of our brave young men and women in Iraq when the Abu Graib photos were published? Doesn't it fill her heart with joy to hear that America does indeed waterboard prisoners and practices extraordinary rendition?

Of course, all of this is pretty tame stuff - Obama is still a candidate collecting loads of corporate money, giving Israel a pass, and threatening Pakistan among other countries. But check out his response: "As far as the American flag pin, I mean, when we start getting into those definitions of patriotism, that’s a debate I am happy to have, because what I will come right back to them is: a party that resided over a war which our troops did not get the body armor they needed or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning or not fulfilling the veterans benefits that these troops need when they come home or undermining our constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary. That is a debate I am very happy to have."

It kind of sounds like he isn't completely backing down. He isn't doing what I've come to expect from Democrats whenever they are accused of being less than patriotic, war-like, tough-on-crime, meat-eating, free-marketeers - running away with tail between legs and/or executing a mentally retarded inmate and/or bombing a country with 1/1000th the military power of one of our aircraft carriers. There is something there that is making me think long and hard about whether I'm going to cast my protest vote for a Green or, as I did in 2004, for Leonard Peltier. I'm not running out to campaign for Obama - there are far too many important political fights going on to divide up my attention right now besides presidential politics - but I am thinking.

2008-02-15T10:21:00.000-08:00

No to Billions for Israeli Apartheid

2008-02-13T18:23:00.000-08:00

Large Cop Yells at Children

This guy's out of control. I hope they don't give him a real patrol car or he'll be taking his rage out on adults.

2008-01-30T15:55:00.000-08:00

Marines in Berkeley? Get Out of Town.

From the San Jose Mercury News: The Berkeley City Council "voted 8-1 Tuesday night to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station 'is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.'" A member of the National Lawyers Guild, Sharon Adams, is also working on local legislation that would limit where recruiters could set up shop - the same way liquor stores, porn theatres and other entities that may be harmful to young people are regulated.

The backlash has of course been typical - left coast crazy commies out to get our poor, oppressed Marine recruiters. Move America Forward is claiming the mayor of Berkeley is stealing "the free speech rights of the United States Marine Corps by harassing the recruiting center into abandoning its lease." Yes, somehow the mayor of a relatively small city is stripping a branch of the U.S. Military - the same military that is matched in spending by every other military in the world combined - of its free speech rights. Last I remember, the Constitution grants liberties to "We the People," not some of the most powerful sectors of our government. Their press release announcing "Marines Attacked in Berkeley, CA," made me laugh. As if the women of Code Pink protesting with bullhorns and a few liberal city councilmembers acting on pretty modest legislation amounts to an "attack" on a multi-billion dollar military wing of the most powerful nation on earth; a group of soldiers, some of whom may have good intentions, but who nonetheless are trained to kill.

The simple fact is that Berkeley has every right to try to limit where recruiters can set up shop and they ought to protect the young people in their community from the tactics of military recruiters and the serious harms caused by warfare.

2008-01-23T15:25:00.000-08:00

Same Old Democrats?

A letter from Barack Obama to the US representative to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad:

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condenm the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel...

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks... If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Appalling considering that this opinion on what is happening to Gaza is so far to the right of most of the world's thinking on the region. Not that a single issue would make me vote for or against a particular person, but this really puts the lie to all the Obama supporters who think of him as a real voice for change in our imperialist capital.

2008-01-14T13:08:00.001-08:00

Is Morrissey Racist? Anti-Immigrant?

I've been a fan since high school, first because of his sexual ambiguity, and later because I recognized the politics in some of his music, such as The Queen Is Dead, What Difference Does It Make, and recent songs like Mexico where he sings "In Mexico, I went for a walk to inhale the tranquil, cool, lover's air. I could sense the hate of the lonestar state ... It seems if you're rich and you're white, you think you're so right. I just don't see why this should be so."

But he does seem to have this quasi-nationalism about some of his music, and I've often thought Bengali In Platforms was mildly racist. Now there is this crack he made in the NME: "the gates of England are being flooded. The country’s been thrown away." Check out this article for more information.

What to do? Of course for me nothing (and no one) is sacred, and I would kick Morrissey to the curb if he turned out to be an outright bigot. But for now I'm withholding final judgment.

2008-01-12T19:19:00.001-08:00

Yes I Love Interpol

Perhaps this is a bit dated since the latest album's been out for awhile. But I maintain that Interpol is one of the most brilliant bands that actually produce music you'll enjoy listening to over and over again.

They also seem to collaborate with some other incredible artists - innovative music videos and these captivating images used as covers for their latest album, singles, and their website are proof ...

Notable on the new album, the subtle fade in orchestra on Wrecking Ball, the pounding drums on Pioneer to the Falls, the playful desperation of No I In Threesome, the catchy drum stick claps in All Fired Up.

And as always the penetrating, deadly serious voice of Paul Banks.

2008-01-09T15:28:00.000-08:00

Barrier Wall Art

Activists/artists have done a brilliant job of using the Israel apartheid wall as a canvas. The image to the left was featured on the New York Times web page acknowledging Nayef Hashlamoun/Reuters. The story is about President Bush's visit to the region and the Palestinians' view of the world leader. Here's one quote from Moussa Al Hilou, a 63-year-old clothing store owner: "He has destroyed everything, and now he is coming to see the results ... What Palestinian state is he talking about? What he says is nonsense, even our leadership knows that."

2007-12-30T18:22:00.000-08:00

The Holidays in Corpus Christi

I realize now that I took for granted the South Texas birds: pelicans, sandpipers, cranes, gulls.

The city has its own unique maturity.

Something I used to dismiss.

2007-12-18T20:52:00.001-08:00

Deport the Border Patrol

2007-11-20T10:26:00.000-08:00

Danger and Safety All About Crime - More Police the Only Answer

There has been a lot of news recently regarding CQ Press' Report on City Crime Rankings. They rank the most dangerous cities and safest cities and the corporate media loves these lists so they repeat the assertions and headlines proclaim things like Oakland ranked 4th most dangerous U.S. city, Richmond ranked 9th.

CQ Press notes that these rankings are controversial. But according to their site, the criticisms seem to mainly be about the many factors contributing to crime, the fact that crime may be isolated to certain neighborhoods within a city, and the economic impact the report has on tourism. In other words, various city politicians and chambers of commerce don't want people with money to think of their city as dangerous.

The biggest criticism I have is that it focuses on crime, and specifically "violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft." These are hardly the greatest factors in determining whether a city is dangerous or safe. I would add environmental factors such as smog, proximity to dangerous facilities such as nuclear power plants and refineries, access to affordable health care and critical services, traffic and traffic accidents, workplace safety, and injuries and deaths caused by law enforcement (which are often not prosecuted as crimes).

I would also argue that the crime factors they take into account are more often a problem of poverty and inequality in a community. This is particularly important when some cities take these rankings as a cue to hire more police officers even when they are considered one of the safest cities. With millions in prison is this still the best we can do? The corporate media and cities would do better to pay closer attention to the studies and reports from the Justice Policy Institute than these simplistic rankings that get so much attention and lead to such bad policies.

2007-11-06T15:03:00.000-08:00

Real Lawyers Seek Justice In The Streets

2007-10-27T15:06:00.000-07:00

Quent Reese

My hits on this site have jumped in recent days and it seems that many people are trying to find out more about Quent. Most who knew him probably already know that he took his life a week and a half ago after battling depression for some time. But some folks might not know that he asked that generous donations in his memory be made to Sandra Reed, who has fought and sacrificed tirelessly for years to stop the execution of her son Rodney Reed.

Please make checks payable to:
Sandra Reed
And send to:
Professor Dana Cloud
The University of Texas at Austin
Department Communication Studies,
College of Communication
1 University Station A1105
Austin, TX 78712

2007-10-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

Goodbye Quent

Quent Reese and me in Austin circa 1997.

2007-10-20T15:17:00.000-07:00

Quent

We've been through so much together. You are my best friend. You were my first love. Sappy but true.

I spent a lot of time with you during some of the most formative years of my life and you had an enormous effect on who I am now. You shaped my politics and ideals in ways that will always guide my decisions. If I hadn't known you I might not have become a leftist. If I hadn't been moved toward progressive and radical politics, I might never have been drawn to the Texas Civil Rights Project. If I hadn't interned there, I might have never gone to law school. And of course in law school, with my politics and your influence, I joined the National Lawyers Guild. And here I am in San Francisco, working for the National Lawyers Guild. You are a part of my life. Like a brother, or maybe more like a sister since we share so much.

You were my first long term relationship, and my last until I met Johnny. For four years we were together (off and on). Remember Boston, Mexico, West Texas, New Mexico? Remember Gary Graham? Remember asthma and the early morning trip to the emergency room? Remember the lunch you would make me with carrots and cottage cheese? Remember the hours spent at Little City with our laptops? Remember walking across the UT campus holding hands and kissing outside of my microbiology class? Remember the first time you really got drunk and started telling people on the street about the next protest? Remember the time in Houston with your dad and Jake the dog? How about riding mountain bikes in Ruidoso or jogging around town lake? The hundreds of nights we slept in the same bed and held each other?

My hand is below the water still grasping yours but I can feel you slipping away now.

Keep your head above water!

2007-10-18T13:12:00.001-07:00

Colby and Quent Swim 1, originally uploaded by lito.

2007-10-08T14:06:00.000-07:00

Presidential Candidate Quiz

According to this quiz my positions on various issues are most closely aligned with Dennis Kucinich. In fact, we don't disagree on anything according to the quiz (though I didn't like any of the answers on the immigration question). What is odd is that my second place was Chris Dodd, 3rd was Mike Gravel, 4th was Bill Richardson. None of these guys have a chance if I understand the news reports correctly. John Edwards came in 5th, Clinton and Obama tied for 6th. The highest ranking Republican for me was Giuliani. Some guy named Duncan Hunter was last on my list.


	Dennis Kucinich Score: 61	Agree Iraq Immigration Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Abortion Social Security Line-Item Veto Energy Marriage Death Penalty	Disagree
-- Take the Quiz! --

2007-10-07T13:12:00.000-07:00

Pelosi Prays for Our Troops in Iraq to Win

Wonderful. And what exactly does it mean to win Nancy?

A better answer - if you are actually a believer in prayer: I pray for our troops and the people of Iraq to all have better lives and more hope for their futures. I know the Bush administration and officials at the Pentagon, as well as their apologists in the media, and most in Congress (including Democrats) are working hard to kill and maim Iraqis and could care less about the working class soldiers in our military, but I pray to God to do what he (she?) can to counter this evil.

I would ask Pelosi: "Do you pray for our soldiers to win and ask God to guide their bullets right through the heads of Iraqi insurgents so that they may die instantly and feel little pain? Do you pray to Jesus that our troops win and that he ensure that civilian casualties and dead or injured children are minimized?"

God bless American cluster bombs. May they shred human flesh good. Thank you Jesus.

2007-10-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

"Why I Love America" by Alberto Gonzales
9th Grade Government Class

Actually, this piece is a "commentary" on CNN.com, but it in fact reads like a cheesy middle school - maybe high school - paper on how anyone in America can grow up poor and climb to a position of real power, inflicting death, terror, and torture, or something like that.

Here's a classic line: "My hopes, and those of many others with stories similar to mine, are reflected in those words of the founders of this nation more than two centuries ago: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"

Wasn't that the line from Lisa Simpson's report for that Reader's Digest competition back in the 2nd or 3rd season of that show. If I'm not mistaken she greatly improved it later by scrapping the sappy naivete and rewriting it as "Cesspool on the Potomac."

Here is the point of Gonzales' American Dream piece: He is "the son of a Mexican cotton picker and a construction worker who never finished grade school, and [he] served as the Attorney General of the United States." This proves that the American Dream is still alive as long as we continue to embrace the values of "sacrifice, hard work, personal initiative, dedication to family, and perseverance in the face of adversity" or to rephrase "family, hard work, and sacrifice." Oh and Hispanics share these values (except the one's he had executed of course, they were mentally retarded).

Bravo Alberto. You've done good. God Bless. Now sit back down and let's hear from one of your classmates.

2007-09-27T00:02:00.000-07:00

Morrissey: Not Your 15-year-old cousin's alterna-rock sex symbol

But a sex symbol of sorts at the age of 48! Twice, during his show at The Fillmore in San Francisco on September 27, he stripped off his shirt; throwing it out to the audience the second time. The venue was very cozy - at one point I was within 8 feet of the man, and I wasn't trying too hard; quite a change from the last time (and first time) I saw him at the Summit in Houston around 1992 or so; I was about 8 miles from the stage back then, and quite awkward and insecure - a closet homosexual living in Texas and all.

None but Boz Boorer looked familiar in Morrissey's band; Boorer having been with Morrissey since about the time he shed his last Smith or sometime around Your Arsenal, but early in his solo career. His entire band was dressed the same and had about the same haircut - brunette and short on the sides - bow ties and vests - they could be servers at Martuni's on Market Street.

Some of the songs he played: "How Soon Is Now," "The Boy With The Thorn In His Side," "Why Don't You Find Out For Yourself," "First of the Gang to Die," "Last of the Famous International Playboys," "Sister I'm A Poet," "To Me You Are a Work of Art," "Life is a Pigsty," "I Like You," "Billy Bud," "Let Me Kiss You."

One of my favorites was "Irish Blood English Heart," where he switched the lyrics "I've been dreaming of the time when the English are sick to death of Labour and Tories ..." to "I've been dreaming of the time when Americans are sick to death of Republicans ..." But he didn't add "Democrats." Damn. Oh well, they can't all be perfect. Songs that is, not people. People can definitely all not be perfect.

O.K. that last bit was a comment of Morrissey's from the show.

My only observation regarding the crowd - who knew so many of Morrissey's fans were straight?

2007-09-16T09:57:00.000-07:00

M.I.A. at the Treasure Island Music Festival

Love the new album, particularly "Paper Planes." That's what she was singing in this photo from the Music Festival on San Francisco's Treasure Island. I think she was doing this during one of the gunshot parts ...

All I wanna do is (BANG BANG BANG BANG!)
And (KKKAAAA CHING!)
And take your money

2007-09-12T12:44:00.000-07:00

Take That Elton John, Candle In The Wind Crap!

Take That Da Vinci Code, Book I've Never Read!

Morrissey's Work Predicted the Death of Diana (Princess Di)!

2007-08-27T09:58:00.000-07:00

Gonzales Resigns, But Does It Matter

When now former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was merely nominated as Attorney General awaiting confirmation, I was strongly opposed to his appointment because he was an advocate of torture, state murder, and clearly loyal to Bush far in excess of anyone resembling a trustworthy public figure. To add to that, his road to head of the justice department was more than merely about the appointment of a conservative Bush hack, it was about a move to the right for the corporate media, the political establishment in Washington, and in a way that affected me personally, some of the largest Latino organizations in the country.

The media was initially reporting that his confirmation would be an easy one for Bush, and few reporters or pundits explored the problems with his record. It seemed, early on, that most Democrats would not put up a fight. And, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) as well as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) strongly supported his nomination.

Ultimately progressives managed to get enough attention on the matter that his confirmation took longer than expected and succeeded with fewer votes for confirmation in the Senate than any other Attorney General in history. But it succeeded without a filibuster and was an unbelievable step backwards following John Ashcroft.

Now years later, Gonzales is "embattled" according to the corporate media, and resigning. Democrats have forced him to testify, it seems like numerous times now, and grilled him on domestic spying and U.S. Attorney firings. Some right-wingers don't like him because, among other silly reasons, one of his U.S. Attorneys in Texas prosecuted some trigger-happy border patrol agents and won a conviction from a jury of Texans who actually heard all the facts. I would argue that some people found it easier to go after Gonzales because he is Latino - an awful guy, but a safer target than some of the rich white guys who are sometimes far worse. Dick Cheney remains; Michael "tough on immigrants" Chertoff remains and may even take Gonzales' place; Bush remains and continues his surge despite his dismal poll numbers; the domestic spying continues, but now with Congressional approval.

Is this a victory? It depends in part on how the media, activists and even some politicians respond.

My fear is that D.C. Democrats (you know the pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-spying, liberals), with a handful of exceptions, will simply say "our job is done and it is time to move on ... to electing Hillary and bombing Iran." Bush will appoint someone just as bad or worse to replace Gonzales and the spying, torture, and executions will continue. Progressives will say, "we have to make sure a Democrat wins the White House at all costs." And Gonzales will join a prominent Texas law firm, publish some books, and maybe still have a shot at a federal judicial appointment next time a Republican takes office.

My hope is that activists will focus on the issues that are important - put their energy toward ending the war in Iraq and any other imperialist wars that Clinton, Obama or Edwards may be considering; continue demands for an immigrant amnesty, an end to torture, and an end to domestic spying. For starters. The amount of energy to put toward opposing Bush's new nominee will depend on how these issues are furthered by that opposition.

2007-08-20T10:54:00.000-07:00

The American Dream, a.k.a. Nightmare, a.k.a. Narcoleptic Episode

On my way out to Yosemite I remember getting beyond the hills of the Bay Area into the hot, flat, boring Central Valley around Tracy, California (before reaching the Sierra Nevadas). There were dusty, crowded freeways, mini-malls, drive-thru Starbucks, and dense, virtually tree-less, housing developments in the middle of completely tree-less fields of dirt and weeds. I wondered who would want to live out here - even if they could get one of these homes - relatively large homes for relatively reasonable prices compared with the rest of the Bay Area.

Yes, even out in Northern California, developers, sprawl and home-ownership fetishism tear up the countryside with their appalling, free-market waste dumps. But now the housing market is in a slump and there is trouble in the suburban wastelands as foreclosures multiply.

It is really funny reading the story in the San Jose Mercury News that has an overall negative tone but quotes developers who, always thinking of their own bottom-line, put a rosy spin on the situation:

"Just four years into the development, about 6,000 residents live in roughly 2,000 homes. Of those, about 60 are in foreclosure, according to Sean O'Toole, founder of ForeclosureRadar. Yet the major home builders at Mountain House [a development near Tracy] - Pulte, Lennar, Centex and now Shea Homes - say the community is one of their best-performing markets. Given the Central Valley market, where sales are off by more than one-third compared with a year ago, according to the Ryness Report, that's not saying much."

2007-08-16T19:30:00.000-07:00

Yosemite

Managed to get out to Yosemite this week for 3 days - it was my first time to visit the Park. Johnny and I spent time in Yosemite Valley, Hetch Hetchy, Glacier Point, and Mariposa Grove. We didn't make it to Tuolumne Meadows and we weren't camping or doing any strenuous, day-long hikes. The whole area was jam packed with tourists - it seemed at times like most were from other countries. It was also probably one of the hottest times of year to go to the Park. Click here to see all my photos of the trip.

The first day we headed straight for the valley and tried to familiarize ourselves with the area. There wasn't much time so we grabbed a trail map and headed for Vernal Fall. It was sometimes a steep climb but worth the effort. We found a rock under the fall and relaxed for an hour before heading back down.

That evening we rushed to Glacier Point to get a fantastic view of the valley at dusk.

On day 2 we went to Hetch Hetchy - the reservoir that provides drinking water for San Francisco. It has its own valley that is nearly as beautiful as Yosemite Valley. But it was even hotter and dryer. Plus the trail we took was mostly along the banks of the reservoir and exposed to the sun, making the walk back pretty miserable. We were trying to find Tueeulala and Wapama Falls. As far as we could tell, Tueeulala was completely dry and Wapama was only a trickle of water. Kind of disappointing but not a total bust.

Parched and worn out, we headed for the Merced River in Yosemite Valley - to an area where we had seen people swimming the day before. We relaxed on a rock and took a brief swim that was cut short by a snake attack. No one was hurt, but when I saw the thing swimming about a foot away from Johnny I shouted a warning and scurried out of the water onto a rock. Johnny froze. The snake shrugged - if that is possible - and swam away.

We dried off and consumed wine, cheese and bread under El Capitan. Took a little walk to see Bridalveil Fall and headed back to the hotel.

On the last day we drove to Wawona - which struck me as sort of the country club of Yosemite, including a 9 hole golf course. We checked out a restaurant, but the food seemed pricey and there was a tour bus of foreigners ahead of us. So instead we ate hot dogs and drank Guinness at the golf shop. Then we went on to nearby Mariposa Grove to see some giant sequoias before heading back to SF.

2007-08-05T08:34:00.000-07:00

Democrats Cave to Bush Pressure on Spying

From the New York Times: "Under pressure from President Bush, the House gave final approval Saturday to changes in a terrorism surveillance program, despite serious objections from many Democrats about the scope of the executive branch’s new eavesdropping power."

Pressure from President Bush eh? Yes. He does have an approval rating of 29% or so. My guess is the "serious objections" from many Democrats are really just a way to quiet their base. Some two party system we have.

2007-08-03T23:11:00.000-07:00

STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

please

2007-08-03T11:10:00.000-07:00

Democrat Feinstein Supports Judicial Nominee Who Rules For Racists Against Gays

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein voted in favor of Bush's latest nominee to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals this week calling Leslie Southwick "a good person."

From People for the American Way: In 1998, Southwick joined a ruling in an employment case that upheld the reinstatement, without any punishment whatsoever, of a white state employee who was fired for calling an African American co-worker a “good ole nigger.” The court’s decision effectively ratified a hearing officer’s opinion that the slur was only “somewhat derogatory” and “was in effect calling the individual a ‘teacher’s pet.’” The Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision.

In 2001, Southwick joined a ruling that upheld a chancellor’s decision to take an eight-year-old girl away from her mother and award custody to the father, who had never married the mother, largely because the mother was living with another woman in a “lesbian home.” Southwick went even further by joining a gratuitously anti-gay concurrence which extolled Mississippi’s right under “the principles of Federalism” to treat “homosexual persons” as second-class citizens. The concurrence suggested that sexual orientation is a choice and stated that an adult is not “relieved of the consequences of his or her choice” – e.g. losing custody of one’s child.

2007-07-22T09:46:00.000-07:00

Feinstein Delights Right-Wing Nuts by Calling for Release of Trigger-Happy Border Patrol Agents

There are now over 2 million people in American prisons, many more in other detention facilities, on parole or probation. There is no doubt that thousands are completely innocent, and certainly a million or more have received unfair treatment in a criminal justice system that punishes the poor and people of color well out of proportion to our population. Texas is about to execute a man that officials admit did not kill anyone. Yet our Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, has chosen to use her powers to call on the release of two border patrol agents who fired upon an unarmed person who was fleeing from them. She truly is a brave and principled woman. Oh wait, I meant despicable and evil.

2007-07-21T19:55:00.001-07:00

Gay Hot Movies

Somehow - it was in my office so I assume it has something to do with the FBI or at least the Justice Department - I came across a prepaid or promotional card that entitles me to 30 Free Minutes at GayHotMovies.com. The purple card advertises: "ONLINE ADULT MOVIES ... OVER 7,500 TITLES ... NO MEMBERSHIPS ... NO MONTHLY FEES."

Doug, a satisfied customer, is quoted: "[GayHotMovies.com] deliver[s] a quality product that has revolutionized my expenditures. I don't buy DVD's and don't go to rental stores anymore. I just watch the movies I like when and where I want to! (sic)" Revolutionized your expenditures Doug? Can "revolution" and "expenditure" really be used in the same sentence by anyone besides the most intellectually isolated, obsessive-compulsive consumer? Granted GayHotMovies.com may have altered how you spend your money on gay hot movies, but utilizing the word "revolution" coupled with your excitement, as indicated by the exclamation point, seems excessive and out of place. One wonders if you were reaching climax as you wrote your letter or made your statement to the good folks at GayHotMovies.com.

But perhaps Doug is not a real person at all, or if he is, perhaps he is employed by GayHotMovies.com. I wouldn't doubt it since whoever wrote the copy for this plastic card clearly had an agenda as evidenced by the "Frequently Asked Questions" printed on the back. Though including this information on the card, as opposed to simply on the website or not at all, initially seems like an attempt to be helpful. A closer look raises doubts. Question number 2: "Why is GayHotMovies.com So Popular?" Perhaps they meant the most frequently asked questions at the GayHotMovies.com brainstorming session on "How to Get Gay Men Excited About Our Site," because I can't imagine any other situation in which anyone would even utter such a question (except maybe reading or acting). At any rate the answer they were kind enough to provide was "We are popular because we are The Best Choice!" There's that exclamation point again.

2007-07-12T08:30:00.000-07:00

Morrissey on Madonna: "I wouldn't be surprised if she made that African boy into a coat and wore him"

He said this because of his support for animal rights and Madonna's fur wearing habit. I am a life-long fan (I had the lyrics to all his songs tattooed on neighborhood kittens), and I am no defender of Madonna, but my problem with this statement and some of what I hear from the animal rights folks is the equating of human beings with animals. I support animal rights because they are living creatures, many clearly feel pain, and they are completely without guilt. But when the life of an animal comes up against the life of a human (all other things being equal), the human life is far more important. And even the senseless slaughter of animals for coats is cruel but not an important enough issue when human beings are starving in the street and being cut into pieces by cluster bombs. Then there is the consumption of meat - I do it, and I sometimes feel guilty. But mostly because I think it's bad for you. Meat is murder? A great album, but certainly not a true statement.

I'm not sure Morrissey meant to equate the lives of the animals killed for Madonna's coat with her adopted son's life - he probably just meant that someone that would have that much disregard for suffering generally is probably just as heartless when it comes to human life. I'm not sure if that's true, but I do think Madonna is pretty pitiful.

2007-07-10T10:49:00.000-07:00

I Do Like Cartoons ...

Check out this cool new book.

2007-07-02T10:39:00.000-07:00

Millions of Palestinians Being Squeezed by Walls and Settlements

When some Americans and Israelis ask why Hamas and other Palestinians are so militant and even violent when Israel has been so generous, they should look at what Abbas and Fatah are left with in the West Bank.

According to the Financial Times: "A network of roads designed to ease the movement of Jewish settlers limits access between Palestinian enclaves. A secondary network being built would allow Palestinian limited movement via tunnels, bridges and trenches."

This is nuts. Two nations cannot coexist like this.

2007-06-23T10:55:00.000-07:00

EVIL TERRORISTS CAPTURED BY BRAVE AMERICANS (many U.S. soldiers killed)

Ever notice how every time there is news about, say, more than 5 American soldiers being killed in Iraq in, say, 24 to 48 hour periods of time, "the military" (as this msnbc story quotes without being more specific and as if anything from the Pentagon or commanders in the field should be believed) immediately follows this bad news with claims that they captured or killed al-Qaida militants? Their propoganda office must be working overtime.

2007-06-18T10:43:00.000-07:00

Borders as Big Scary Business: USA and Mexico, Israel and Palestine

Naomi Klein presents frightening and well-researched information about Israel's economic success as a leader and innovator of "disaster capitalism" in this article published on common dreams: Gaza: Not Just a Prison, a Laboratory.

Klein writes about Thomas Friedman's ridiculous theories and the way Israel has prospered in recent years selling Homeland Security technology to the West. She then talks about how many of the Israeli innovators will be showing off their gadgets at the Paris Air Show this month, and in doing so she demonstrates a connection between the militarized border of an illegally expanding Israel with Palestine (image right) and the border of the USA with Mexico (image left):

"Another star of the Paris Air Show will be Israeli defense giant Elbit, which plans to showcase its Hermes 450 and 900 unmanned air vehicles. As recently as May, according to press reports, Israel used the drones on bombing missions in Gaza. Once tested in the territories, they are exported abroad: the Hermes has already been used at the Arizona-Mexico border; Cogito1002 terminals are being auditioned at an unnamed US airport; and Elbit, one of the companies behind Israel’s 'security barrier,' has partnered with Boeing to construct the Department of Homeland Security’s $2.5 billion 'virtual' border fence around the United States."

Fear and racism is big, scary business.