Hegemony
Keep it down, don't rant and rave.
What is it that your love saves?
"Normal" means to be the same.
Why not try to play the game?
Growing up, don't question God.
"He exists" they say, so nod.
Parents always know what's right,
even when their grip's too tight.
When the rabble's closing in
be a Hamiltonian.
Go to war like they command:
at all costs protect your brand.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ironic Threats: A Look At The Left
(Note: I plan to come back to this and add the sources, but I think you can find most of these quotes very quickly with a Google search.)
It may just be the hunter/gatherer in me trying to spot the stripes on the tiger before it eats me, but I'm confident there is something of a pattern to the way the Western press (and perhaps others as well) deal with ideological threats. I have only a few direct examples, but technology today allows another interesting way to approach this, which I'll get to later on in this post.
The first example is an opinion piece written by one Flora Lewis on the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. She reported how he conceptualized society as having the "civil" and the "political" realms, and considered it ironic that a Communist, or perhaps a jailed Communist, should be the one to "bring the notion into modern political usage." She then went on to excoriate his descriptions of American society by paraphrasing the 10th Amendment:
This is only half true. The 10th Amendment states that the powers are to be given either to the state governments or the people.
I'm going to stop here to say that I hope to get through all my examples before I attempt to deconstruct the disagreement, for the sake of coherence. However, I'd like to come back to this article later because I feel the same way about Lewis as she feels about Gramsci, and I think I understand her about the same as she does him. When I understand it more, I'll post about it.
The next example also involves the New York Times, and another prominent leftist: Emma Goldman. As described in the book Emma Goldman: Life in Exile, she denounced Bolshevism as "rotten" and
Though the word never appears, it's probably safe to say that we are to understand that it is the irony of her statement that adds the "vividness... of the horrors of the dictated proletariat." This treatment was enough for her to warn her friend "not to believe what she read in the newspapers." It is not mentioned in the book whether the Times was polite enough to note that she had the chance to witness the horrors because of the U.S. government's policy of deporting radicals.
Gramsci's alleged failure to see the true workings of American society and Goldman's descriptions as mere additions to "vividness" of a picture that was already known suggest an unspoken rule that reporting leftist's opinions as ironic and incomplete is preferable to calling it truth.
I have one more example of this. Relatively recently, The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg, a man A Tiny Revolution's Jonathan Schwarz calls "America's preeminent propagandist," interviewed Fidel Castro. He told Goldberg that even his model was not enough to deal with the situation at hand, that Iran was not to be expected to back down, and that he was not given much more than anti-Semitic opinions as a description of the Jewish religion as a child. It seemed that one of the most notorious "Latin" Communists had just denounced Communism and taken the side of the Jews (that's a weirdly worded sentence, it is not as severe as it first seems). This prompted "surprise" from the Jerusalem Post, and widespread gloating in the rest of the press, causing Castro to comment further that Goldberg missed the irony of his remarks. It was not that capitalism will save us, he said, but that capitalism is so destructive, it will take more than the Cuban model to save humanity.
If these examples don't at least hint at a stark divide in ideology and a petty game of one-upsmanship, then I really don't have anything to say. But I see that here. What I think we are witnessing, dare I say ironically, is cultural hegemony in practice. Seeing a threat as ironic allows one to see humor, and therefore to not be afraid. Laughing at others, and even oneself, can be seen as an expression of superiority.
I'd like to finally get to the other way to look at this rule -- using the Google News Archive timeline-search function. Adding "ironic" to "communist" and "terrorist" highlights certain times of ideological upheaval in the West. You can see the Red Scares and Reagan's presidency lining up with "communist" and his declaration of the "war" against terrorism, the First Gulf War and the World Trade Center attacks prompting the understanding of that particular threat as ironic as well. On top of that, it seems that the term actually highlights these dates much more than the ideological labels by themselves. The task at hand, along with understanding these differences of opinion, might be to anticipate who the next bogeymen will be. It will be easy -- just look for someone being called ironic.
It may just be the hunter/gatherer in me trying to spot the stripes on the tiger before it eats me, but I'm confident there is something of a pattern to the way the Western press (and perhaps others as well) deal with ideological threats. I have only a few direct examples, but technology today allows another interesting way to approach this, which I'll get to later on in this post.
The first example is an opinion piece written by one Flora Lewis on the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. She reported how he conceptualized society as having the "civil" and the "political" realms, and considered it ironic that a Communist, or perhaps a jailed Communist, should be the one to "bring the notion into modern political usage." She then went on to excoriate his descriptions of American society by paraphrasing the 10th Amendment:
The American experience offers little help in analyzing the dilemma because Americans started with a different concept of the state. Gramsci got the U.S. approach all wrong. He said it hadn't ''emerged from the economic-corporate phase which Europe passed through in the Middle Ages - in other words [ it ] has not yet created a conception of the world or a group of great intellectuals to lead the people within the ambit of civil society.''
He failed to see that in the American concept, society reserves for itself all that is not expressly delegated to the state, not the other way around. Government is to be defined by its limits; it has only the powers conceded to it.
This is only half true. The 10th Amendment states that the powers are to be given either to the state governments or the people.
I'm going to stop here to say that I hope to get through all my examples before I attempt to deconstruct the disagreement, for the sake of coherence. However, I'd like to come back to this article later because I feel the same way about Lewis as she feels about Gramsci, and I think I understand her about the same as she does him. When I understand it more, I'll post about it.
The next example also involves the New York Times, and another prominent leftist: Emma Goldman. As described in the book Emma Goldman: Life in Exile, she denounced Bolshevism as "rotten" and
the American press reveled in reports about her disillusionment; [...] the New York Times, for example, regularly printed squibs about her alleged change of heart, while gloating editorially that "it does add a bitter vividness to our conception of the horrors of the dictated proletariat to think that even she finds them intolerable."
Though the word never appears, it's probably safe to say that we are to understand that it is the irony of her statement that adds the "vividness... of the horrors of the dictated proletariat." This treatment was enough for her to warn her friend "not to believe what she read in the newspapers." It is not mentioned in the book whether the Times was polite enough to note that she had the chance to witness the horrors because of the U.S. government's policy of deporting radicals.
Gramsci's alleged failure to see the true workings of American society and Goldman's descriptions as mere additions to "vividness" of a picture that was already known suggest an unspoken rule that reporting leftist's opinions as ironic and incomplete is preferable to calling it truth.
I have one more example of this. Relatively recently, The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg, a man A Tiny Revolution's Jonathan Schwarz calls "America's preeminent propagandist," interviewed Fidel Castro. He told Goldberg that even his model was not enough to deal with the situation at hand, that Iran was not to be expected to back down, and that he was not given much more than anti-Semitic opinions as a description of the Jewish religion as a child. It seemed that one of the most notorious "Latin" Communists had just denounced Communism and taken the side of the Jews (that's a weirdly worded sentence, it is not as severe as it first seems). This prompted "surprise" from the Jerusalem Post, and widespread gloating in the rest of the press, causing Castro to comment further that Goldberg missed the irony of his remarks. It was not that capitalism will save us, he said, but that capitalism is so destructive, it will take more than the Cuban model to save humanity.
If these examples don't at least hint at a stark divide in ideology and a petty game of one-upsmanship, then I really don't have anything to say. But I see that here. What I think we are witnessing, dare I say ironically, is cultural hegemony in practice. Seeing a threat as ironic allows one to see humor, and therefore to not be afraid. Laughing at others, and even oneself, can be seen as an expression of superiority.
I'd like to finally get to the other way to look at this rule -- using the Google News Archive timeline-search function. Adding "ironic" to "communist" and "terrorist" highlights certain times of ideological upheaval in the West. You can see the Red Scares and Reagan's presidency lining up with "communist" and his declaration of the "war" against terrorism, the First Gulf War and the World Trade Center attacks prompting the understanding of that particular threat as ironic as well. On top of that, it seems that the term actually highlights these dates much more than the ideological labels by themselves. The task at hand, along with understanding these differences of opinion, might be to anticipate who the next bogeymen will be. It will be easy -- just look for someone being called ironic.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Two More Poems
Tao
Truths are close to lies, we feel,
when they don't let us feel secure.
Lies live on through comforting.
Most happy truths do not endure.
Honest Men we think care not
the way we feel when we converse.
Compliments then feel quite good,
but bad news ends up being worse.
Symbols lie more oft than not,
but by themselves they are not bad.
Use them to suggest what is,
save truths to make a soul less sad.
Better not to know at all,
you'll be more social in the end.
Truth feels better when it's fresh
and spoken by an honest friend.
Small things
Were we once God?
This thing might have once been us.
Perhaps it was and we were not.
This little thing:
I suppose it's flammable.
but what good could its fire bring?
Me, it can't trust.
I would rather stub my toe
than grieve over a piece of dust.
Perhaps I will
make a garden for the speck
and see if it tries to rebel.
Perhaps it was and we were not.
This little thing:
I suppose it's flammable.
but what good could its fire bring?
Me, it can't trust.
I would rather stub my toe
than grieve over a piece of dust.
Perhaps I will
make a garden for the speck
and see if it tries to rebel.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Two Recent Poems Of Mine
Wrote these over the last few days. Was meditating on hate vs. understanding and ignorance vs. hope.
The con-artist's trap is a noose to the cynic
who will try it on safely while he stands on two feet.
To understand his position is all he is after,
but his enemy measures the price of deceit:
"If you admit that it fits, you can have it for free,
though we'll both profit more should you choose to jump."
All he wants to know is what size will fit all,
and to do this he must find out whose neck is most plump.
The cynic defies him by heaving a sigh,
keeping hidden inside him his very last breath.
Without any air, his neck loses its size,
and he feigns a display of disgraceful death.
The con-artist watches the cynic go pale:
"How easy it is to fool those with false hope!"
But the cynic's alive and more happy than ever
since he knows he has shortened the con-artist's rope.
I once thought I swam with sharks
while I did laps in the pool.
I once thought that every teacher
lived right there at the school.
I once thought magicians were mean
when they asked "Is this your card?"
I once thought I could use The Force
if I just tried real hard.
I once thought I was a Nihilist
but I only fled remorse.
I once thought I'd ignore my conscience
but it got confused and hoarse.
I once thought that "hammiedowns"
described the clothes I wore.
I once thought that my parents
never ever swore.
I once thought that watching Barney
was the pinnacle of shame.
I once thought to tease a red-head
was only just a game.
I once thought that my pen-pal was
just one more piece of ass.
I once thought she'd wait some more
for us to meet at last.
I once thought the best sound there was
was my own dad's guffaw.
I once thought that all Republicans
loved to chew on straw.
I once thought all drug users
should be told what to do.
I once thought that cannabis
was really bad for you.
I once thought that teenagers
all lived life to the max.
I once thought The New York Times
could only print the facts.
I once thought that "lip-to-lip"
was more heartfelt than a "kiss."
Guess that proverb's mostly true in saying,
"ignorance is bliss."
The Con-Artist And The Cynic
The con-artist's trap is a noose to the cynic
who will try it on safely while he stands on two feet.
To understand his position is all he is after,
but his enemy measures the price of deceit:
"If you admit that it fits, you can have it for free,
though we'll both profit more should you choose to jump."
All he wants to know is what size will fit all,
and to do this he must find out whose neck is most plump.
The cynic defies him by heaving a sigh,
keeping hidden inside him his very last breath.
Without any air, his neck loses its size,
and he feigns a display of disgraceful death.
The con-artist watches the cynic go pale:
"How easy it is to fool those with false hope!"
But the cynic's alive and more happy than ever
since he knows he has shortened the con-artist's rope.
I Once Thought...
I once thought I swam with sharks
while I did laps in the pool.
I once thought that every teacher
lived right there at the school.
I once thought magicians were mean
when they asked "Is this your card?"
I once thought I could use The Force
if I just tried real hard.
I once thought I was a Nihilist
but I only fled remorse.
I once thought I'd ignore my conscience
but it got confused and hoarse.
I once thought that "hammiedowns"
described the clothes I wore.
I once thought that my parents
never ever swore.
I once thought that watching Barney
was the pinnacle of shame.
I once thought to tease a red-head
was only just a game.
I once thought that my pen-pal was
just one more piece of ass.
I once thought she'd wait some more
for us to meet at last.
I once thought the best sound there was
was my own dad's guffaw.
I once thought that all Republicans
loved to chew on straw.
I once thought all drug users
should be told what to do.
I once thought that cannabis
was really bad for you.
I once thought that teenagers
all lived life to the max.
I once thought The New York Times
could only print the facts.
I once thought that "lip-to-lip"
was more heartfelt than a "kiss."
Guess that proverb's mostly true in saying,
"ignorance is bliss."
Monday, September 27, 2010
Israeli Ambassador Exonerates Prime Minister Netanyahu (By Praising Him Like A Fascist)
A couple posts back I put up the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Nazi Germany's propagandist Joseph Goebbels side-by-side. In retrospect, the comparison highlighted the differences between the two countries: Nazi Germany had a very coordinated effort to purge and censor innocent Jewish artists, while Israel's program was more of a knee-jerk punishment of innocent Jewish artists. And while Netanyahu and Goebbels both complained of the boycott that ensued from their country's actions, Goebbels was the only one with the opportunity to brag about cracking down on internal boycotts, claiming internal boycotts "had been made impossible" by his party's seizure of power.
The question becomes: would Israeli censorship resemble that of Nazi Germany if they had comparable power, and how does that factor into who wins the Joseph Goebbels lookalike contest? Maybe we can use the a recent article by Michael B. Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States to settle this. Because when you can't force Israel to suddenly become Nazi Germany, the next best thing is to wait for peace talks and let the politicians brag about their power.
He cheered on Israel for its high-tech economy (yet does not credit it for the preservation of the "democratic system"), and spent some time early on contrasting the Good Guys with the Bad. "Bereaved mothers on Israeli television," he wrote, were "urging [Israeli] leaders to persist in their peace efforts" while "Palestinian mothers praised their martyred children and wished to sacrifice others for jihad." While Israel is so democratic that it allows Arabs to serve on the supreme court and in parliament, the Palestinians apparently can't even muster up enough votes to prove "enthusiasm for living side by side in peace," which Israelis strongly support despite the fact that if you were to imagine being an average Israeli you would have "fought in several wars, as have your parents and even your grandparents, ...you've seen rockets raining down on your neighborhood and have lost close family and friends to terrorist attacks." In summary: Israelis - a hardy and noble, yet desperate bunch.
Would Netanyahu find any of these factoids disagreeable? Perhaps not. So why am I so quick to shift the label from him to Oren? It's the second-to-last paragraph of the article, wherein he heaps praise upon his leader's glorious "yearning" for "a peace that will last for generations — our generation, our children's generation and the next" which he expresses despite having to put up with "great improvements in [Israeli] society." Or as Goebbels put it, "Our children and their children will erect monuments to their fathers and mothers for the pain they suffered, for the stoic steadfastness with which they bore all, for the bravery they showed, for the heroism with which they fought, for the loyalty with which they held to their Führer and his ideals in difficult times."
The question becomes: would Israeli censorship resemble that of Nazi Germany if they had comparable power, and how does that factor into who wins the Joseph Goebbels lookalike contest? Maybe we can use the a recent article by Michael B. Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States to settle this. Because when you can't force Israel to suddenly become Nazi Germany, the next best thing is to wait for peace talks and let the politicians brag about their power.
He cheered on Israel for its high-tech economy (yet does not credit it for the preservation of the "democratic system"), and spent some time early on contrasting the Good Guys with the Bad. "Bereaved mothers on Israeli television," he wrote, were "urging [Israeli] leaders to persist in their peace efforts" while "Palestinian mothers praised their martyred children and wished to sacrifice others for jihad." While Israel is so democratic that it allows Arabs to serve on the supreme court and in parliament, the Palestinians apparently can't even muster up enough votes to prove "enthusiasm for living side by side in peace," which Israelis strongly support despite the fact that if you were to imagine being an average Israeli you would have "fought in several wars, as have your parents and even your grandparents, ...you've seen rockets raining down on your neighborhood and have lost close family and friends to terrorist attacks." In summary: Israelis - a hardy and noble, yet desperate bunch.
Would Netanyahu find any of these factoids disagreeable? Perhaps not. So why am I so quick to shift the label from him to Oren? It's the second-to-last paragraph of the article, wherein he heaps praise upon his leader's glorious "yearning" for "a peace that will last for generations — our generation, our children's generation and the next" which he expresses despite having to put up with "great improvements in [Israeli] society." Or as Goebbels put it, "Our children and their children will erect monuments to their fathers and mothers for the pain they suffered, for the stoic steadfastness with which they bore all, for the bravery they showed, for the heroism with which they fought, for the loyalty with which they held to their Führer and his ideals in difficult times."
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Frank Caliendo Gets the Demoralization Treatment
Quite a few people out there are knocking Frank Caliendo. You might disagree, but there are people who are not impressed with the man or his humor. Some sing his praises. It seems to me these are the sarcastic Democratic party members who enjoy ripping on the GOP. (1) ("Annoying Republicans is not just patriotic, it's fun.")
Personally, I was never all that impressed with his humor, but I was definitely in the camp that stood in awe of his knack for mocking President Bush's arrogant posture:
Others similarly admit to liking his impressions, but not much else. (2) But his fiercest critics seem to have been primarily annoyed by an advertising blitz on a TV network hosting his show. (3) ("I can’t stand this guy or his lame DirecTV commercials. He is NOT good and not even remotely funny.")
He himself finally admitted that they got a little carried away, though he teased the critics back a little (4):
It's probably because our media function similar to that of imperial France as described by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (5), who found attempts at controlling public opinion to be common in "the period in which 'private' energies in society were most plentiful." He described "[t]he 'normal' exercise of hegemony" in these words:
I suppose I can write about this as crudely as I want because I really don't see him much of an antagonist to the ruling class to begin with, considering his bizarre rewriting of history (see embedded video above or go here):
In fact, he might not ever have been much of a source for grace at all, considering he mocked those in power, but also those who complained about his advertisements. And regarding jokes at the expense of power, Joanne R. Gilbert, associate professor of Communication and director of Women’s Studies at Alma College, had an interesting comment. In her book Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender, and Cultural Critique (7) she channels the white male in such a situation as fearless and confident:
Citations:
1. "Frank Caliendo" Onegoodmovie.org. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/01/frank_caliendo_1.html.
2. "Official I Hate Frank Caliendo thread" Prosportsdaily.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278401
3. "10/20: Frank Caliendo's "Frank TV" is back" Dayton Daily News. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/accessatlanta/radiotalk/entries/2008/10/20/1020_frank_cali.html
4. "Frank Caliendo Apologizes ... While Still Shilling for His Show" MLB.Fanhouse.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/10/07/frank-caliendo-apologizes-while-still-shilling-for-his-show/
5. Hoare, Q. & Smith G.N. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (p. 80 fn. 49). International Publishers.
6. "Antonio Gramsci Quotes" from ThinkExist.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://thinkexist.com/quotes/antonio_gramsci/
7. Gilbert J. R. (2004) . Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender, and Cultural Critique. (p. 163) Wayne State University Press.
8. "The Real Stephen Colbert (Out of Character)." Youtube.com. A clip of him on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNvJZCFpdp8
Personally, I was never all that impressed with his humor, but I was definitely in the camp that stood in awe of his knack for mocking President Bush's arrogant posture:
Others similarly admit to liking his impressions, but not much else. (2) But his fiercest critics seem to have been primarily annoyed by an advertising blitz on a TV network hosting his show. (3) ("I can’t stand this guy or his lame DirecTV commercials. He is NOT good and not even remotely funny.")
He himself finally admitted that they got a little carried away, though he teased the critics back a little (4):
I say to those people, 'I'm sorry, but watch the show and maybe TBS wouldn't have to promote it as much,'Why does a man who can mock the style of powerful people with exactness, with no threat of violent repercussion, get himself into a position where people are hating him? (I hope I didn't just answer my own question.)
It's probably because our media function similar to that of imperial France as described by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (5), who found attempts at controlling public opinion to be common in "the period in which 'private' energies in society were most plentiful." He described "[t]he 'normal' exercise of hegemony" in these words:
Between consent and force stands corruption/fraud. This consists in procuring the demoralization and paralysis of the antagonist (or antagonists) by buying its leaders—either covertly, or, in cases of imminent danger, openly—in order to sow disarray and confusion in his ranks.DirecTV and whatever other stuff Rupert Murdoch owns not only have succeeding in buying off the antagonist, but have made him the subject of intense hatred.
I suppose I can write about this as crudely as I want because I really don't see him much of an antagonist to the ruling class to begin with, considering his bizarre rewriting of history (see embedded video above or go here):
[Bush] could never get himself out of the things Clinton got himself into.Oh really? So it was Bush that got impeached, and Clinton that got off scott-free? In Gramsci's words (I believe Orwell is credited for saying nearly the exact same thing) "[t]elling the truth is always revolutionary." (6) By those standards, Frank Caliendo's fall from grace wasn't too far (that is, in his professional life).
In fact, he might not ever have been much of a source for grace at all, considering he mocked those in power, but also those who complained about his advertisements. And regarding jokes at the expense of power, Joanne R. Gilbert, associate professor of Communication and director of Women’s Studies at Alma College, had an interesting comment. In her book Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender, and Cultural Critique (7) she channels the white male in such a situation as fearless and confident:
Indeed, men appear to laugh appreciatively at jokes that attack them, often overtly. Perhaps by laughing a man is saying, "I'm a straight, white male - I am hegemony - hear me roar. No amount of joking no matter how well done, is about to unseat me from my power position any time soon.With the example of Bush still not being in jail, I believe this is much more accurate than the laughter being "because he is threatened." Backing me up on this is Stephen Colbert, who doesn't just imitate, but relentlessly satirizes white male hegemony on his show. To him, laughter makes fear impossible (8):
When you laugh you're not afraid. And sometimes you laugh because you're afraid, but when you laugh the laughter (sic) [fear] goes away and its not just whistling past the graveyard. It actually just goes away when you're laughing.There's still a chance to redeem yourself, Frank, by telling that Bush-loving idiot Murdoch to scram!
Citations:
1. "Frank Caliendo" Onegoodmovie.org. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/01/frank_caliendo_1.html.
2. "Official I Hate Frank Caliendo thread" Prosportsdaily.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278401
3. "10/20: Frank Caliendo's "Frank TV" is back" Dayton Daily News. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/accessatlanta/radiotalk/entries/2008/10/20/1020_frank_cali.html
4. "Frank Caliendo Apologizes ... While Still Shilling for His Show" MLB.Fanhouse.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/10/07/frank-caliendo-apologizes-while-still-shilling-for-his-show/
5. Hoare, Q. & Smith G.N. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (p. 80 fn. 49). International Publishers.
6. "Antonio Gramsci Quotes" from ThinkExist.com. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://thinkexist.com/quotes/antonio_gramsci/
7. Gilbert J. R. (2004) . Performing Marginality: Humor, Gender, and Cultural Critique. (p. 163) Wayne State University Press.
8. "The Real Stephen Colbert (Out of Character)." Youtube.com. A clip of him on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. Retrieved Tuesday, August 31, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNvJZCFpdp8
Monday, August 30, 2010
Goebbels and Netanyahu
You can read here about the latest in boycotts against Israeli's settlements. Some "theater people using their positions in the theater for a political struggle against Israeli citizens" have decided to limit their acting to behind the "Green Line" which I assume is another way to say "the international border." The Israeli government is reportedly cutting funds and encouraging their replacement.
It has the effect of a purge of undesirable artists. Although not exactly the same, a comparison to Nazi Germany is quite adequate. In his book, The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, Alex Ross writes about the Nazi's purging of Jewish musicians:
It's a bit of a stretch. But as I found to be the case with CNN and cop-killers, it's the apologists who end up looking much more similar than the acts.
Goebbels (from a 1933 rally in which he attacked Germany's critics):
Netanyahu (from the article):
It has the effect of a purge of undesirable artists. Although not exactly the same, a comparison to Nazi Germany is quite adequate. In his book, The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, Alex Ross writes about the Nazi's purging of Jewish musicians:
Hitler took power in January 1933, and by the end of the year most of the German cultural apparatus had fallen under the control of Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry. But music did not become a direct instrument of the state. Hitler wanted the ministry to serve the "spiritual development of the nation," and Goebbels agreed...... The Reichskulturkammer, or Reich Culture Chamber, had departments for each artform, including a Reich Music Chamber.... Musical life was not merely Nazified from above; to a great extent, it Nazified itself. Even the anti-Jewish clause in the Kulturkammer laws neglected to mention the Jews by name; cultural bureaucrats were left to decide which artists lacked "aptitude" for cultural life. Not surprisingly, all leading Jewish musicians were deemed inept.
It's a bit of a stretch. But as I found to be the case with CNN and cop-killers, it's the apologists who end up looking much more similar than the acts.
Goebbels (from a 1933 rally in which he attacked Germany's critics):
The boycott and atrocity propaganda they made in other countries was an attempt by International Jewry to accomplish by means of public opinion in other countries what had been made impossible by our takeover in Germany. They attempted to cause difficulties for Germany’s rebirth through a worldwide boycott campaign, and to render it ineffective.
.... Our country still faces a world boycott by International Jewry, even if it is not as open as it was earlier, and we are still threatened by a cleverly thought out and systematically executed world conspiracy.
Netanyahu (from the article):
The State of Israel is subject to a de-legitimization attack on the part of different elements in the international arena, including attempts to launch academic and economic boycotts," Netanyahu said. "The last thing we need now is an attempt of boycotts from within."
Monday, December 14, 2009
Could Reagan read the signs on the road to peace?
In October of 1982, only a relatively short time after Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June, President Ronald Reagan and U.S. officials held a conference with delegations from the Arab League, a political organization that claims in its charter to “promote sovereignty and independence”1 of its member states, and Palestine under a “special circumstance” since its “outward signs of independence” had been seen as “veiled” at the time of its admittance in 1945.
Reagan called his meeting with King Hassan, the head of the League, "an important milestone along the road toward a... just and lasting peace in the Middle East." He said that the "mutual goal of peace and the road to it lies through a negotiating process," meaning one of the Arab League delegation and U.S. and Israeli representatives, and described his meeting with King Hassan as one representing “good will, understanding, and mutual respect.” He held up United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, King Hassan's personal vision, and the Arab League Delegation's "decisions at the Fez conference," also called the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, as answers to the question of how to achieve peace.
Any person's opinion may shed light on the situation, but who is to say if their ideas are always necessarily applicable and to be taken as completely matured plans of action? It's all very nice to gush about “justice” and “security”and brag about your best friend's idea of creating and supporting these powerhouses of repression that we call states, that we include in our wonderful phrase, “two-state solution” while you hold up pieces of paper called resolutions. But neither party has a reputation for being very resolute at all about peace. Did the astoundingly immense Grand ol' Party blood-transfusion in American foreign policy give him a vision of the future to bring an end to these nationalistic squabbles? Or was he a false prophet and a fool?
To know this, we must start by asking one question: Did he make good on his pledge to try to bring the conflict closer to a resolution (or at least his conception of it) by increasing security in Arab states and Israel, and a sense of identity for the Palestinian people? In other words, did he pursue these objectives "rigorously, thoughtfully, and with close consultation with all [there]" as he promised?
Starting with Security Council Resolution 242 which was put into effect in 1967, Reagan has already betrayed one of his values: understanding. The Resolution, labeled aptly by Georgetown University scholars as “a case study in diplomatic ambiguity,”2 called for “[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and stated the Security Council's decision was to be that negotiations should take place along with a cease fire. All parties seemed to agree that the “recent conflict” referred to the Six Day War, however, questions were raised as to what other parts of the text meant; the resolution ended up having several interpretations.
The Resolution was rejected originally by members of the Syrian government, who later accepted it, interpreting it to mean unilateral withdrawal,3 as did the Palestinian Liberation Organization,4 a member of the Arab League representing the Palestinian people.
. The official Israeli interpretation is virtually identical to one that was recommended by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: that the Resolution was not to mean a unilateral withdrawal but one based off of a negotiation process.5 It cites the lack of the word “all” before the word “territories.”
The similarity between the opinion of Israel and the U.S., is likely due to a fateful conversation between the Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1973 the day before she was to meet in front of the official Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to discuss the Resolution. She asked Kissinger what the word “negotiations” meant without the word “direct” in front of it, and asked for clarification on the entire phrase following it. He replied that it meant “nothing,” though three days later, he spelled out the meaning of the word: to relate “the concern for the sovereignty over the territories to the Israeli concern for secure boundaries.” Taking place within what must had been within mere seconds of this utterance, Kissinger quipped that the phrases “just and lasting peace” and “secure and recognized borders” in the Resolution were a joke to him. This is curious to say the least because of the fact that he appears to have wielded enormous power over the text, claiming sole authorship over some sections of it.6
The Resolution also reiterated the U.N. Charter's rule on “the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” which one would think should apply to the territories gained in the Israeli Six Day War. However, Israeli President, Shimon Peres, denounced the application of this to the West Bank, saying that there were no international borders at the time.7 One might be tempted to say that this is simply a disagreement of definition, but in the same interview, he went to say that “you cannot go to war, lose the war and then say pay me a price,” which contradicts the main thrust of the Resolution's argument against territory gained through war to have legitimacy.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 has a similar story. The original text, 8 (without the bolding of the main verbs), is as follows:
The Security Council
1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
The weight of each statement in actuality is not based on their order, or their format, but the specific verb used. The third statement, being the one with the verb “decide” and not “call” is the most powerful, and the other two are simply recommendations. However, no matter the semantics, or possibly because of them, the resolution was not effective in brokering peace. Another more strongly-worded resolution was passed within a couple days, “confirm[ing]” its predecessor's statements and calling for international observers to be dispatched. Even after the cease-fire was officially declared, Israeli forces continued to advance and threatened the Egyptian army.
President Reagan's final offering, the Fez conference, is not an example for mutual respect or understanding at all, but perhaps is the one most likely to bring a certain kind of agreement, because the proposals there were rejected by both “hardliner” states of the Arab League and by Israel. The talks fell apart when King Hassan called the meeting to a close.9 He seemed to have been pushing a synthesis of the aforementioned U.N. Security Council resolutions and President Ronald Reagan's personal plan, but could not overcome a “boycott” by states who had strong feelings against a plan that implicitly recognized Israel as a legitimate state. This was evidenced by the Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi labeling of such actions as “traitorous.” These countries also showed their disapproval by only sending low-level representatives. Israel rejected the plan because it did not want to recognize a Palestinian state nor withdraw from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The reason I believe this conference and its aftermath to be the thing most likely to bring an agreement is not only the old maxim about a good compromise being one that leaves everyone unhappy, but because the disagreement here is only over actions to be taken and not differences between interpretations of various phrases.
The question remains as to what actions President Reagan took during his presidency to promote “peace” and to boost morale to Palestinians. During his presidency, Israel and Syria engaged in a series of acts of military brinksmanship, in violation of international law, yet in 1985 he fanned the flames of the conflict after he signed a bill designating billions of dollars of aid to Israel, ignoring the opinions expressed at the Fez conference and without publicly consulting with another country. In a question and “answer,” (he actually avoided answering most of the questions) he declared that the United States representatives would “not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.”10
To this day, the questions raised regarding the meaning of the resolution of 242 have not been settled between the parties, Israel continues the illegal expansion of settlements, and has even asked reporters to stop using the word “settlements” in favor of “neighborhoods.” Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians recognize one another's legitimate statehood, and acts of goodwill are overshadowed by ongoing reports of the continued human rights law violations on both sides of Israel's border.11 Throughout all this, the U.S. continues complicit support of Israel's illegal occupation of occupied territories through massive aid.12
If negotiations, after years and years were not able to clear up questions surrounding the wording of Resolution 242, how can we expect them to clear up people's understanding of what a settlement or a neighborhood is? If negotiations have failed thus far to deliver on understanding, what hope is there for an act of mutual respect, such as recognizing statehood, or of goodwill, such as seeking to integrate the two societies together?
Perhaps the solution lies altogether outside the boxes of Reagan's four examples, three values, two political alliances, and his one definition of “peace” as state-enforced security and national identity, and even outside of official negotiations altogether. The benefits of an open and honest debate, and more importantly, actions, among non-state actors have yet to be proven unproductive.
One of the loudest voices outside of the “mainstream” is Uri Gordon, a self-proclaimed Anarchist-sympathizer, though he also suggests people contemplate a two-state solution in his book, Anarchy Alive!. 13 He justifies this recommendation, one that seems to contradict the traditional abhorrence in Anarchist theoretical writings of nationalism and governance by accepting a two-state solution as either a strategic decision designed to enlighten more people, as a lesser evil than the current occupation, or as a simple, non-ideological stance of solidarity. However, his strong Anarchist sympathy shines in an article in the Jerusalem Post calling for a dismantling the systems of oppression, both physical and social,14 and gives an uplifting message:
We can still break out of the vicious cycle of drawing the justification for present atrocities from the living memory of the horrors of the past - if only we realize that in doing so we are playing into the hands of all those who mean to rule us''.
Anarchism, started as a tradition of worker self-management and solidarity soon to encompass passionate critiques of state power, seems to contradict any possible stance on Middle East peace other than either apathy or total antagonism to all parties negotiating through governments. To resolve this he points out that one may work to resolve the conflict without going through governmental means, such as supporting things like the rights of workers, women, and other minorities of participation who have a reputation to be more peace-oriented.
He has also expressed frustration with the abuse of language, which is becoming a pattern at this point. He called out the editor of the Jerusalem Post's article on Anarchism for writing “a rhapsody of belittling rhetoric designed to brand anarchists as irrelevant” followed by “well-rehearsed cheap shots, stock phrases and smug moralizing alongside harangues of abuse and dehumanization of the enemy.” Though they are unlikely to agree, this kind of debate is much more revealing and thoughtful than any of the scripted and evasive language of a governmental secretary or president. It is for that reason that Reagan's hope for peace is likely misplaced in negotiations.
Citations:Reagan called his meeting with King Hassan, the head of the League, "an important milestone along the road toward a... just and lasting peace in the Middle East." He said that the "mutual goal of peace and the road to it lies through a negotiating process," meaning one of the Arab League delegation and U.S. and Israeli representatives, and described his meeting with King Hassan as one representing “good will, understanding, and mutual respect.” He held up United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, King Hassan's personal vision, and the Arab League Delegation's "decisions at the Fez conference," also called the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, as answers to the question of how to achieve peace.
Any person's opinion may shed light on the situation, but who is to say if their ideas are always necessarily applicable and to be taken as completely matured plans of action? It's all very nice to gush about “justice” and “security”and brag about your best friend's idea of creating and supporting these powerhouses of repression that we call states, that we include in our wonderful phrase, “two-state solution” while you hold up pieces of paper called resolutions. But neither party has a reputation for being very resolute at all about peace. Did the astoundingly immense Grand ol' Party blood-transfusion in American foreign policy give him a vision of the future to bring an end to these nationalistic squabbles? Or was he a false prophet and a fool?
To know this, we must start by asking one question: Did he make good on his pledge to try to bring the conflict closer to a resolution (or at least his conception of it) by increasing security in Arab states and Israel, and a sense of identity for the Palestinian people? In other words, did he pursue these objectives "rigorously, thoughtfully, and with close consultation with all [there]" as he promised?
Starting with Security Council Resolution 242 which was put into effect in 1967, Reagan has already betrayed one of his values: understanding. The Resolution, labeled aptly by Georgetown University scholars as “a case study in diplomatic ambiguity,”2 called for “[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and stated the Security Council's decision was to be that negotiations should take place along with a cease fire. All parties seemed to agree that the “recent conflict” referred to the Six Day War, however, questions were raised as to what other parts of the text meant; the resolution ended up having several interpretations.
The Resolution was rejected originally by members of the Syrian government, who later accepted it, interpreting it to mean unilateral withdrawal,3 as did the Palestinian Liberation Organization,4 a member of the Arab League representing the Palestinian people.
. The official Israeli interpretation is virtually identical to one that was recommended by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: that the Resolution was not to mean a unilateral withdrawal but one based off of a negotiation process.5 It cites the lack of the word “all” before the word “territories.”
The similarity between the opinion of Israel and the U.S., is likely due to a fateful conversation between the Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1973 the day before she was to meet in front of the official Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to discuss the Resolution. She asked Kissinger what the word “negotiations” meant without the word “direct” in front of it, and asked for clarification on the entire phrase following it. He replied that it meant “nothing,” though three days later, he spelled out the meaning of the word: to relate “the concern for the sovereignty over the territories to the Israeli concern for secure boundaries.” Taking place within what must had been within mere seconds of this utterance, Kissinger quipped that the phrases “just and lasting peace” and “secure and recognized borders” in the Resolution were a joke to him. This is curious to say the least because of the fact that he appears to have wielded enormous power over the text, claiming sole authorship over some sections of it.6
The Resolution also reiterated the U.N. Charter's rule on “the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” which one would think should apply to the territories gained in the Israeli Six Day War. However, Israeli President, Shimon Peres, denounced the application of this to the West Bank, saying that there were no international borders at the time.7 One might be tempted to say that this is simply a disagreement of definition, but in the same interview, he went to say that “you cannot go to war, lose the war and then say pay me a price,” which contradicts the main thrust of the Resolution's argument against territory gained through war to have legitimacy.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 has a similar story. The original text, 8 (without the bolding of the main verbs), is as follows:
The Security Council
1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
The weight of each statement in actuality is not based on their order, or their format, but the specific verb used. The third statement, being the one with the verb “decide” and not “call” is the most powerful, and the other two are simply recommendations. However, no matter the semantics, or possibly because of them, the resolution was not effective in brokering peace. Another more strongly-worded resolution was passed within a couple days, “confirm[ing]” its predecessor's statements and calling for international observers to be dispatched. Even after the cease-fire was officially declared, Israeli forces continued to advance and threatened the Egyptian army.
President Reagan's final offering, the Fez conference, is not an example for mutual respect or understanding at all, but perhaps is the one most likely to bring a certain kind of agreement, because the proposals there were rejected by both “hardliner” states of the Arab League and by Israel. The talks fell apart when King Hassan called the meeting to a close.9 He seemed to have been pushing a synthesis of the aforementioned U.N. Security Council resolutions and President Ronald Reagan's personal plan, but could not overcome a “boycott” by states who had strong feelings against a plan that implicitly recognized Israel as a legitimate state. This was evidenced by the Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi labeling of such actions as “traitorous.” These countries also showed their disapproval by only sending low-level representatives. Israel rejected the plan because it did not want to recognize a Palestinian state nor withdraw from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The reason I believe this conference and its aftermath to be the thing most likely to bring an agreement is not only the old maxim about a good compromise being one that leaves everyone unhappy, but because the disagreement here is only over actions to be taken and not differences between interpretations of various phrases.
The question remains as to what actions President Reagan took during his presidency to promote “peace” and to boost morale to Palestinians. During his presidency, Israel and Syria engaged in a series of acts of military brinksmanship, in violation of international law, yet in 1985 he fanned the flames of the conflict after he signed a bill designating billions of dollars of aid to Israel, ignoring the opinions expressed at the Fez conference and without publicly consulting with another country. In a question and “answer,” (he actually avoided answering most of the questions) he declared that the United States representatives would “not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.”10
To this day, the questions raised regarding the meaning of the resolution of 242 have not been settled between the parties, Israel continues the illegal expansion of settlements, and has even asked reporters to stop using the word “settlements” in favor of “neighborhoods.” Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians recognize one another's legitimate statehood, and acts of goodwill are overshadowed by ongoing reports of the continued human rights law violations on both sides of Israel's border.11 Throughout all this, the U.S. continues complicit support of Israel's illegal occupation of occupied territories through massive aid.12
If negotiations, after years and years were not able to clear up questions surrounding the wording of Resolution 242, how can we expect them to clear up people's understanding of what a settlement or a neighborhood is? If negotiations have failed thus far to deliver on understanding, what hope is there for an act of mutual respect, such as recognizing statehood, or of goodwill, such as seeking to integrate the two societies together?
Perhaps the solution lies altogether outside the boxes of Reagan's four examples, three values, two political alliances, and his one definition of “peace” as state-enforced security and national identity, and even outside of official negotiations altogether. The benefits of an open and honest debate, and more importantly, actions, among non-state actors have yet to be proven unproductive.
One of the loudest voices outside of the “mainstream” is Uri Gordon, a self-proclaimed Anarchist-sympathizer, though he also suggests people contemplate a two-state solution in his book, Anarchy Alive!. 13 He justifies this recommendation, one that seems to contradict the traditional abhorrence in Anarchist theoretical writings of nationalism and governance by accepting a two-state solution as either a strategic decision designed to enlighten more people, as a lesser evil than the current occupation, or as a simple, non-ideological stance of solidarity. However, his strong Anarchist sympathy shines in an article in the Jerusalem Post calling for a dismantling the systems of oppression, both physical and social,14 and gives an uplifting message:
We can still break out of the vicious cycle of drawing the justification for present atrocities from the living memory of the horrors of the past - if only we realize that in doing so we are playing into the hands of all those who mean to rule us''.
Anarchism, started as a tradition of worker self-management and solidarity soon to encompass passionate critiques of state power, seems to contradict any possible stance on Middle East peace other than either apathy or total antagonism to all parties negotiating through governments. To resolve this he points out that one may work to resolve the conflict without going through governmental means, such as supporting things like the rights of workers, women, and other minorities of participation who have a reputation to be more peace-oriented.
He has also expressed frustration with the abuse of language, which is becoming a pattern at this point. He called out the editor of the Jerusalem Post's article on Anarchism for writing “a rhapsody of belittling rhetoric designed to brand anarchists as irrelevant” followed by “well-rehearsed cheap shots, stock phrases and smug moralizing alongside harangues of abuse and dehumanization of the enemy.” Though they are unlikely to agree, this kind of debate is much more revealing and thoughtful than any of the scripted and evasive language of a governmental secretary or president. It is for that reason that Reagan's hope for peace is likely misplaced in negotiations.
1. Acharya, A. (Ed.), & Johnston, A. I. (Ed.) (2007) Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective (p. 191) Cambridge University Press
2. Caradon, B. H. F. (1981) U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, a case study in diplomatic ambiguity. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
3. Drummond, W. J. (1975, Nov 25). Syria Reportedly Insists on Palestinian-Golan Link. Los Angeles Times
4. Gelvin J. L. (October 2, 2007) The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (p. 223) Cambridge University Press
5. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.gwu.edu%2F~nsarchiv%2FNSAEBB%2FNSAEBB98%2Foctwar-54.pdf&ei=zDrcU_cO6aXxAZ7DgDA&usg=AFQjCNEXETPg7mqZ1VZB1hg56LFbEpGfkA
6. Gazit M., Rodman P. W. (1973, October 22) Memorandum of Conversation. declassified national security document. Retrieved Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 from the George Washington Universtiy website at: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/
7.Stadlen, Nick (2007, June 4) Transcript of Nick Stadlen interview with Shimon Peres part I. Retrieved Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
8. Original text of U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 retrieved Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 from http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/
9. Goldsmith, M. (1981, Nov 27) Failure of Arab summit produces no real losers. The Spokesman Review
10. Hunt, T. (1982, September 2) Reagan: West Bank Jordan's. Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette
11. LaFranchi H. (2009, November 4th) UN General Assembly to take up Goldstone report on Gaza war crimes. Christian Science Monitor.
12. Annonymous (2009, July 8) Despite splits, U.S. still arms Israel. Retrieved Tuesday, December 8, 2009 from http://www.upi.com/Business_
13. Gordon, U. (2007) Anarchy Alive!: Anti-authoritarian Poliics from Practice to Theory. Pluto Press
14. Gordon, U. (2007, June 12). Right of Reply: Anarchy in the Holy Land! Jerusalem Post
Monday, November 9, 2009
We're Stalking "Enemy Children"
From the leaked "Tracking" Guide for U.S. Special Forces:
1-5. As a tracker follows a trail, he uses the above-mentioned skills to build a picture of the enemy in his mind while asking himself these questions:
How many people am I following?
Are they male or female?
Are they adults or children?
What is their state of training?
How are they equipped?
Are they healthy?
What is their state of morale?
Do they know they are being followed?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Using Logic Against Fascists
From ACLU's blog:
Yesterday, I argued in Maricopa County Superior Court about whether Sheriff Joe Arpaio, “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” can block inmates’ access to abortion. The specific issue is whether the sheriff can demand that inmates who seek abortion care prepay $300 a day in transportation and security costs. If an inmate can’t come up with the money, she will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Of course, Sheriff Arpaio doesn’t require inmates seeking other medical care to prepay for transport and security costs. We argued it is unconstitutional to make access to the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy conditional on the ability to pay hundreds of dollars. Fortunately, the judge agreed.
Ruling immediately after the arguments, the court held that the defendants are prohibited from demanding prepayment for transport and security costs. The sheriff has an uphill battle given that just a couple of years ago the Arizona Court of Appeals held that his policy of demanding a court order from inmates seeking abortion was unconstitutional. As the judge yesterday recognized, the issue of prepayment for transport costs is only a “slight extension” of the court order issue, and demanding prepayment is possibly more onerous than requiring a court order.
But the most telling part of yesterday’s argument came when the judge asked us to do some math. He asked both parties how many hours since June each of us worked on the case – we agreed it was at least 40 hours each. He then assumed an hourly rate of $250 an hour and asked us to calculate the total. The answer? A lot of taxpayer money is being spent on a policy that may cost the Sheriff a few hundred dollars a year given how few women request abortion access.
Then the judge asked the question that sums it all up – he asked the sheriff’s attorney to explain “the real reason” behind the policy. Clearly, it can’t be that the sheriff is really worried about $300 a year.
The sheriff’s attorney didn’t really respond. I suppose it was a bit of a rhetorical question. Sheriff Arpaio has repeatedly acted on his animosity to abortion by denying inmates their constitutional rights. All told, he will spend thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting over $300 a year simply because he wants to impose his moral beliefs on others. The courts have repeatedly stopped these unconstitutional tactics. And we will be prepared to deal with whatever Sheriff Joe does next.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Numb3rs teaches you that Jews love money and Anarchists love prison
"Kai Kragen"
From the third season we get this wonderful guy:
Detective Sinclair: We saw your old house on Mulholland. That must have been hard to give up.
Detective Granger: Not to mention all the money
....
Kai Kragen: Whether someone is puting a gun to someone's head or a bunch of people are eating cow testicles on an island, it's all entertainment right?
"Kai" by the way is often short for "Cornelius," which comes from the Latin word for "horn."
"Tyson"
Tyson: It's a better ending this way: three people that ripped me off are dead, the force is going to go down in total humiliation...
Detective Granger: What about what happens to you?
Tyson: Me? (laughs) Are you kidding? Starting tomorrow I top the A-list. There's not an agent in town who won't be scrambling to sign me.
Detective Sinclair: Too bad you'll be writing from prison.
Tyson: Locked in a cell with no one to bother me? I can crank out five, six movies a year.
From the third season we get this wonderful guy:
Detective Sinclair: We saw your old house on Mulholland. That must have been hard to give up.
Detective Granger: Not to mention all the money
....
Kai Kragen: Whether someone is puting a gun to someone's head or a bunch of people are eating cow testicles on an island, it's all entertainment right?
"Kai" by the way is often short for "Cornelius," which comes from the Latin word for "horn."
"Tyson"
Tyson: It's a better ending this way: three people that ripped me off are dead, the force is going to go down in total humiliation...
Detective Granger: What about what happens to you?
Tyson: Me? (laughs) Are you kidding? Starting tomorrow I top the A-list. There's not an agent in town who won't be scrambling to sign me.
Detective Sinclair: Too bad you'll be writing from prison.
Tyson: Locked in a cell with no one to bother me? I can crank out five, six movies a year.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
"Dear FOX News, It's not me, it's you"
News Item: Waitrose dumps Fox News in protest over remarks about Barack Obama
Well a lot of companies have cut funding from the racist show of Glenn Beck. But they continued to purchase advertising from FOX. This is the first I've heard about where it is someone actually cutting all funding.
Well a lot of companies have cut funding from the racist show of Glenn Beck. But they continued to purchase advertising from FOX. This is the first I've heard about where it is someone actually cutting all funding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)