the bail out was not bailed out

wow. for the moment, the house has stood tall. 2/3 of republicans, and 2/5 of democrats voted down the 700 billion dollar hand out to the corporate structure that created the problem in the first place. good for them. yeah, i know they did it because the election is coming up, and many of them probably could not afford a yes vote. others were likely offended by pelosi's speech blaming republicans for the issue. and it is also true that the house will probably cave soon, and reverse their vote. but for now, this is pretty hip. i hope that the dow jones falls further than mel torme's chin.

meanwhile, a new military spending bill of close to 600 billion dollars was approved. now that's one corporation that never has to worry about whether they are going to be bailed out or not. funny, but not one mainstream commentator or politician has mentioned just how much war costs, and how that may be connected to the over all financial crisis. if the "economy" is in such bad shape, how do we have hundreds of billions of dollars for the military? we have money to destroy iraq, but not to rebuild new orleans. i don't think the issue is really the "economy," but rather, our lack of collective compassion and decency.

the movie "flow" is very good. to frida and vincent, i strongly recommend it.

the more i think about it, the more i back nader.

in the year 2016, i plan to run for president of the united states. at that time, i will be 37, and that, coupled with the fact that i was born in the u.s., allows me to do this. i will be running in the american idle party. for now, i am calling for a 20 dollar minimum wage, a 20 hour work week, the abolition of prisons, a 99% reduction in the military budget, free sex on demand, israel out of the occupied territories, for mit to study peace, and for everybody to eat food not bombs, especially the soup. furthermore, i call for the abolition of mandatory schooling, for the institution of universal health insurance, for affordable housing and the abolition of land ownership. i call for the destruction of all foreign military bases and for reparations for the victims of u.s. bombings. i call for comprehensive reparations for the indigenous, the descendents of african slaves, and for the poor of all races, in the form of massive public works programs. i call for free and quality public transit, and for the assassination of chris botti.

yes, 2016 will be the year to break from the two party system.

i mellish this opportunity.

debating the debate

round one of the mental masturbation fest known as the presidential debates took place last night. mccain, to demonstrate the oppression in north korea, pointed out the average north korean was three inches shorter than the average south korean. unfortunately, he left out the vital point that the men of the two countries have penises of roughly the same size. he chided obama for saying that he would strike pakistan. his point is that we shouldn't say what we are going to do, but rather, we should just go ahead and do it. that way, we can claim it isn't happening. for example, we all know that we weren't really bombing cambodia and laos during the "vietnam" war, because our president never said that we were bombing them. obama, for his part, pronounced pakistan correctly. to me, this fully justifies the several threats he made against them during the debate. obama told us that the "real front of the war on terror" is in afghanistan. yes, but that is only because we are blowing it up. iraq is a "diversion" from this real war, as if we were on the right track before iraq. mccain, for his part, stressed his support for both wars, and spoke constantly about how "the surge" in iraq is working. by the "surge" i suppose it is meant that we are killing "them" more, and they are killing "us" less, and this constitutes "success." obama agreed that the "surge" has been successful. not mentioned was the fact that we have no right to "surge" in a country that has not attacked us. not mentioned is that fighting a war of aggression is the ultimate crime. both candidates stated that our soldiers have performed heroically, but certainly not any more so than the nazi soldiers of yesteryear.

let me give an example. say you saw someone walking down the street. you got a bad vibe from the guy, and began to think that he "may" attack you in the future, even though there was no evidence that this was the case. you then crossed the street, and attacked him. during the battle, you fought "bravely," despite sustaining some cuts and bruises. the other guy, a "rogue" for sure, refused to fight clean. in fact, he wouldn't identify himself, and refused to tell you where his weapons were. the fight, which you thought would end quickly, dragged on, with the "enemy" fighting harder than you assumed he would. you thought he would great you as a "liberator," but strangely, he was offended by the attack. you then decided that a "surge" was needed, so you yelled to another guy on the street to help you out. this fellow then joined in, and the battle became a little easier for you, although it didn't end. this you termed a "success." when people walking by accused you of attacking him, you claimed that you were fighting to "change" the fellow, and that you wanted to "free" him. anyone who didn't see it that way was immediately suspect in your eyes, and became a possible target for future attack due to their reaction.

now, if we oppose the initial attack, we can not support the surge. if 2 plus 2 is not 5, we can not then say that adding 2 to 5 to get 7 makes the initial response any more correct. when the foundation is wrong, everything that follows is wrong. obama did point out that the war didn't start with the surge, that it started in 2003
but he also did not say that he opposes the surge. not mentioned by either candidate was the destruction we have caused to two countries, including the hundreds of thousands of their people that we have killed. this is not a "cost" of war according to our political structure. a major candidate can't acknowledge how murderous our military actions are. let us suppose that during the nazi era, there was a german politician who felt that the killing of jews was a "diversion" from the war with russia, not that such killing was a crime against humanity. would we consider this a "progressive," or "anti-war" position? suppose this politician favored the attack on russia, but opposed the attack on poland? what would we make of this candidate? would we feel that this candidate offered "change that we can believe in?" granted, he would be better than the candidate who favored both the attack on russia and the attack on poland, but would that change our criticisms of the limitations on his solutions to our militarism?

let me say that i find a mccain presidency a scary nightmare. however, this does not mean i believe that obama represents a fullfillment of the "dream."

mccain, when speaking about iran, said "that we can not allow a second holocaust." supposedly, this may happen if iran attains a nuclear weapon. of course israel already has nuclear weapons, something the jews of europe did not have during the nazi era. yes, the iranian president has said some anti-semitic things. this makes him about as much a threat to the existence of the jews as your average redneck who still blames the jews for killing christ.

so yes, round one is in the books, and unfortunately, it was the usual nadir, (not nader,) of political discouse

on the gig

j has a hat of the virgin mary. on the hat, there are two buttons. one reads "class clown." the other one says "fuck the government." he often breaks into song or dance. furthermore, he usually ends up in shouting matches with one of the girls in the class, one of whom tells him to "shut the fuck up."

k is always late to class, but wants to join the army. he claims he wants to fight, but can often be seen running away from classmates chasing him down the hall.

a recently became offended that the teacher wouldn't turn the lights off while they took notes, even though the words were easy to see. he used this as an excuse to exit the class in dramatic fashion..."man, all we want to do is turn off the fucking lights! yo, that's bullshit. i'm out of here."

m does no work, and then gets all the answers right on his test, despite the fact that he showed no work. he claims that he did it all in his head, even though the problems had several steps which he had no clue of the day before. on the first day, this same student, a freshman, looked me in the eye, and stated with great seriousness, "college is going to be hard." then, when the teacher began to move the desks, he said angrily, pointing to the sign in the room, "please do not move the desks." of course, the teacher was the person who had put the sign up.

a new aide was hired. p met him, and said "must think of john stories, john stories." today, he informed us that john was in world war 2, and that he spent time in holland fighting kevin, who was a nazi. today, p also looked up and out of nowhere, said "gary payton?"

we are fighting 2 wars, the economy is going to shit, millions are poor and uninsured, but you would never know it judging by the banalities that pass for conversation at my job. never mind the classes. g-d help us.

palin recently said that we have won in iraq.

a classmate of tixon's recently said that we are in iraq to "bring change." yes, blowing up a country certainly does constitute change. it is a change to go from electricity to not having it, to go from clean drinking water to lacking it, and to go from a quality health care system to a nonexistent one. all of this and more qualifies as change. and that brings to mind 9/11. didn't those planes "bring change" to the wtc? one minute it was standing, the next minute it wasn't. now that's what i call the kind of change that americans usually love. that is, when they are the ones instituting it.

the average white american, and many of his nonwhite side kicks, will never give up the notion of america as an essentially great place, that tries to do good all the time. sadly, they gave up believing in santa claus, and held on to this far more dangerous view. they argue that we do our best to bring freedom and democracy to each and every corner of the globe. to quote a blum title, we are quite good at "freeing the world to death."

and remember, each person we kill is payback for 9/11, including the 2 million vietnamese.

it's called a preemptive strike.

the peeps are racing ahead

in bolivia, the people are responding to the attempts by the right wing to destabilize and overthrow the morales government. they have taken to the streets by the thousands, many of them armed. morales has been made uneasy by this, for he is hopeful that things can be resolved peacefully. now, i admire morales. he is a grassroots leader, an indigenous progressive. but in this case, i am with the people. the situation in bolivia appears to be quite serious, and the only thing that will stem the flow of reaction is an informed, active, armed mass of people. again, this is the language that the right understands. they will think twice about their destabilization plans, if they know there will be hell to pay as a result. morales must learn from history here. in the 70's, allende was hopeful that the chilean system of represenative democracy would be respected, and that a non-violent reaction by his government and by the people, could succeed against the coup plotters. sadly, this was not the case. morales needs to mobilize the trade unions, the citizen groups, and so forth. he needs to purchase weapons from anyone who will sell them to him. he needs to make sure that the army is completely on his side. he needs to deal with any slanders from the media. if these actions are taken, the coup plotters will run and hide. furthermore, the other progressive latin american leaders need to agree to defend each other in case of a coup attempt. chavez, lugo, morales, and the others need to closely collaborate in the military, intelligence, political, and economic areas. i am hopeful that this is happening, and will continue to happen. morales, and anyone else for that matter, needs to be clear on the fact that the right will not respect nonviolence, they will not respect the constitution, and that they are racist and prejudiced against the poor. they do not want to share their wealth and access to resources, and they will fight to maintain their control in these areas. therefore, the left and its leaders needs to be ready to throw down at all times. and when they do, i will be in the balcony, cheering them on.

meeting today. the others seem to care. have you ever been in a meeting that seemed to you to be total bullshit, but there were two people at the meeting that were going at each other? yeah, you could feel the tension. why? why do they care? why do people care about their jobs? i can't describe how weird a feeling it is to be surrounded by people who seem to be taking their work seriously. they have no humor about it, no sense of proportion. teachers actually seem to think they are doing good. scary.

gigi gryce was a good alto player. he is forgotten, but he shouldn't be. sadly, he stopped recording after 1960. a good player.

well, it ain't the way to end a blog, but somebody needs to mention gigi gryce.

words of "wisdom"

today, iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad will speak before the u.n. general assembly. yesterday, a crowd of protesters gathered to protest his presence. one guy held a sign which read "the torch has been passed from one genocidal leader to another. (there is a picture of hitler next to ahmadinejad) don't let iran get the bomb!" ok, bathroom break.

i'm back. let's evaluate this. i'll start with the first sentence. "the torch has been passed from one genocidal leader to another." well yes, the torch has been passed, but to certain other white, western, imperial leaders, not to ahmadinejad. the u.s. is currently prosecuting two wars of aggression, the "ultimate crime" according to nuremberg, and to our own common sense, which is two more wars than those being fought by iran. so, is it just possible that george bush is the one really holding the torch? was ronald reagan holding the torch when he invaded grenada, armed the contras, and funded right wing death squads in central america? was the first bush holding the torch when he bombed panama, and initiated the first slaughter in iraq? was clinton holding the torch when he devastated yugoslavia? it appears nixon had a firm hold on said torch when he dropped tons and tons of bombs on vietnam, laos, and cambodia. yes, the torch has been passed, but sadly, we are the ones holding it. in fact, we have had the torch for hundreds of years. hitler's mistake was trying to get it out of our hands, which pissed us off. as carlin says "hitler was trying to take over the world. bullshit, that's our fucking job!"

how about the second part of that sentence..."from one genocidal leader to another." now, ahmadinejad might not be the greatest guy out there, but who exactly is he practicing genocide against? what countries has he invaded, what oppressed minorities within iran are being rounded up and murdered, who are his forces dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on? is he responsible for the death of 20 million russians, 6 million jews, and millions of others? is he responsible for the murder of a million iraqis, 2 million vietnamese, 600,000 cambodians, 2 million koreans, and hundreds of thousands of others in chile, el salvador, indonesia, guatemala, cuba, and elsewhere. by the way, that elsewhere includes iran. in 1953, the cia helped to overthrow a democratically elected government in iran. this coup led to the brutal shah taking power. so, the u.s. is even responsible for more death within iran than ahmadinejad, never mind throughout the rest of the world.

the use of the word "genocide" is kind of funny. if you notice, our military actions and mass killings of people all over the world are never described in this way. rather, "we" make "mistakes," or we "attempt to build democracy in places where it is not wanted," or we get "faulty intelligence," or we "accidently bomb civilians." therefore, no matter how many millions die from our bombs, we are never guilty of something called "genocide." however, if a leader from another country merely says things we don't like, than he may become a "genocidal" leader. ahmadinejad has said a couple of things that may indicate some anti-semitism on his part, but this doesn't make him any more guilty of genocide than archie bunker. it is actions that constitute genocide, not words, and when it comes to actions, you know who is number one.

ok, how about the second part of the sign..."don't let iran get the bomb." why is it that we can't let iran "get" the bomb" when it's ok for the u.s. to "have" hundreds of nuclear weapons. furthermore, it seems to be ok for the u.s. to use thousands of "regular bombs" without drawing a word of protest from the same people who are so infuriated with iran. also, it seems to be fine that israel has several nuclear weapons. they don't seem to mind israel bombing lebanon. nor do they seem to be losing much sleep over the arsenals of india, pakistan, britian, france, germany, and other military powers. it seems to me, our main concern should be the countries that already have "the bomb." and you would think that if people were concerned about "the bomb," that they would be protesting outside the pentagon, since the u.s. is the only country that has ever actually used "the bomb." but of course, this was not "genocide," but rather, we bombed hiroshima and nagasaki to "save lives" and "shorten the war."

a quick word on a couple of other signs at the protest. one read "save israel." ok, but while we are busy saving israel, who is going to save palestine? israel is the strongest military power in the middle east, propped up by hundreds of millions of dollars of u.s. military aid. if anyone needs saving, it is the countries that surround israel.

another sign read "never again." in this day and age, it seems to me that an iraqi should be the one holding this sign. again, why would a country that is trying to "get" a bomb (if this is true) attack a country that has several "bombs?" in actuality, it is israel that has attacked other countries, including lebanon twice in the last 30 years, and it is israel that is currently oppressing a people because of their race/ethnicity. so, if we are really concerned about the phrase "never again," perhaps we can start by opposing the u.s. war machine, as well as israeli militarism.

yeah, that's how i read that picture. it may not surprise you, but none of these points were made in the paper which showed this picture.

oh, the wonders of a free press.

i'm on a roll

for this is my bread and butter.

yeah, 700 billion. i heard some reporter attacking obama on the fact that his health plan would cost 150 billion dollars. now mind you, i'm sure it's a bullshit plan, but it gives you a sense of where our media is at. if anyone deserves to be bailed out, it's the hundreds of thousands of prisoners who are either in for nonviolent offenses, are actually innocent, or who have reformed and are ready for a second chance. 85 billion for aig, and execution for tookie williams. wild shit.

"smoke gets in your eyes" is a good tune, but i prefer "blood gets in your ass." by the way, hawkins plays the shit out of "smoke." those little melodic variations are killer.

russia has recently hooked up hugo with some weapons. good. the more shit pointed in this direction, the less likely our government is to fuck with you. hey, i prefer pacifism when the other guy does, but when the other guy is the u.s. government, all bets are off. i hope bolivia, cuba, and others build up too. the best defense is a good offense. if this country wants people to not purchase weapons, let it practice what it preaches and begin by drastically reducing the military budget, and ending our genocidal wars. until then, let every man, woman, and child grab a bow, an arrow, a rock, or a stick, and aim. this is the language that the beast understands. pacifism didn't swing against the nazis, and it won't do shit for the left of so called latin america. and while i would rather chant, "hey hey, fred ho, u.s. bombs have got to go" i applaud the russian sale of weapons to chavez and friends.

came close to singing a show tune in the middle of class today. but then i remembered i was an adult. ain't that a bitch?

the election is getting closer. i haven't thrown up in years. i hope my streak can survive election day. sarah palin tells us that retreat is not an option in iraq. well, how else is an army supposed to leave a country? i guess the only option is to stay there until the end of time. and by the way, if we keep fighting these wars, we just may end time.

lord, i don't think the environment can stand the global war-ing trend much longer. so lord, if you can please save us from your followers, i would be one happy guy, buddy.

rant man

now, the word is that the government will offer a 700 billion dollar bailout! 700 billion. now that's small government. yeah, that will show these companies what the free market is all about. i leave it to you to figure out what the american people, or any people for that matter, could do with 700 billion dollars. i'm pretty sure we could end homelessness, or institute a quality national health insurance, or even feed a lot of hungry people throughout the world. but no, something called the "economy" is more important.

pakistan continues to fire at u.s. jets. i can't wait until they hit one.

recently, cuba has suffered tremendously from hurricanes. there has been a ton of property damage, and thousands have lost their homes. it follows that many have died, but that is not the case. in fact, not one cuban has died! the cuban government evacuated everyone before hand. in fact, days before, the public was informed of the seriousness of the situation, and was given days to prepare for the evacuation. this from an impoverished island which has been systematically targeted by the most powerful nation on earth for close to 50 years. compare this to the 1,800 documented deaths due to hurricane katrina, and the complete lack of any evacuation plan by the city of new orleans. in cuba, they don't ignore the poor and the non-white in times of emergency; everyone is protected, everyone's life is valued. no wonder our government can't stand them.

i am so detached at work; it's like this person who looks like me, sounds like me, and wears my clothes, is not really me. who is this person who makes photo copies, and tells students to be quiet? who is this man who pretends to think that math and science, as they are taught in public school, are important and worth knowing? who is this man who tells students to sign in when they are late, who says for students not to use "foul" language, and then goes home and swears at a tv set? who is this guy who works at a public school during the day and then thinks to himself that mandatory schooling, grades, standardized tests, the achievement gap, and all the rest of it is total bullshit. yes, this man is me.

i guess when you get right down to it, i don't know what else to do. the thing is, i don't think anyone is gonna give me 700 billion dollars. yeah, that would hasten my retirement by a few decades.

anyone interested in making a contribution?

i'll even settle for 700,000.

thoughts

for a while now, the u.s. has been bombing pakistan. they claim that they are seeking out al qaeda militants who are fighting them in afghanistan. this is blandly reported here, as if it were of little consequence. pakistan has recently stated that they will fire on any planes that enter their borders to attack them. i hope that this is actually true, and not just bluster. supposedly, it is ok for the u.s. to attack pakistan, because the attacks are part of something described in our media as "the war on terror." think about this; pakistan is a sovereign nation, minding its own business, and u.s planes decide to start bombing them. this gives me an idea. there are hundreds of cuban exiles in florida who have committed violent (ie, terrorist) acts against cuba. it seems to me that in order to prevent future attacks from these exiles, cuban jets should drop bombs on florida, hopefully killing these terrorists. of course, many floridians would also be killed in the bombing, but this would be collateral damage, unintended, and therefore, not criminal. for we know cuba would go out of their way to limit civilian casualities, as the u.s. army always claims it does. such bombings by cuba would be fully justified under the rubric of "the war on terror."

sadly, this is not the case. instead, 5 cubans, known ironically as the cuban 5, are spending life sentences in jail for merely spying on these violent cuban exiles. they didn't fly jets, they didn't drop bombs, and they didn't "unintentionally" kill civilians. this appears to be their crime. if they had only done it the american way, all would be well.

so yeah, the arrogance of power is beyond astounding. i hope that pakistan shoots back, that iraq shoots back, that everybody shoots back. shooting back seems to be the only communication our government understands. and this is nothing new; when the u.s. was bombing vietnam, it was also bombing cambodia and laos, supposedly because there were "vietcong" in those nations as well. as a result, laos, who did nothing to nobody, remains the most bombed nation in the history of war, and cambodia was also brutally devastated. both of these were sovereign nations minding their own business. it is as if a country was at war with mexico or canada, and then began bombing the u.s. because there were mexicans or canadians in our country. how do you think we would feel? would the fact that there were some mexicans here justify hundreds of thousands of u.s. citizens being "unintentionally" killed? what if there were terrorists operating in mexico, and some of them fled to the u.s. to plan future operations. could foreign countries violate our air space and attack our cities as part of "the war on terror?" of course not. only we can kill people at will for some "noble" goal, such as "the war on terror."

so there you have it. the same old bullshit; we can do what we want, kill who we wish, because it's all for some greater good, but no one can attack us for a greater good. in fact, we won't even let others nationalize their own oil and gas industries, or to redistribute the wealth in their own countries. if they begin to do this, we begin to describe them as "authoritarian," as "dictators," as "undemocratic."

and before long, the bombs may begin to drop on them as well, as part of "the war on terror," for in today's world, a terrorist has become someone the u.s. government doesn't like.

like a pakistani citizen minding his or her own business, who is bombed by the u.s. because there or may not be an al qaeda in the area.

economics

the federal government is going to bail aig out with 85 billion dollars. recently, they bailed out fannie mae and friends with 200 billion dollars. that's funny, because nobody has given me a cent since my birthday. and by the way, i thought we had a government that was opposed to "handouts," but now we learn (well, we already knew, but you get the point) that only certain handouts are opposed. so, a corporation can be bailed out with billions of dollars, but struggling people have got to tough it out, and are not even entitled to small loans from the very same government. we are told the government has to bail these companies out to "save" the economy, but the government never bails out the thousands of people who lose their jobs when a major corporation ships jobs to another country. the government never bails out the uninsured, the unemployed, the homeless, and the imprisoned. are they not part of the "economy?"

and where is all this money coming from? we are always hearing how strapped our government is for money, but yet, it can turn around and give aig 85 billion dollars. stop and think, just for a second, what could be done with 85 billion dollars; the homes, libraries, hospitals, parks, and cultural centers that could be built or improved. 85 billion dollars is an astounding amount of money. it is the kind of money reserved for corporations, not for people. so yes, there is plenty of money, but it's not meant to be used for people.

of course, the economy will not be saved, just as new deal measures didn't save anything; these bailouts may soften the blow, and they may prolong the inevitable collapse, but the problem is too big to be solved by bailouts.

again, just think about this for a second. there is no money for welfare, no money for subsidized housing, no money for food stamps, but there is money for aig, fannie mae, and general motors. in short, there is money for those who already have money, and there is no money for those who don't have money. and this is done, we are told, to "save" the economy. it is nothing short of insane, but because we function within insane structures, it is reported and discussed in a sane way. it "needed" to be done. this is like saying you need to beat your slave to show him who is boss. well, this may be true, but it's not the point. the problem is the institution of slavery itself. so, whether this company is bailed out or not bailed out, whether this company goes bankrupt or thrives, is besides the point. the problem is the economic order, namely capitalism. and capitalism, along with militarism and racism, are the slaveries of our time, and they need to be battled, not bailed out.
we know the government will continue to bail out capitalism, racism, and militarism, no matter which person or party is in power, so we, the common fuckheads, need to do the battling. no one will give us 85 billion dollars if we fail, but at least we will be able to sleep at night.

well

the train is taking forever to come, and then, when it does come, it is crowded, because it took forever to come. more people are taking the train because of the cost of gas, and the train fare will soon go up, also because of the cost of gas. but our salaries will not go up at the same rate, so that the cost of living will continue to out race any pay raises we may get. but none of this will change anything. people won't start walking or riding bikes, especially in a city like boston, where to ride a bike in the street is akin to setting yourself on fire.

speaking of setting yourself on fire, when are pro-lifers gonna start using this as a protest tactic? there is no reason to let the monks in vietnam hoard all of the good tactics.

yes, mccain fought in vietnam. therefore, someone should be attempting to arrest him. instead, he is a free man running for president. he is even thought by some to be a hero. and in a way, he is, although, when it comes to courage, what about those nazi soldiers freezing in the moscow winter, bravely serving their country? now, those were the real heroes! they too, gave their lives for their "country."

yeah, people always say that..."he gave his life for his country" but that's not it. in order to do that, you would have to be in your country at the time. you would actually have to be defending it against attack. no, what mccain did, and what other murderers are currently doing is "fighting for their government." and that is something very different. as zinn would say, never confuse the government with the country. the country is a mass of land filled with 300 million people, while the government is an artificial creation, a structure that has formed over time. in fact, even the idea of a country is somewhat bizarre. half of what was once mexico has been the u.s. since the mid 1840's, and all of this "country" once belonged to the indigenous. so, that begs the question; why should someone fight for either the country or the government? to fight for the country, one must think it is worth fighting for, but all in all, what is there about this nation that makes it worth fighting for? is it our schools, our health care system, our prisons, our foreign policy? i suppose i would be willing to "fight" for our library system, but i certainly wouldn't drop bombs on people 10000 miles away to "defend" our libraries. in reality, all that is worth defending is yourself and those that matter to you, and that would be the case wherever you happened to be. and by defending yourself, i mean that you also have the right to fight for your needs; the right to food, housing, clothing, health care, valid education, meaningful recreation, leisure. but again, this has nothing to do with the country you happen to live in.

in other words, to hell with the usual bullshit about "defending our way of live" and "protecting our freedom." when you hear these words, run.

or defend your country by fighting the nonsense we call patriotism, nationalism, and heroism.

and while you are at it, get the war crime trials started.

work...

is really just like that film ground hog's day. the same material, same students, same coworkers, get paid every two weeks, same snacks in the machine, same mediocre veggie burger at the school restaurant, same mediocre people at the job who aren't so bad but after a few minutes you can't wait to get the fuck away from them. there is never anything to talk about. in fact, that is built into the school environment. i remember when i first became a sub; the woman interviewing me said to "never talk about religion, sex, or politics." nelson riddle's comment to his son, "what else is there?" rang in my head. and you can't talk to your coworkers either, because they have nothing to say, or, closer to the truth, what they have to say are things that you don't want to hear. for example, after two minutes, how am i supposed to maintain interest in whether cassel can replace brady? and mind you, i watch football! imagine if i didn't know what they were talking about! i used to be able to do the sports conversations...now even they bore me to tears.

furthermore, i am tired of saying hi to people. i am tired of someone knowing my name when i don't know their name, and i am tired of knowing someone's name who doesn't know mine. i am tired of people asking me "what i am doing for lunch?" hey motherfucker, i'm eating! the same fucking thing you are doing! then there is the "what are you doing this weekend?" well, whatever i'm doing, i won't be doing it with you, that much i know! and what about the feeble attempts by coworkers to hang out..."hey, we should get together some time, catch a ballgame or something." fuck you! if i didn't need the money, i wouldn't even have met you, and now you got us hanging out outside of work?

now, all of this passes for normal in our culture, but isn't it really insane? i mean, we are all spending about half our waking hours with people we don't give a shit about, doing work we don't give a shit about. ain't that some stupid shit? what is wrong with us? and then when a guy does manage to get by with a part time job, people will push him on, try to get him to work more, tell him he is a failure for not using his degree or making more money.

so yeah, it never really changes.

and the weird thing is, i'm one of the lucky ones. my job isn't too hard, and it's over early. but bullshit is still bullshit, even if others have it worse.

to paraphrase ray charles "the world is in an uproar, the bullshit zone is everywhere."

my...

diego has put on a few pounds since wednesday. furthermore, he looks more like a drawing here than usual.

often, on 9/11, someone will ask "what were you doing when the towers were hit?" of course, there are a lot of answers to this question. many of these answers i haven't heard, likely because people are afraid, ashamed, or embarrased to say them. answers such as...

"when the towers were hit, i was taking a shit."

"i was jerking off."

"i was raping someone"

"i was being molested."

"i was beating my wife."

"i was abusing my child."

"i was watching porn."

"i was having sex."

"i was throwing up."

"i was starving, and i am now no longer alive to answer this question."

i have heard a lot of people ask this particular question about 9/11, but there are many other tragedies where this question is never used. some examples...

"where were you when we began bombing iraq?"

"where were you when aristide was kidnapped?"

"where were you when 30,000 children starved today, and yesterday, and the day before that, and...?"

"where were you when sean bell was killed by the police?"

"where were you when mumia was framed?"

"where were you when serbia was attacked?"

"where were you when immigrants suddenly became subhuman according to our media and political system?"

"where were you when panama was destroyed?"

no, i have never heard any of these, or the hundreds of other questions that could take their place. and i won't hear them, because they will never be asked. no headmaster will ever recognize their anniversaries, and no editorials in mainstream papers will discuss them. for, you see, in this "great" nation of ours, we have mastered something i like to call "selective compassion." that is, we mourn those either killed by others, or killed long ago, and we ignore the murders and crimes our society is currently, or has recently, committed.

yeah, selective compassion.

otherwise known as bullshit.

randomness

human rights watch has been going on about how the nato/u.s. bombing of civilians in afghanistan could "hurt" the war effort, that it may turn into a "public relations disaster." this, from a supposed human rights organization? they sound more like a pr firm for the white house.

diego and frida, thanks so much for sharing two wonderful days with me and my loved ones during your boston area trip. i feel very lucky to have had this time with you. pinko, it was great to see you again, and kahlo, it was a treat to meet you. you guys are a great team. i admire how you have carved out a little space where you can be yourselves, regardless of your surroundings. thanks again for hanging.

the principal of the school went on the loud speaker this morning and gave a little speech about september 11. "a moment of silence, we are all citizen soldiers in the war on terror, the world changed, blah blah blah." this from a liberal who mocks republicans left and right, but who doesn't seem to give much thought about how the us bombing of iraq and afghanistan has changed the world for millions of people, and how there are millions of people in the middle east who "can remember where they were or what they doing" when the u.s. war machine decided to turn their homeland into a genocidal madhouse. man, what self centered arrogance, what privileging of u.s. suffering, and what silence about the murder of others done by the society that has allowed this very same principal to do quite well for himself. therefore, his silence should come as no surprise. yes, he is allowed to mock republicans, but not criticize the system. he is allowed to be a corporate liberal, but not a radical progressive. a moment of silence? how about a moment of silence for the "thousands and thousands" who lost their lives as a result of the coup in chile, also on september 11, 35 years ago today? the coup could never have happened without the support and funding of the cia. of course, there will be no moment of silence for that. in fact, it will likely not even be taught in any history classes offered at this "liberal" school, in this "liberal" town. in iraq today, a third of the population has either been killed, injured, or displaced, by the nearly 6 year marathon of destruction initiated by our government. we have had not one moment of silence for any of those millions, i would be willing to bet, in any public school in this country. in fact, if this "liberal" town attempted to do this, all the conservative people who seem to live in this liberal town, including many who call themselves liberal, would throw a fit. they would yell treason, call the school and its principal unpatriotic, there would be condemnations fron local media, and perhaps even federal investigations. yes, my friend, the limits of liberalism are profound.

so, here we have the accepted contrast between schools. town a has a mandatory pledge, and each class must fly the flag. town b does not do the pledge and teachers can decide if they want to fly the flag. however, neither town a or b has either the courage or wisdom to question u.s. foreign policy, neither town a or town b values the lives of people in other countries, and neither town a or town b tells the truth about our society and the brutality that is fundamental to its operation. when looked at this way, it becomes essentially meaningless whether a school is "good" or "bad", or whether the achievement gap is being closed, "or whether sat or standardized test scores went up. such tinkering within a system beyond redemption is nothing less than contemptible.

i have the privilege of working for an award winning headmaster and at a school ranked number 1 out of all the all the public schools in the state. but take it from me, we are no closer to wisdom and truth than anywhere else. as i have said before, school takes time away from education.

and now, i think i am ready for a moment of silence.

palin's daughter

palin has a 17 year old daughter, who, as it turns out, is 5 months pregnant. i thought these right wingers were all about abstaining from sex. i also thought they were opposed to teen pregnancy, and even sex before marriage. now that this has come out, these same fuckheads are stressing that this is a "family matter" and that "personal issues" have no place in politics. yeah, when it's the daughter of your vp candidate, then all of a sudden, this stuff has no place in politics. in fact, this kind of shit is all the right wing is about when it comes to politics. they keep warning us of the dangers of teen pregnancy and premarital sex, but the thing is, they have the poor and the non white in mind when they rant about these issues. now that it hits close to home, it becomes a family matter.

hey, by the way, how do you think people would have reacted if obama had a pregnant teenage daughter? i think the internet would have been buzzing with racist garbage, and the right wing talk shows would been filled with thinly veiled attacks against "liberals" and their loose sexual values. yeah, the racism would have been flowing. but, since it's palin's daughter, we should all just ignore it. hey man, cool, but if we are gonna do that, then can we stop scapegoating all the young mothers in our inner cities who don't have the benefit of a rich family to help them support their children? can we say that their teenage pregnancies are also "personal matters" that don't call for racist diatribes from angry right wingers out to degrade a generation of poor, black youth?

by the way, teenage pregnancies are down in the black community and up in the white community. i'm sure as this trend continues, the issue of teen pregnancy will more and more be viewed as a "personal, family matter." yeah, if we can't shit on the blacks in this country, we move on to something else.

i, for one, am tired of sex in politics. it is a private, personal matter. to the extent that government is involved in it, they should be educating people about it, making condoms and birth control available, and also helping to combat homophobia. but, enough is enough about who is fucking who, and who is pregnant, and this guy was looking for gay sex in a public toilet, and this guy had sex in a hotel. none of it should reach our ears, not while one person starves, or one child is bombed, or one man is in jail, or one woman is raped.

so yeah, it's a private matter, but it should always be a private matter, no matter who does it, whether they are a young black girl, a political opponent, or the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. so, shut the fuck up about family values if you insist on privacy. everyone is entitled to privacy if anyone is.

back to work today. it's as meaningless as ever. same mediocre environment, same watching the clock, same half assed approach from yours truly. it's the getting up in the morning that bugs me the most. the gig itself is ok, it's just the having to do it. man, if i could only make my own hours. "yeah, i can give you 2 hours today." it's the consistency of it, the routine that sucks. cause sometimes you just want to stay in bed, or take a long walk. man, you don't want to live by the clock, and living by the clock is the way of work.

well, at least i'm not a prison guard.

no one is watching

a right wing preacher recently asked his congregation to pray for rain, so obama's speech couldn't take place. wow man. whatever happened to praying for peace?

protesters have been getting the shit kicked out of them at the rnc. amy goodman was even arrested. it's around this time that someone usually warns about the dangers of fascism, as if it weren't already here. they have been raiding homes, breaking down doors, throwing things around. i suppose we are all in iraq now. the republicans are in your face fascists, no apology. meanwhile the democrats lag behind them in the fascism department, but they don't oppose them. they are junior partners, and the left doesn't need to be partnering up with no junior partners. we need an opposition.

the preemptive strike is everywhere, and it always has been. hey, if you can bomb countries without cause, i suppose you can detain people here, also without cause. we keep increasing the limits on atrocities, until they are next door, and perhaps, at our own door. but, have no fear, because a majority of americans will support anyhing that is done by those in authority. the average american will rave about our free speech rights, and then degrade each and every person who attempts to actually use those rights.

i remember a few years back, i made a short speech opposing the war in iraq. a guy came up to me and said, "you couldn't say that in iraq." i responded, "i'm pretty sure i could say that i am against america bombing iraq in iraq. and, by the way, if you think my being allowed to speak my mind makes america so great, why don't you let me speak?" and this whole freedom of speech thing is overrated. both i and george bush have freedom of speech, but his views get put into practice, whereas mine are ignored. the key thing is access to power. almost every single one of us is powerless, regardless of our views. if the power elite has decided to go to war, what does it matter if a majority of people are opposed? and how free are those opposed when their ideas are not incorporated, in any way, into our foreign polcy? with freedom like this, who needs fascism?

as far as freedom goes, we are free to buy what we can afford. yeah, the freedom to buy. i don't remember that in the bill of rights, but that's really all we have. that is your right, living in a capitalist society, and in truth, it is your only right. but, even then, sometimes they fuck with you, like when they didn't serve me and tixon in bertucci's, or when they give me my food to go, even when i state 2 or 3times that i would like to eat it in. yes, if you don't look the part, even this freedom can slip through your fingers from time to time.

supposedly the christian right is energized by mccain picking palin, as if there was any question who they were gonna vote for. ain't no dumb literalist who worships a blue eyed blond haired jesus gonna be voting for obama any time soon. hell, he could have selected a dildo as his vice president, and they would have voted for him. you watch, there are millions upon millions of white motherfuckers who are gonna get a cramp when it comes to lifting their arm and writing in obama's name. as big a shit as mccain is, don't be suprised to see dead man walking in the white house, and i don't mean the movie.

speaking of dead man walking, both candidates are for the death penalty. man, a black man being for the death penalty? that's like a mexican being against immigrant rights.

i'm gonna go see david bacon next week. with a name like that, i hope he's not jewish.