it seems to me that the people have gotten better, but the world has gotten worse.
social movements have helped to enlighten wide sectors of the public, but the powerful have continued to consolidate their control. the war on the environment continues, as we recycle. the jails fill up with black youth, as we refuse to say the n word. we celebrate hispanic heritage month, as our government attempts to overthrow the bolivian government. we listen to afro-cuban music, as our government maintains the cuban embargo. of course, there are millions of us that are still extremely regressive. i understand that. but the point stands that while the masses have improved to an extent, the world has not. this is due to the fact that power lies elsewhere. it is also due to the fact that people are hung up on the wrong things. imagine if all the men who purchased viagra instead used that money to cure malaria. one million africans (900,000 of whom are under the age of five) die each year from the disease. imagine if all the money and time that was spent advertising this product, and all the money and time that was spent on research for this product, was instead used to combat serious diseases. such an example encompasses both factors. for one, our system is driven by the profit motive. hence, those in power are in the business of producing products that will both make them a profit, and that will cater to the needs of those with money. the availability of such products will then create false needs amongst the population. these false needs will then be felt by the people to be wants, or as parenti says it, supply will actually create demand. if hair transplants did not exist, there would be bald men who would be bummed that they had lost their hair, but they wouldn't be marching by the thousands down the street in protest to demand the creation of hair replacement products. however, once the product was created, millions of men who wanted their hair back, now felt the "need" to purchase these products. the system felt the need to produce this product, because they knew there was a market of men with money who would pay for such a thing. so, the fault lies on both ends. the system should have first marshalled all of its resources to cure diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and water borne diseases that kill millions each year. then, years from now, after these diseases had been wiped out, and after our food and water had been made cleaner and healthier, and after "first world" diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes had been fought and greatly reduced, then maybe there could be some research into things like viagra and hair restoration.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
observations
karl rove had a conversation with obama on how to beat hillary.
kissinger said he thinks hillary would make a great secretary of state. this from a man who contributed to the destruction of southeast asia, the coup in chile, and the murder in east timor. instead of a microphone in his face, there should be some cuffs on his wrists. what does it say about our new regime that kissinger is happy with how it's going?
obama and mccain met for a chat. if obama can meet with mccain, can he also meet with labor leaders, and civil rights leaders, and anti-war leaders?
we are hearing that obama will "reach across the aisle," meaning he will work with republicans. fair enough, but will he be willing to reach the other way? is the only aisle the one that leads to republicans? will obama also "reach across the aisle" to progressive democrats, and to people outside of either party? obama has already honored conservative democrats like emmanuel and clinton with jobs. will he give progressive democrats any positions? my guess is that no one from the congressional black caucus will be given a thing from obama, though many of their members are highly qualified, and have served in government for democrats. so, don't wait up, barbara lee, john conyers, and others. furthermore, i don't expect the phones of dennis kucinich and bernie sanders to be ringing anytime soon. and what of those outside of the two parties? while it is likely that obama will tap larry summers for an economic position, joe stiglitz will not be considered. stiglitz recently wrote a book on iraq called "the three trillion dollar war." i doubt it will be required reading in an obama white house. we have a consumer protection agency in this country, but i don't expect ralph nader will be asked to assist in its running. we could use a public works program for the people of new orleans. cynthia mckinney would be a good fit to head such a program. i doubt that either the program, or a job of any kind for mckinney will materialize. few men know more about big oil than michael klare. i doubt he will be asked for his views on energy policy. who is more versed in foreign policy than chomsky? despite this, don't expect a position in government for noam. one could go on. will sharpton be rewarded for his support? will naomi klein be brought in to explain her "shock doctrine" theory, and be asked to help with the economy, along with the folks from the magazine dollars and sense? will wise, dyson, west, zinn, and others be convened for a discussion in the white house about how to begin to address the issue of systemic and institutional racism? will discussions begin about reparations for the people of iraq and afghanistan? will legal scholars such as michael ratner be invited to draw up indictments to be handed out to the war criminals of the bush administration? will amy goodman, greg palast, and david barsamian be offered positions in federal communications, and will the editors of "extra" be asked by the white house to track bias in the mainstream media? will progressive scholars and educators like the people from rethinking schools, and kozol, kohn, and zinn, be invited to create a progressive school curriculum that stresses peace and anti-racism?
for sure, none of these things will happen. i don't even think slightly left of center democrats like howard dean will be thrown any bones. what of rfk jr, respected for his work on the environment? so far, no one from the obama camp has come calling. now, it's possible that dean and jr could get positions, but right now, such comparative progressives (to clinton, that is) are being shut out.
while obama reaches across the aisle to mccain, rove, and kissinger.
oh yeah, one more thing. it has been made clear that an obama administration will not prosecute bush era officials. yes, they started imperial wars. yes, they tortured. yes, they lied to the american people. but the important thing is to move on. funny, but no one tells this to holocaust survivors. no one tells this to rape victims. yes, moving on is important, but you can't move on until you have honestly faced the past. otherwise, how is this change we can believe in? if obama is opposed to torture, and torture is illegal under international law, how can obama, as a lawyer, as a man who is supposed to represent change, not prosecute the criminals who created bush's torture policies? if the iraq war is a war of aggression, which, according to nuremberg, is the ultimate crime, how can obama not indict the architects of the conflict?
i know, i know, that change stuff wasn't meant to be taken seriously. it was just meant to make us feel good.
as oprah leans on some white guy, and ayers returns to the park where his head was bashed in, and as we all hold hands and sing folk songs.
as the bombs fall elsewhere.
word to the wise
lately, tim wise has been furiously blogging against "the left." he is upset that something called "the left" is not as happy about obama's victory as he is. he makes a number of points, a few of which i would like to comment on.
he is offended that "the left" has been name calling obama. well, individuals on the left have done this, but not some monolith called "the left." isn't wise himself on the left? aren't his books published by left wing publishing houses? in fact, i have in my bag his latest book, published by soft skull press. aren't his lectures largely attended by those on the left? and funny, but isn't wise a guy who routinely name calls when it suits his purposes? i don't remember wise being terribly offended by the cracks made against bush, although he did point out in one of his latest blogs the "idiocy" of bringing a banner of bush with a hitler stash to an anti-war rally. supposedly, such tactics scare away people who may otherwise be interested in attending the rally, or joining the movement. please. if someone were that easily offended, they would find something else to be bothered by. furthermore, is it wise of wise to belittle this comparison when bush pushed through policies of imperial war that killed millions? question, wise; why is our bombing of iraq any better than germany's attack on poland? how is our war with afghanistan superior to invading russia? also, when someone carries a banner like this, it is a bit satirical. they are using humor to point out a profound truth. for how else, other than fascist, to describe things such as preemptive war, abu ghraib, cluster bombs, the use of terminology such as the "homeland," preventive detention, flag decals, "support our troops" bumper stickers, and so much more?
wise lectures "the left" that they can not build a movement if they are going to criticize obama, and mock his followers. well, if you are trying to build a movement outside of the current power structure, don't you have to be critical of the people within the current power structure? otherwise, what's the point of trying to build that movement? for sure, we shouldn't mock the people who voted for obama, but questioning the efficacy of voting for the lesser of two evils is certainly something that true progressives should have the right to do.
wise complains about those who trumpet "the supposedly superior morality" of ralph nader and the followers of bob avakian. well, how can those two men even be put in the same sentence? nader is one of the great americans of the 20th and 21st centuries. should people on the left stop supporting him just because mainstream society tells us to do so? does wise think obama is better on the issues than nader? in fact, very few people on the left actually supported nader. most of them voted for obama.
wise tells us it is the posturing and the name calling that the left partakes in that limits its appeal. supposedly, this is why the right has been so much more successful in attaining power. give me a break! who owns the media, tim? who runs the corporations? who determines foreign policy? it's not as if the left and the right are in this fair fight for power, and the right's superior organizing skills explain why they have ascended. in the 60's, when the left was much stronger, we had the destruction of southeast asia and the murder of our greatest leaders. this is because those who control the power structure in our society are corporatists and militarists, by definition on the right. to blame the left for their lack of power seems to me to be pretty unfair. wise surely knows that the murders of martin, malcolm, fred hampton, allende, che, evers, dozens of black panthers, and many others, have contributed to the left's political limitations. he surely also knows that zinn, chomsky, nader, parenti, and others, are shut out of the media, hence greatly limiting their ability to reach people and, by extension, to influence policy. has kissinger really organized better than chomsky? does that explain why kissinger has ascended to power, while chomsky has had to settle for being a professor? the right is winning because the system is set up for them to win. to blame the left for the fact that power lies elsewhere in our society is to do a disservice to the millions of people who are fighting against the odds in our society, wise included. this explains why wise isn't winning against imus and coulter and dobbs and hannity.
wise is angered by a comment made by fellow progressive paul street, who referred to wise as becoming "increasingly unglued" as a result of obama's victory. for proof of street's remark, just read wise's blog, where he tells us that he looked in on his sleeping child after obama won, and where he lectures "the left" on what a great thing obama's victory was. wise claims that street attacked him for saying that there are signficant differences between obama and mccain. in fact, street himself said there were differences, and even encouraged people in swing states to vote for obama. wise claims that street wrote an article in 04 detailing the differences between kerry and bush, comparing this to his supposed silence on the differences between obama and mccain. in fact, street made these differences clear, even ending his book on obama by fleshing out these "differences." furthermore, street is one man; he is not "the left." if a man on the left says or does something you don't like, that doesn't mean you should condemn the left in its entirety. wise, as a man who spends his life combating racial profiling and stereotyping, should know this. wise's attacks are filled with crass generalizations about "the left." they are petty, and uncalled for.
ironically, before obama took power, wise did a good job of pointing out obama's inadequacies, and what his rise to power had to say about race in america. now, wise has grown silent. the question is, what will it take for him to wake up? the appointment of rahm emanuel? the knowledge that karl rove instructed obama on how to defeat hillary clinton? kissinger saying that hillary would make a great secretary of state? the decision not to prosecute bush and his cronies for war crimes? further increases in the military budget? wars with pakistan and afghanistan? continued remarks about "getting bin laden" when he is likely dead?
oh tim, when will you be wise once more?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
man
i was reading a lefty rag when i saw an article entitled "an insider's view of the boeing strike." 27,000 boeing workers struck for 57 days in september and october. the article says "workers won a number of concessions from management." i read the concessions, and nowhere was it stated that "workers will no longer have to produce products that will be used to kill people in war." the left, by focusing so strongly on the labor movement, forgets that it is in the best interests of humanity that some american jobs be eliminated. isn't this the same left that wants to see a drastic reduction of the military budget and an end to our imperial wars? how do we oppose these wars and then support the workers who make the products that are used to fight them? is this not similar to the "support the troops" bullshit we have been hearing for years? the people of the world need the american left to fight the system, not to organize the workers of raytheon, ge, and boeing for more overtime pay. would the world have been a better place in the 1930's if the germans who made munitions had been paid better than they were? would this have helped the millions of people who died from the products that these members of the "working class" made? and aren't the iraqis and afghanis that we are killing members of the "working class?" does it help them that boeing management has promised to "protect 5,000 parts delivery and facilities maintenance workers from layoffs."
if we are going to oppose war, we can't support a war economy. the men and women who work for these factories are a part of the war machine. however, they also have skills that could be beneficial to a peace based economy. we should support these workers in their efforts to quit these war related jobs, and to start machinist collectives that do work for the good of humanity. there is much that needs to be built, constructed, and produced. we are in desperate need of libraries, health clinics, schools, public transit, parks, roads, levees, and sane urban planning. there is much that a skilled machinist could do.
now, this is what the left should do in regards to military contractors like boeing.
agitate for their closure. in the short term, agitate for them to be taxed like crazy. build the anti-war movement. call for a massive reduction in the military budget. call for, and help to create, an alternative peace economy that attempts to build up the world, not to destroy it. call for progressive workers to do progressive work, or at least apolitical work, and to leave these occupations to those who are pro-war. remember that no one in today's world cares about how much german factory workers made in the 1930's. remember that supporting the labor movement means supporting the workers throughout the world, which includes the millions of working poor our labor movement has helped to kill. remember that during slave times, overseers were also members of the working class.
there is a lot of work that needs to be done. making sure that guys who make things that kill people have job security shouldn't be high on our to do list.
Friday, November 14, 2008
this country is out in centerfield
The Center-Right Nation Con
By LANCE SELFA
No matter how much social change takes place in the U.S., there always seems to be a well-paid cohort of Washington blowhards ready to declare that things really haven't changed much.
That's because, they say, the U.S. is a "center-right" country whose population isn't interested in those left-wing European (or even Canadian) ideas like national health care. Consider the following:
-- Jon Meacham, Newsweek editor: "It's just this side of possible that Obama will be able to govern what I believe is largely a center-right country."
-- NBC elder statesmen Tom Brokaw: "And this country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places."
-- And, not to be outdone, Republican strategist Karl Rove: "Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that." (Question for Rove: If you believe this, why were you advising John McCain to attack Obama as a terrorist and socialist?)
Of course, many of these were the same people who assured us after the 2004 election that the Republicans were on their way to building a permanent majority in Washington. But let's put aside their failures as prognosticators and ask if their premise that the U.S. is a "center-right" society is even true.
* * *
THERE ARE several ways to look at the question.
First, there is the partisan split in the electorate. Given that most mainstream commentators equate support for the Democrats with support for the "center-left," it's worth noting that the Democrats represented 39 percent of the electorate on November 5, compared to 32 percent identifying themselves as Republicans. The Associated Press called this result "the biggest partisan shift in a generation."
Beyond 2008, it's also worth noting that the Democrats have won the popular vote over the Republicans in four of the last five presidential elections.
In his review of the 2008 turnout, Curtis Gans of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate pointed out: "Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligible [voting age Americans] to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party's share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980."
If anything, this is evidence of a nation moving away from the "center-right."
Second, there are the policy preferences of Americans, as expressed in opinion polls. Here again, there isn't much support for the idea that the U.S. is comfortably "center-right." As a March 2007 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press report on social attitudes over the last twenty years explained:
Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets under way.
At the same time, many of the key trends that nurtured the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s have moderated, according to Pew's longitudinal measures of the public's basic political, social and economic values. The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly.
A Democracy Corps poll conducted after the 2008 election found that voters most consistently chose the more progressive of the two choices when they were given a "liberal" and a "conservative" description of a problem and solution on issues like trade, health care and Social Security.
When asked to list in order of priority a list of policies, voters put ones like "repealing the Bush tax cuts" for the rich, providing affordable health care and ending the war in Iraq at the top of their lists.
Third, there is the evidence from the 2008 election campaign. Despite the fact that the two parties of American business can be ideologically flexible, the contest between McCain and Obama took on some ideological tones.
Obama was fond of saying that his election would be the "final verdict" on a failed conservative philosophy. In his convention acceptance speech, he mocked the Republicans' "ownership society" idea as a cover for telling working people that "you're on your own." On the other side, McCain tried to rally his base by warning against Obama's "redistributionist" ideas--even calling Obama's proposals "socialist."
Even though McCain's attacks on Obama were based on grotesque exaggerations and fabrications, they still didn't do him any good. When the votes were tallied--even in supposed "red" states like Indiana and North Carolina--it appeared that the public chose the "socialist" Obama over the tax-cutting, anti-redistributionist McCain.
The exit polls showed that 51 percent of the voters said they wanted government "to do more" rather than less, and 76 of that group voted for Obama. In contrast, 43 percent said it thought that government was doing "too much," and 71 percent of them voted for McCain.
While these facts shouldn't lead us to conclude that the U.S. is unambiguously left-leaning, we can say for sure that they contradict the claim that the U.S. population leans to the "center right."
* * *
FOR THOSE who continue to insist that the U.S. is a "center-right" nation, at least one of these two things must be true: either they didn't observe the same election that the rest of us did; or they did observe it, and have decided to ignore it.
Of these two choices, the latter is the most likely explanation. The entire elite punditocracy that has grown up over the last two to three decades was schooled in an era of conservative dominance that has come to a close. But old habits die hard.
By the same token, many of these pundits are mouthpieces for an American ruling class that has done quite well for itself in the last political era. It has no desire to see the kind of social change and redress of inequality that millions of Americans want to see. But because advocating openly for the rich is somewhat frowned upon, they appeal to the democratic notion that social change isn't possible or desirable because the majority of Americans is predisposed against it.
Many of these voices for do-nothingism come from within the Democratic Party itself--and they are vying to define what's "possible" under an Obama administration.
Those of us who want to see fundamental social change are going to have to organize to demand it. And we would do well to ignore those who tell us "no we can't" because the U.S. is a center-right nation.
Lance Selfa writes for the Socialist Worker.
By LANCE SELFA
No matter how much social change takes place in the U.S., there always seems to be a well-paid cohort of Washington blowhards ready to declare that things really haven't changed much.
That's because, they say, the U.S. is a "center-right" country whose population isn't interested in those left-wing European (or even Canadian) ideas like national health care. Consider the following:
-- Jon Meacham, Newsweek editor: "It's just this side of possible that Obama will be able to govern what I believe is largely a center-right country."
-- NBC elder statesmen Tom Brokaw: "And this country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places."
-- And, not to be outdone, Republican strategist Karl Rove: "Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that." (Question for Rove: If you believe this, why were you advising John McCain to attack Obama as a terrorist and socialist?)
Of course, many of these were the same people who assured us after the 2004 election that the Republicans were on their way to building a permanent majority in Washington. But let's put aside their failures as prognosticators and ask if their premise that the U.S. is a "center-right" society is even true.
* * *
THERE ARE several ways to look at the question.
First, there is the partisan split in the electorate. Given that most mainstream commentators equate support for the Democrats with support for the "center-left," it's worth noting that the Democrats represented 39 percent of the electorate on November 5, compared to 32 percent identifying themselves as Republicans. The Associated Press called this result "the biggest partisan shift in a generation."
Beyond 2008, it's also worth noting that the Democrats have won the popular vote over the Republicans in four of the last five presidential elections.
In his review of the 2008 turnout, Curtis Gans of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate pointed out: "Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligible [voting age Americans] to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party's share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980."
If anything, this is evidence of a nation moving away from the "center-right."
Second, there are the policy preferences of Americans, as expressed in opinion polls. Here again, there isn't much support for the idea that the U.S. is comfortably "center-right." As a March 2007 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press report on social attitudes over the last twenty years explained:
Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets under way.
At the same time, many of the key trends that nurtured the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s have moderated, according to Pew's longitudinal measures of the public's basic political, social and economic values. The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly.
A Democracy Corps poll conducted after the 2008 election found that voters most consistently chose the more progressive of the two choices when they were given a "liberal" and a "conservative" description of a problem and solution on issues like trade, health care and Social Security.
When asked to list in order of priority a list of policies, voters put ones like "repealing the Bush tax cuts" for the rich, providing affordable health care and ending the war in Iraq at the top of their lists.
Third, there is the evidence from the 2008 election campaign. Despite the fact that the two parties of American business can be ideologically flexible, the contest between McCain and Obama took on some ideological tones.
Obama was fond of saying that his election would be the "final verdict" on a failed conservative philosophy. In his convention acceptance speech, he mocked the Republicans' "ownership society" idea as a cover for telling working people that "you're on your own." On the other side, McCain tried to rally his base by warning against Obama's "redistributionist" ideas--even calling Obama's proposals "socialist."
Even though McCain's attacks on Obama were based on grotesque exaggerations and fabrications, they still didn't do him any good. When the votes were tallied--even in supposed "red" states like Indiana and North Carolina--it appeared that the public chose the "socialist" Obama over the tax-cutting, anti-redistributionist McCain.
The exit polls showed that 51 percent of the voters said they wanted government "to do more" rather than less, and 76 of that group voted for Obama. In contrast, 43 percent said it thought that government was doing "too much," and 71 percent of them voted for McCain.
While these facts shouldn't lead us to conclude that the U.S. is unambiguously left-leaning, we can say for sure that they contradict the claim that the U.S. population leans to the "center right."
* * *
FOR THOSE who continue to insist that the U.S. is a "center-right" nation, at least one of these two things must be true: either they didn't observe the same election that the rest of us did; or they did observe it, and have decided to ignore it.
Of these two choices, the latter is the most likely explanation. The entire elite punditocracy that has grown up over the last two to three decades was schooled in an era of conservative dominance that has come to a close. But old habits die hard.
By the same token, many of these pundits are mouthpieces for an American ruling class that has done quite well for itself in the last political era. It has no desire to see the kind of social change and redress of inequality that millions of Americans want to see. But because advocating openly for the rich is somewhat frowned upon, they appeal to the democratic notion that social change isn't possible or desirable because the majority of Americans is predisposed against it.
Many of these voices for do-nothingism come from within the Democratic Party itself--and they are vying to define what's "possible" under an Obama administration.
Those of us who want to see fundamental social change are going to have to organize to demand it. And we would do well to ignore those who tell us "no we can't" because the U.S. is a center-right nation.
Lance Selfa writes for the Socialist Worker.
bop stitching
In my younger days, I considered the Village Voice to be required reading. But—like The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, and so many other once useful publications—I no longer find the Voice to be relevant or remotely radical. However, it’s free in NYC and I ride the subways. Thus, I’ll sometimes grab a copy to peruse as I navigate the subterranean tunnels of transportation.
I end up regretting this move…every single time.
As I thumbed through the Nov. 12-18 issue, I came across a loathsome illustration of denial masquerading as a music article. “The Pleasant Dilemma of Hamell on Trial: A post-Obama protest singer deals with victory,” by Rob Harvilla was ostensibly about protest (sic) singer Ed Hamell (a.k.a. “Hamell on Trial”) and others of his liberal ilk but ended up as yet another paean to the beloved Pope of Hope.
Harvilla describes folk singers like Hamell as “seething, cynical, sarcastic, permanently embittered, militantly radicalized leftist.” (For the myopic Harvilla “militantly radical” simply means you hate Republicans and launch crude insults at people like Ann Coulter.)
Such performers, Harvilla declares, have found the days following Obama’s election to be “jubilant but deeply confusing times, the exhilaration of We Did It now undercut by the bewilderment of What Do We Do Now?” He offers this option: “stop bitching” as he thanks god Hamell no longer has to waste his “vast” talent “just bitching about the Republicans.”
Ed Hamell, for his part, displays his staggeringly profound grasp on global politics by adding: "If he (Obama) turns all this around and I don't have to sing about it anymore, then good. I got plenty of other problems."
Plenty of other problems indeed…but first: What is “all this” and how might the Chairman of Change turn it all around? If all this means the illegal war against Iraq that began on August 6, 1990—when the murderous UN sanctions were first imposed—and continues to this day, Obama has articulated a vague plan to turn it around: shuffle off some “combat troops” to rain hell upon Afghanistan (and perhaps Pakistan and Iran) and leave behind tens of thousands of US soldiers, the largest embassy the world has ever seen, and legions of private mercenaries.
Yeah, I guess there’ll be absolutely no reason for Ed Hamell to write a new protest song when Lord Obama maintains the death penalty, the PATRIOT Act, the fence on the US-Mexican border, and the subsidizing of Israeli war crimes. Gays can’t marry, single-payer is doomed, and the third term of the Clinton administration looms…but Hamell and his militant ilk can “stop bitching” now. For posers like them, all this doesn’t seem to include the reality that blacks make up roughly 12% of the American population but constitute 40% of the death row population. It doesn’t include an obscene military budget, corporate personhood, structural adjustment programs, and NAFTA.
The Obamatrons are not pushing their hero to end any of the following either: the bogus war on a tactic, corporate welfare, homelessness, sweatshops, factory farming, strip mining, deforestation, or giving away control of public airwaves, public land, and public pensions. Ninety percent of the ocean’s large fish are gone but somehow these are “jubilant” times for those deluded denizens of the Left ready to “stop bitching.”
They’d rather bask in the toxic glow of fantasy—choosing to believe their work is done because a mainstream politician who raised $640 million is gonna turn “all this” around. These folks have tainted the very concept of radical activism and deserve nothing but our contempt.
With 200,000 acres of rainforest destroyed every 24 hours, our work cannot be viewed as anywhere close to done. Or, to borrow from Eugene V. Debs, “while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
http://www.mickeyz.net
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
Contact Author
Contact Editor
I end up regretting this move…every single time.
As I thumbed through the Nov. 12-18 issue, I came across a loathsome illustration of denial masquerading as a music article. “The Pleasant Dilemma of Hamell on Trial: A post-Obama protest singer deals with victory,” by Rob Harvilla was ostensibly about protest (sic) singer Ed Hamell (a.k.a. “Hamell on Trial”) and others of his liberal ilk but ended up as yet another paean to the beloved Pope of Hope.
Harvilla describes folk singers like Hamell as “seething, cynical, sarcastic, permanently embittered, militantly radicalized leftist.” (For the myopic Harvilla “militantly radical” simply means you hate Republicans and launch crude insults at people like Ann Coulter.)
Such performers, Harvilla declares, have found the days following Obama’s election to be “jubilant but deeply confusing times, the exhilaration of We Did It now undercut by the bewilderment of What Do We Do Now?” He offers this option: “stop bitching” as he thanks god Hamell no longer has to waste his “vast” talent “just bitching about the Republicans.”
Ed Hamell, for his part, displays his staggeringly profound grasp on global politics by adding: "If he (Obama) turns all this around and I don't have to sing about it anymore, then good. I got plenty of other problems."
Plenty of other problems indeed…but first: What is “all this” and how might the Chairman of Change turn it all around? If all this means the illegal war against Iraq that began on August 6, 1990—when the murderous UN sanctions were first imposed—and continues to this day, Obama has articulated a vague plan to turn it around: shuffle off some “combat troops” to rain hell upon Afghanistan (and perhaps Pakistan and Iran) and leave behind tens of thousands of US soldiers, the largest embassy the world has ever seen, and legions of private mercenaries.
Yeah, I guess there’ll be absolutely no reason for Ed Hamell to write a new protest song when Lord Obama maintains the death penalty, the PATRIOT Act, the fence on the US-Mexican border, and the subsidizing of Israeli war crimes. Gays can’t marry, single-payer is doomed, and the third term of the Clinton administration looms…but Hamell and his militant ilk can “stop bitching” now. For posers like them, all this doesn’t seem to include the reality that blacks make up roughly 12% of the American population but constitute 40% of the death row population. It doesn’t include an obscene military budget, corporate personhood, structural adjustment programs, and NAFTA.
The Obamatrons are not pushing their hero to end any of the following either: the bogus war on a tactic, corporate welfare, homelessness, sweatshops, factory farming, strip mining, deforestation, or giving away control of public airwaves, public land, and public pensions. Ninety percent of the ocean’s large fish are gone but somehow these are “jubilant” times for those deluded denizens of the Left ready to “stop bitching.”
They’d rather bask in the toxic glow of fantasy—choosing to believe their work is done because a mainstream politician who raised $640 million is gonna turn “all this” around. These folks have tainted the very concept of radical activism and deserve nothing but our contempt.
With 200,000 acres of rainforest destroyed every 24 hours, our work cannot be viewed as anywhere close to done. Or, to borrow from Eugene V. Debs, “while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
http://www.mickeyz.net
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
Contact Author
Contact Editor
the antoine car industry
we are hearing a lot about the auto industry. the more "progressive" of our leaders are stressing that the industry needs to be bailed out, to the tune of 50 billion dollars. yesterday, i spoke to the need of beginning the process of creating a high quality system of public transit. however, we need to do more than this. the auto industry, as we know it, should be dismantled. but we need something in its place. here is an outline of what i think would be a sane, national auto industry.
the state allows the industry as we know it to fail. it then begins the process of building an auto industry that is run collectively by the auto workers, who will now work for the state. the workers will be given a set of guidelines on building an environmentally friendly, cost efficient car. the industry will eliminate the billions of dollars that are wasted on advertising. it will not produce suv's and other wasteful cars. it will not produce luxury items to go with the cars, which are a waste of money and production time. the industry will produce hybrids, electrics, and a higher gpm rate than the current levels. the industry will limit production, due to the climate crisis. as an integral part of the new industry, a new taxi industry will be created, which will incorporate aspects from our current taxi system, and zip cars. drivers would be hired by the state and paid a living wage to drive passengers to the destinations of their choice. a system could be installed which measured the amount of gas used on the ride, and that coupled with a reasonable tip, could be asked of the passenger. if a person prefers to drive themselves, then a car could be made available free of charge for a reasonable amount of time, with the person only responsible for the cost of gas. people using this service would be encouraged to go out as groups, hence renting vans or small busses that could transport several people at once. this would be a more environmentally sound way to travel by car. people will be encouraged to car pool, to reduce car ownership, and to walk, use public transit, and ride bikes. we could learn a lot from how yugoslavia used to produce their cars; an affordable, generic vehicle that got the people from point a to point b. of course, the u.s., under the leadership of many of the people who are now attaining positions within the obama administration, bombed the factory that produced these cars. our media, instead of condemning this illegal assault against yugoslavia's industry, preferred to mock the cars themselves.
israel has banned all food and medical shipments to the gaza strip. this is of course, patently illegal and a gross violation of human rights, but because israel is doing it, this rather simple point will not be made in respectable quarters. it is an outrage, and in a just world, israeli leaders would be tried and convicted of crimes against humanity.
a drone without a pilot bombed pakistan again, killing 12 people. the globe states "us drones fired missiles into a pakistani tribal region today, killing 12 people, including five foreigners, in an area known as a stronghold of pakistani taliban commander baitullah mehsud, pakistani officials said." so, i guess if five foreigners were killed, than seven pakistanis were killed. and by the way, so what if five of the people killed were foreigners? does that justify our bombing them? if pakistan bombed an american city and killed 12 people, five of whom were mexican immigrants, would that justify the bombing? they tell us the area is known as a strong hold of pakistani taliban commander baitullah mehsud. well, washington dc is an area that is known as a stronghold of george bush, the man responsible for the bombing of pakistan. does that mean dc should be bombed, which would surely lead to the deaths of poor black citizens, most of whom hate bush? i was hopeful the globe would ask these questions, but was saddened to find that they were not touched upon.
well, i guess there is always sports.
though the nba on tnt is now sponsored by the marines.
does that mean the taliban can target the boston garden?
the state allows the industry as we know it to fail. it then begins the process of building an auto industry that is run collectively by the auto workers, who will now work for the state. the workers will be given a set of guidelines on building an environmentally friendly, cost efficient car. the industry will eliminate the billions of dollars that are wasted on advertising. it will not produce suv's and other wasteful cars. it will not produce luxury items to go with the cars, which are a waste of money and production time. the industry will produce hybrids, electrics, and a higher gpm rate than the current levels. the industry will limit production, due to the climate crisis. as an integral part of the new industry, a new taxi industry will be created, which will incorporate aspects from our current taxi system, and zip cars. drivers would be hired by the state and paid a living wage to drive passengers to the destinations of their choice. a system could be installed which measured the amount of gas used on the ride, and that coupled with a reasonable tip, could be asked of the passenger. if a person prefers to drive themselves, then a car could be made available free of charge for a reasonable amount of time, with the person only responsible for the cost of gas. people using this service would be encouraged to go out as groups, hence renting vans or small busses that could transport several people at once. this would be a more environmentally sound way to travel by car. people will be encouraged to car pool, to reduce car ownership, and to walk, use public transit, and ride bikes. we could learn a lot from how yugoslavia used to produce their cars; an affordable, generic vehicle that got the people from point a to point b. of course, the u.s., under the leadership of many of the people who are now attaining positions within the obama administration, bombed the factory that produced these cars. our media, instead of condemning this illegal assault against yugoslavia's industry, preferred to mock the cars themselves.
israel has banned all food and medical shipments to the gaza strip. this is of course, patently illegal and a gross violation of human rights, but because israel is doing it, this rather simple point will not be made in respectable quarters. it is an outrage, and in a just world, israeli leaders would be tried and convicted of crimes against humanity.
a drone without a pilot bombed pakistan again, killing 12 people. the globe states "us drones fired missiles into a pakistani tribal region today, killing 12 people, including five foreigners, in an area known as a stronghold of pakistani taliban commander baitullah mehsud, pakistani officials said." so, i guess if five foreigners were killed, than seven pakistanis were killed. and by the way, so what if five of the people killed were foreigners? does that justify our bombing them? if pakistan bombed an american city and killed 12 people, five of whom were mexican immigrants, would that justify the bombing? they tell us the area is known as a strong hold of pakistani taliban commander baitullah mehsud. well, washington dc is an area that is known as a stronghold of george bush, the man responsible for the bombing of pakistan. does that mean dc should be bombed, which would surely lead to the deaths of poor black citizens, most of whom hate bush? i was hopeful the globe would ask these questions, but was saddened to find that they were not touched upon.
well, i guess there is always sports.
though the nba on tnt is now sponsored by the marines.
does that mean the taliban can target the boston garden?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
