hope?

I have to admit something: although I have been public in my support of Obama through the election, I was not sure I really trusted him. I liked him, for sure. Having a president who was presentable and articulate would be a nice change, and I suspected that he would be a better president than #43 (but then again, a dead vole would be better). But trust him?

I had been burned before. I voted for Clinton the first time, largely because I thought the idea of universal health care was a good one. Should the ability to be healthy...to NOT DIE...be the exclusive right of those with lots of money? That didn't (and still does not) seem right. So the failure of Clinton to pursue...hell, their total abandonment of health care in general really stung. Although lots of good things did come out of those 8 years, I lost my ability to really trust politicians.

So, while I loved the rhetoric of Obama, and I definitely thought he was better than the McCain/lunatic governor ticket, I'm not sure I fully trusted him. Secretly, I was expecting the same "great run to the center" as Clinton, where many campaign promises get thrown out.

So, what has happened in the first week?

• Guantanamo Bay has been closed. If we really are a great country, do we need a secret place offshore where we can keep prisoners outside of American scrutiny, where we can hold people forever without charges, facts, evidence? America should not need to sneak around in the dark if we are as much of a force for good as we think.
  
• Also, Obama has officially banned the use of torture. This is definitely an issue of morality, to be sure, and I really didn't like being a part of a country that had to stoop to such awful methods. But there is another concern: torture simply does not work. To quote the last linked article:
  

  
  

  Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.
  

  
  
• Also,he has ended the funding ban on overseas abortion groups. Now, no matter how you feel about abortion, it is in fact legal in America. And by banning all funding for overseas family planning clinics who offer abortion as an option, the government was unjustly interfering with the rights of Americans living overseas (mostly military) by denying them rights available to the average citizen. Unlike many so-called conservative pundits, I'm really against the government specifically robbing US citizens of their rights.
  

There is a ton of stuff for which I'm still waiting, of course. I still want habeas corpus reinstated, because I don't like the idea that I can be locked away without ever being charged. I still want some movement on civil unions/marriages for gays, because I hate the idea of a large segment of our population being denied basic human rights just because of their choice of partners. I still want some good solution to the Palestine/Israel war, because, as we've had such a large hand in this conflict, we need to be part of the solution. I still need to see the US regain all the international stature we've lost and quit being seen as a power-hungry bully. The US also has to take the lead on working to preserve rather than poison our environment. I don't like the government having the power to covertly go through my private records on a whim. The list goes on.

But, for the first time, I am hopeful...and that is a really nice feeling.

PS: Obama also revives the Freedom of Information Act. Best line? "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails." Cool.

this is your charge, America

Please, oh country that I love, do not screw this up.

there goes our freedom

Joining habeas corpus as a basic right taken away from us is our rights to privacy and free speech. This afternoon our president appointee will sign into law a law that gives official sanction to wiretapping on American citizens.

Thanks, prez. Thanks, congress. Anything else about our constitution that you wanna eliminate?

where's my gub'ment handout?

Today, I finally got my welfare check. You know, the thing that our glorious leaders call the 2008 Economic Stimulus check? By any other name, though, it's welfare, but our glorious leader (yes, the repeated Boris & Natasha reference is on purpose) cannot call it that and still think of himself as a conservative...although when you think of it, anyone who expands government, starts two wars, and increases government intrusion into the lives of citizens (thanks, Patriot Act) cannot really be conserving anything.

End soap box moment.

Anyway, I've been thinking of the best ways to spend our welfare check. Part of me wants to follow some great liberal stereotype. Why not? I've felt like a stereotypical liberal waiting for the damn thing to arrive ("where's my free money?"), but it would be more fun to use it to induce a stereotypically racially-other welfare mother to not get a job or something like that. However, I really didn't get that much money. What other options exist? I thought about hookers and blow, but that's more Republican than Democrat, isn't it?

Ideally, I would like to donate it to some worthy charity. Hell, I'm of the mind that instead of cutting everyone a check, we should've used the money to build solid levees around New Orleans or maybe even houses. This would've stimulated the economy and done some good at the same time, but I guess my government thought that landlords, gas station owners, and other elites needed a few c-notes more than did the devastated Katrina survivors.

In the end, though, I'm probably not going to do anything more fun than satiate my own creditors. Oh well...poverty wins out over idealism.

now he definitely has my vote

You want another reason to like Obama? How about him drinking PBR and being a good tipper?

a quick link before I return to work

Been meaning to link to this open letter to Obama from a friend's blog. Late on my part but still relevant.

N'awlins

I've been working on a paper dealing with the media, New Orleans, and Katrina. For a while, I've been waiting to view When the Levees Broke...I've been backed up on work, but mainly, I've known this would be a very hard watch.

I'm not even halfway through it so far, and I've lost count on how many times I've wanted to hit someone. I am so mad, frustrated, and shaking angry at so many people. The only thing that's more overwhelming is the amount of times I've been horrified or broke down in tears.

My hatred of our current federal administration is at a new high, and I sincerely hope that people pay for their horrible inefficiency, disdain, and utter uncaring stupidity. This is one of the most powerful television events I've ever experienced.

Update: 3:40 into this, and my god, someone make me laugh, please.

on race and hope

For the first time since I can remember, I'm excited about the presidential election.

The first president I remember was Carter, and I really don't remember too much about him. I have lots of memories about Reagan, because I started to become aware of the importance of government by that time...but that's a topic for my book, not the blog. I was not old enough to vote for Bush I, and to tell you the truth, I have no idea where I would've went with that one...it's not like Dukakis inspired great loyalty, after all. On the other hand, I did get to see the marvelous economic effects of the Bush I presidency, so it's not like I have an abundance of love for him either.

I did vote for Clinton both times. The first time, it was in part because I saw the economic devastation of Bush I first hand, but the biggest reason was frankly that I wanted health insurance. I voted for Clinton the second time because as bitter as I was about the health insurance debacle, he still seemed less deadly than Dole.

Al Gore got my vote, but that one was a toughie. Gore ran without a doubt one of the worst possible campaigns I could imagine. How can you distance yourself from a president with one of the highest approval ratings ever? But he was no Bush II, and that was enough for me...although I had to have a shot of bourbon after voting to get the taste out of my mouth.

Kerry was also hard, because he was such a charisma void and an idiot to boot. However, by this time, I saw the damage Bush II could do, and I would vote for anyone who could prevent our great country from turning into an overly moralistic bully. We all know how that one turned out, though.

This time, however, I feel really good about the election, and that's mostly because of Barak Obama. I used to wonder what it would be like to vote for someone you actually believed in, who wanted to be president for all the right reasons, who made sense and had obviously weighed out all sides of an issue--morally, politically, ethically, practically.

I like Obama so much, I went out and campaigned for him on the day of the state primary. For those who know me, you realize how hard it is for me to approach and interact with total strangers, so this was not easy. I wanted to be a part, however, and I wanted to know that I did everything I could to help in this movement.

In this, I was largely inspired by a friend, who was very instrumental in the BG Obama campaign. Also, my in-laws drove in and did campaigning the week before the primary.

Today, Obama finally addressed the 500 pound gorilla in the room...race. After all, when you have the first black man ever to be a serious candidate, race is obviously an issue in some regard. On his website, there's a video and a transcript of his speech entitled "A More Perfect Union." It is perhaps one of the more lucid, eloquent, intelligent, and hopeful takes on race in America I've ever heard. It shows a grace and spark which I've never before seen out of a politician.

It's also a good reason why I, for the first time in ages, have real hope for our country.

on identity and hubba-hubba flicks

Wired continues its run as one of the best magazines around. They just posted a very intriguing article called "Deaf Porn Gives Viewers an Eye-Opener."

I find this interesting. The porn industry has always been on a weird sort of cutting edge. If there's a new media technology out there, chances are that the porn industry is among the first to take advantage of it. Many people argue that videocassette players really only saturated the home market because of porn. I've also read that porn is largely responsible for the push of broadband internet access.

Now, however, porn is being used as a tool of a minority group...and, if I'm reading the interview right, this is more than just "someone's finally catering to us as a group"...which would be weird enough, because I really doubt that having subtitles is really that enlightening to anything other than how stupid the dialog normally can be. This reminds me of when Trio used to be on DirecTV and played classic porn with all the dirty stuff cut out under the name "Good Clean Porn"; it is admittedly entertaining, but only in a B-Movie kind of way, and there's a limited market for that kind of stuff, the continuing success of Steven Seagal aside.

No, porn here is being used as a tool of enlightenment. The company founder makes his goals explicit: "The fact that we are marketing porn with a "disability" actually invites people to discover what we're about."

I'm torn. Is the goal here to gain mainstream acceptance for their group? If so, could having their own brand of pornography really do that? Or is this just going to further mark them as a separate group? Could they instead be pushing themselves as a fetish group? If so, is this a positive step for deaf America?

I like to tell my students that you should be willing to analyze anything and think about anything in depth, that they should take everything seriously as a subject for pondering. And I am glad that I get to think more about deafness as a social group, and the community building versus mainstream acceptance is a debate well worth considering. However, I just never thought that debate would be prompted by a company that produces titles like Naughty Deaf Roommates.

Yes, the world is more complex than anyone would imagine. Porn is just exhibit one.

do not, NOT elect this moron

Republican presidential candidate/police state fascist claims that there will be a "new 9/11" if Democrats win the presidency.

I swear, I will move to Canada and become a Toronto hot dog vendor if this guy becomes president.

warming up to the truth

I'm sitting in my home office, looking at the massive Ohio snowfall. So far, we've hit 1/4" for the year. My first year in Ohio, I was hit by a 10" blizzard right on New Years. This year, I"ve only had to break out my thick jacket once so far. This clearly is not right.

Personal experience tells me that this whole global warming thing is definitely not a myth. The research backs all this up. The vast majority of scientists at the American Meteorological Society agree that global warming is caused by human pollution.

Personally, I think that global warming is the nuclear war of the 21st century.

Our president seems uncertain, however, and many people who don"t think these things out on their own and just parrot his language like to avoid the evidence and research. This scares me, and you see this manifest in the tremendous number of high rise pickups, humvees, and minivans on the road.

You know what cares me the most, though, is an article from Reuters that outlines how a coalition of major corporations (including Alcoa, General Electric, and DuPont) are petitioning W. Bush to tighten environmental standards. Even major companies are willing to go through major regulation and expense? Global warming must be worse and more imminent than we thought.

Break out your speedos, because those oceans are rising!

John McCain Wants To Regulate Blogs

from MetaFilter at http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/57002

Senator John McCain (R. - AZ) has introduced legislation that would hold blogs responsible for all activity in their comments sections and user profiles. Provisions of the proposed bill include: (1) commercial websites and personal blogs "would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000," (2) bloggers with comment sections may face "even stiffer penalties" than ISPs, and (3) any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender. "Because 'social-networking site' isn't defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites." The list could include any site that allows comments, authot and personal profiles. Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that this proposal may be based more "on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts." "McCain’s legislation could deal a serious blow to the blogosphere. Lacking resources to police their sites, many individual blogs may have to shut down open discussion."*

My take: I think it's interesting that McCain is justifying limiting freedom of speech in the name of "saving the children." This man is becoming more and more conservative by the day.

I pull my shirt off and pray...

Today is election day in the US. For all of our sakes, get out there and vote.

The number to keep handy is 1-866-OUR-VOTE, which goes to The National Campaign for Fair Elections. Please keep an eye out for any irregularities in the election proceedings. Anything out of the ordinary, call them.

You want news on the election? Check out BBC News's site...they're generally fairly unbiased on such matters.

PBS funding Elimination

I wouldn't normally quote a full article at length, but the one below is from a reputable source and is so disturbing, it warrants a wide distribution. If this disturbs you at all (and it should), please go to MoveOn and sign their petition. And get your friends to do the same.

From The Washington Post

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House

Panel Seeks to End CPB's Funding Within 2 Years

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 10, 2005; Page A01

A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster."

In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which passes federal funds to public broadcasters -- starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.

In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue.

Expressing alarm, public broadcasters and their supporters in Congress interpreted the move as an escalation of a Republican-led campaign against a perceived liberal bias in their programming. That effort was initiated by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's own chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson.

"Americans overwhelmingly see public broadcasting as an unbiased information source," Rep. David Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said in a statement. "Perhaps that's what the GOP finds so offensive about it. Republican leaders are trying to bring every facet of the federal government under their control. . . . Now they are trying to put their ideological stamp on public broadcasting."

But the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services, and education asserted that the panel was simply making choices among various worthy government programs, and that no political message was intended.

The subcommittee's action, which came on a voice vote, doesn't necessarily put Big Bird on the Endangered Species List. House members could restore funding as the appropriations bill moves along or, more likely, when the House and Senate meet to reconcile budget legislation later this year. The Senate has traditionally been a stronger ally of public broadcasting than the House, whose former speaker, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), waged a high-profile but ultimately unsuccessful campaign to "zero out" funding for the CPB a decade ago.

The cuts nevertheless surprised people in public broadcasting. In his budget sent to Congress in February, President Bush had recommended reducing CPB's budget only slightly.

Several denounced the decision by the panel, which has 10 Republicans and seven Democrats, as payback by a Republican-dominated House after years of complaints from conservatives who see liberal bias in programs carried by the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Broadcasters noted, for example, that the 25 percent cutback in next year's CPB budget was a rollback of money that Congress had promised in 2004.

PBS, in particular, drew harsh criticism in December from the Bush administration for a "Postcards From Buster" episode in which Buster, an animated rabbit, "visited" two families in Vermont headed by lesbians. And programming on both PBS and NPR has come under fire in recent months from Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the CPB, who has pushed for greater "balance" on the public airwaves.

A spokeswoman for NPR, Andi Sporkin, directly blamed Tomlinson for yesterday's action, saying, "We've never been sure of Mr. Tomlinson's intent but, with this news, we might be seeing his effect."

Tomlinson did not return calls seeking comment. In a statement, he said, "Obviously, we are concerned [by the cuts], and we will be joining with our colleagues in the public broadcasting community to make the case for a higher level of funding as the appropriations measure makes its way through Congress."

John Lawson, the president of the Association of Public Television Stations, a Washington-based group that lobbies for public broadcasters, called the subcommittee's action "at least malicious wounding, if not outright attempted murder, of public broadcasting in America." He added, "This action could deprive tens of millions of American children of commercial-free educational programming."

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), the subcommittee's chairman, said the cuts had nothing to do with dissatisfaction over public radio or TV programs. "It's pretty simple," he said in an interview. "The thinking was, there's not enough money for everything. There are 'must-do,' 'need-to-do' and 'nice-to-do' programs that we have to pay for. [Public broadcasting] is somewhere between a 'need-to-do' and a 'nice-to-do.' "

The subcommittee had to decide, he said, on cutting money for public broadcasting or cutting college grants, special education, worker retraining and health care programs. "No one's out to get" public broadcasting, Regula said. "It's not punitive in any way."

In fact, none of the Republican members of the subcommittee publicly denounced public radio or TV funding at yesterday's markup. Public broadcasting drew supportive statements from Obey and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.).

Regula suggested public stations could "make do" without federal money by getting more funding from private sources, such as contributions from corporations, foundations, and listeners and viewers.

But the loss of $23.4 million in federal funds for children's educational shows -- which PBS calls its "Ready to Learn" programs -- could mean the elimination of these programs, said an official at Alexandria-based PBS who asked not to be named because the network still hopes to regain the funding. PBS's revenue totaled $333 million in fiscal year 2004.

The Ready to Learn group includes "Sesame Street," "Dragontales," "Clifford" and "Arthur," among others.

The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format.

Small public radio stations, particularly those in rural areas and those serving minority audiences, may be the most vulnerable to federal cuts because they currently operate on shoestring budgets.

"This could literally put us out of business," said Paul Stankavich, president and general manager of the Alaska Public Radio Network, an alliance of 26 stations in the state that create and share news programming. "Almost all of us are down to the bone right now. If we lost 5 or 10 percent of our budgets in one fell swoop, we could end up being just a repeater service" for national news, with no funds to produce local content.

Stankavich, who also runs a public radio and TV station in Anchorage, said public radio is "an important source of news in urban areas, but it's life-critical in rural areas," especially in far-flung parts of Alaska unserved by any other broadcast medium.

new measures of political and economic stability

So when I told my leader at work (a nice 18 year old, about whom I have some good stories) that I was leaving, he told me that he was happy for me, but he could never understand just what I was doing there in the first place when I should have a real, good job. We then talked about the guy who dresses up as one of our zoo mascots (hate to blow it for the kiddies out there, but he's KC the Polar Bear), because he is a computer programmer (nice guy, too). Mr. Polar Bear is in the same boat as me; he too should have suitable employment. I then told my leader that my wonderful wife has an MA in Higher Ed Administration and is working as a bank teller.

Y'ever heard of the phrase "organic intellectual?" Well, my leader suprised me by showing some hints of being one himself. He told me that him and his friend (also 18, a nice guy, works at the zoo, and looks suspiciously like Carlito Carribean Cool) have talked about this, and that they have concluded that you can tell when the economy of our fair country is in trouble because the zoo gets drastically better employees. When the economy is actually doing good, they are stuck with high school brats only. When things start going down the crapper, they get smart people who should be working somewhere else.

When I was in the midst of my great tenure at Little Caesar Pizzas in management, we of course noticed this as well. When Bush Mark I was prez, things were bad because we had lotsa college students and ex-military working for us. It was really great as an assistant manager to know that you had workers who understood you actually had to work at work ("If it wasn't work, they wouldn't call it work...they'd call it super-happy funtime"...Red Foreman) instead of being ignorant high school punks who only were trying to goof off and get in the pants of our countergirls. When the economy improved, though, you could feel the IQ inside a Little Caesars drop like the air pressure. Good economy, moron workers.

I wish I could've taped my conversation with my leader so I could play it for my classes, because it demonstrated a great principle which we talk about in class...that of the "reserve labor force." It is (the Marxist thought goes) in the best interest of those in control of the means of production (the rich, the business owners) to keep employment rates and the level of satisfaction of the general public at a fairly low level. By doing so, people will be happy to get and keep whatever crap job they have, and the worker pool will be large...this works out to the advantage of the rich because they can hire only the good people, and those good workers can't give too much crap to their bosses about their awful working conditions because there are people lined up waiting for those awful jobs.

Again, the zoo bears this out. When I applied for the job, it was at the zoo's job fair. It was scheduled to run from 9 to 1. I got there at 10:30. I didn't get out until 12:30. There were 500 people who showed up that day, all for (mind you) $6/hour employment. In a real economy, this wouldn't be happening. But it makes you realize that the powers that have to hire must start licking their chops when the economy goes in the tank or whenever there's mass layoffs. That's why WalMart loves going into towns where every other industry is dying, because they can get the best workers and hold out the hope of staying at those low-paying, soul-destroying jobs over the heads of those workers...so the former assemblyline foreman better be thankful of his Greeter job and not raise any ruckus.

I swear, the more exposure I have to lower-class life and work, the worse it makes me feel about the world...and the more it makes me feel like a pseudo-Marxist/socialist myself. At the very least, I understand those viewpoints a whole lot better.

So, if I was running a news organization (online, radio, whatever), I would go around and talk to the people who do the hiring at corporations and anyone who works in HR. If they are happy with their employee base, there must be something wrong with the world somewhere.

Lesson? It is good for the populace when the rich suffer. When they are happy, watch out.

Or am I getting swept away into bitterness over my own low wage potential?

clever students pt. 1

One of my Ethnic Studies students, before the final exam, came up with the most clever metaphor for American history I've heard in a while. American history, he said, is like a big game of immigrant whack-a-mole. The powers-that-be wield the hammer. Indians pop up? Whack! Irish? Whack! Blacks? Chinese? Whack, whack!

It was one of the most clever things I've heard a student say in a long time. For a second, I was tempted to give him an "A" just for that comment...but only for a second. If I could remember his name, I would tell ya.

Incidentally, here's a java whack-a-mole game.

magnetism

Finally, a car "I want to show my political affiliation" magnet that cuts to the heart of the issue: the Bush Fish. While there is a lot negative to say about this line of thinking, at least they're finally being honest...

Red Dawn

On an e-mail list I'm on (Postcard From Hell), there is been a thread about the film Red Dawn, and I couldn't be happier. Those of you who know about my Red Dawn addiction will know that I seemingly hold this film in greater respect than most people...I want to rehabilitate it, to use Stalinist (?) terminology.

Anyway, someone posted a piece on _Red Dawn_ from TruthOut.org called "Iraqui's Red Dawn" (available hre, but you may have to scroll down some), relating the film to our current war du jour. It's worthy of a read.

Fave Red Dawn story: a girl I knew my first year in Bowling Green was from Lithuania, and I managed to get her (among others) to come back to my house to watch Red Dawn before hitting the bars. She couldn't believe the level of paranoia exhibited. Plus she said the Russian speech was bad.