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.