tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87525723189429118862023-11-15T05:59:05.289-08:00The Suburban RadicalThe rantings and ravings of a leftist in little-box-town. Your news and more!ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-83953683755272415052009-12-20T18:50:00.001-08:002009-12-20T19:32:57.985-08:00The health care bill that became sickThis bill needs to either change or die.<br /><br />Those who support the health care bill basically fall into two categories:<br /><ol><li>You are a Democrat looking for reelection</li><li>You are a Democrat who thinks that the merits of the bill outweigh the bad stuff</li></ol>So, what are the bill's merits? Health insurance companies wouldn't be able to deny people based on preexisting conditions. More people would have health coverage when all is said and done. Government subsidies would help people who can't afford their plans.<br /><br />BUT...the bad parts are striking. So striking, we need bullet points:<br /><ul><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">No public option or medicare buy-in</span>. Medicare/Medicaid plans aren't expanded nearly enough for average people looking for federally-backed insurance to get what they want and need, and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/feingold-obama-responsibl_n_398658.html">this fact will cost us $25 billion extra</a>. Also, this hampers any plans for single-payer, which is what would get us on par with the rest of the industrialized world.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mandated health insurance from private corporations</span>. People are going to be forced to buy health care from private companies, feeding into the broken system we already have. This is exactly the opposite of what single-payer and even the public option was trying to accomplish. Although government subsidies would aid those who can't afford insurance, it will still be financially stressful on the underclass.<br /></li><li>While the preexisting conditions part would apply to children immediately, <span style="font-weight: bold;">adults would not be put under disease-discrimination protection until 2014</span>. Health care expenses are the single biggest cause of bankruptcy in the United States, and with the economy the way it is, waiting five years is not an option for many people.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Insurance companies would be able to charge 300% more based on age</span>. The bill leaves older people who are struggling financially with little help besides band-aid subsidies for payment for insurance. This is blatantly legalized ageism.</li><li>While it does not outlaw abortion, the bill significantly restricts a woman's right to choose because it mandates that <span style="font-weight: bold;">no federal funding will help cover abortion procedures</span>. Also, each state needs to offer at least one form of insurance through the exchange plan that does not include abortion coverage. Essentially, poor women will not be able to get abortions at the same rate that rich women can. Gender-class warfare anyone?</li></ul>Women's rights are being exploited through the bill, but I think the main argument against it is that it equates getting more people covered with a path to universal health care. Just because someone is allowed to get health care doesn't mean they can afford it, and if they can't, it doesn't count as having affordable health insurance. It sounds obvious, but this is the same logic that George W. Bush used when he declared that Americans have universal health care (you can go to an emergency room for free!), and it's the same logic being used now by centrist Democrats.<br /><br />I will leave you with this <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/18/corporatism/index.html">blog post from Glenn Greenwald</a>. He does a great job connecting this bill with the steady corporatist culture in Washington, DC. Oh the city in which I live!ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-11981679211683277262009-12-13T18:58:00.001-08:002009-12-13T19:36:48.793-08:00The Suburban Radical Moves to the Big CityIt's been a long time. Way too long.<br /><br />OK, so the last time you saw me I was:<br /><ul><li>a high school student</li><li>still hopeful about Obama</li><li>a suburban resident</li><li>devastatingly handsome.</li></ul>A few months later, some stuff has changed. Now I'm:<br /><ul><li>a college student</li><li>disillusioned to the point of despair about Obama</li><li>a resident of Washington, DC</li><li>devastatingly handsome and a little bit taller</li></ul>But I'm still the same suburban radical at heart. You can take the Marxist out of the suburbs, but you can't take the suburbs out of the Marxist.<br /><br />Actually, that's a little depressing. The suburbs suck. But anyway.<br /><br />So where to begin now? It's been a while since I've posted, and there's so much to talk about! Whether it's the birthers, teabaggers, other white supremacist groups marching around, it's apparent that the ultra-right is having their way with the left-of-center mandate that was voted for last year. The Democrats are spineless as always, but I guess anyone could have seen that coming.<br /><br />I suppose as a suburban radical, I'll talk about the suburbs for a bit--namely New Jersey, which is my home state. The governorship of Jon Corzine (D) wasn't a terribly successful one; in fact, he's mostly known for the motorcade accident he got in and the fact that he raised Turnpike taxes. He lost to the Republican candidate Chris Christie, who carried a strong majority even though the third party, relatively conservative Chris Daggett (I) could have acted as a spoiler. Obviously, the voters did not want Corzine, but of course, they'll soon realize that Christie, who is famous for tapping phone lines and forcibly gutting public schools to create charter schools, is no better. Shame it has to be this way. It's not like the Corzine campaign cared a whole lot. According to my suitemate, who canvassed for Corzine on a College Democrats trip, the campaign was one of the worst-run he's ever seen.<br /><br />So the ultra-right won in Jersey and VA, they won when Maine and New York rejected gay marriage, and they won when Obama just escalated the war in Afghanistan. Same country, same politics, same reactionary forces, same bourgeois capitalism, same imperialism, different face.<br /><br />This health care business has been a debacle, and the astroturf-teabag-Glenn-Beck-ites are getting in the way of progress. We can't even get a fucking public option. Unbelievable.<br /><br />I suppose you'll want to know about my adventures within DC now, right? OK, well here it goes:<br /><ul><li>During the week of the National Equality March, I saw Cleve Jones and Sherry Wolf (from the ISO) talk about LGBT liberation and the new movement for equality. That same day I saw the Solar Decathlon and the HRC center where Obama gave his almost-equal-rights-for-gays speech. Also, I saw Bo the Dog Obama being walked.</li><li>The National Equality March was something else. Absolutely wonderful. So many people, so many groups--I even walked right in front of Lt. Dan Choi!</li><li>Guess who saw Michael Moore! He came to give a town hall about <span style="font-style: italic;">Capitalism: A Love Story</span>, which has to be my new favorite documentary. Fantastic.</li><li>Oh, I totally met Amy Goodman and got a signed book from her! Then I asked her to shake my hand, forgetting that due to a degenerative disorder, she can't move her right hand that well. Oops!</li></ul>There's so much more to say, but it's finals week and I'm really tired. I'll hopefully keep updating regularly. That was a hiatus that was much too long.<br /><br />Oh, before I forget: I'm a Women's Studies major now! Feminism FTW!ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-43423871968150539142009-08-03T19:35:00.000-07:002009-08-03T19:37:27.479-07:00Keith Olbermann tells the Blue Dogs what they need to hear<div><iframe src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32277034#32277034" scrolling="no" width="425" frameborder="0" height="339"></iframe><p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); margin-top: 5px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-73291808881948292952009-07-25T19:43:00.000-07:002009-07-25T19:50:13.241-07:00Gender Equality and Religion: Using the Burqa Ban as a Jumping-Off PointA little over a month ago, The Huffington Post put up <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/sarkozy-burqas-are-not-we_n_218920.html">an Associated Press article</a> entitled “Sarkozy: Burqas Are ‘Not Welcome’ In France.” The gist of the article was that French President Nicolas Sarkozy used “some of the strongest language against burqas from a European leader at a time when some Western officials have been seeking to ease tensions with the Muslim world.” Burqas, for those unaware, are a type of Islamic religious garb for women that cover the entire body. Burqas have a nasty reputation for being <a href="http://www.salon.com/comics/lay/2009/07/03/lay/index.html">a hindrance to female equality</a> in the Muslim world, and also apparently in France. Thus, some in that country would like to see them banned from being worn.<br /><br />I saw this as an affront to the basic human right of freedom of religion, or more importantly, freedom of expression. It was in this spirit that I wrote this in the comments section of the article:<br /><br />This is absolutely ridiculous. A woman can choose to where [sic] whatever she wants. When a burqa is a symbol of subservience, it is when the woman is forced to wear one.<br /><br />Sorry about the dumb spelling mistake. And using the word “the” before “woman” doesn’t sound right, deconstructively. My bad.<br /><br />Anyway, now that I reexamine what I wrote, I think I only agree with about half of what I commented. I still think that the burqa ban is ridiculous, and that a woman has the right to wear whatever she damn well pleases. However, I think I’m going to have to take back the second half. The burqa is still a symbol of subservience, even if a woman is forced to wear it or not. This is because the religious institution it comes from is sexist.<br /><br />Some of you are probably offended right now. Wait, keep reading.<br /><br />My beef isn’t with Islam specifically. Rather, it’s with the Abrahamic religions in general. I’m not a Muslim, but I am a member of another Abrahamic religion—Judaism. The sexist commonality, at least for me, came in the realization of the similarities of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.<br /><br />Most people point to specific verses in the Bible/Qur’an when they think of sexism (and homophobia and heterosexism) in the major monotheistic religions. From the Torah’s story of the fall of humankind from Eden due to woman, the execution of gays, the “impurities” of menstruation and seminal fluid, to the New Testament’s call for wives to “submit” to their husbands, and to the Qur’an’s implorations of women’s modesty. These are all pretty damning (yes, pun intended), but not what I see as the most basic cause of these religions’ problems with sexism.<br /><br />Really, the dilemma is that all three religions seek to assign gender roles to how people should live. Wives are still sex objects, but only to their husbands. Husbands must fulfill the role of provider for the family. In each religion, this concrete separation evolved into intensely patriarchal systems. Oh, and don’t even think about trying to do anything differently, lest you be stoned to death.<br /><br />Just like social superstructures imitate economic bases, so do specific aspects of religions imitate their simplest principles. Within the confines of religious law, burqas, as well as other religious clothing mandated only for women, like Jewish sheitels, are oppressive in nature.<br /><br />The trick is, though, that you have to introduce choice into the matter, which is what feminism is all about. Women who are able to choose what they want to wear are not oppressed in that manner. Even though religious garb still may carry oppression symbolically, the woman who wears it is not necessarily oppressed in this particular area of her life, as long as she has chosen her outfit.<br /><br />In conclusion: a burqa is still symbolically sexist, but a woman who chooses to wear one is not proclaiming subservience to men. This goes for all religions with gender-clothing. Religions are sexist when they assign gender roles, since overcoming sexism means choosing what role you want regardless of sex. France’s burqa ban eliminates that choice, and is thus a dumb law. I should never be allowed to ramble.<br /><br />Hopefully no one is too mad over what I’ve written. Who knows, I may not agree with this entire post in a month.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-47955817256491211752009-07-17T14:33:00.001-07:002009-07-18T09:00:30.602-07:00A blogging surpriseIf anyone out there actually reads this blog, I'm going to be posting on a certain more famous blog very, very soon. I'm really excited.<br /><br />As soon as it's up, I'll link to it.<br /><br />---------------------<br />OK, here's the link: <a href="http://thefbomb.org/2009/07/proclaiming-oneself-as-a-male-teenage-feminist/">http://thefbomb.org/2009/07/proclaiming-oneself-as-a-male-teenage-feminist/</a><br /><br />The FBomb is a teenage feminist blog that has been featured on websites like <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/07/15/f_bomb/">Salon's Broadsheet</a> and <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><a href="http://jezebel.com/5314187/teen-feminists-drop-f+bomb">Jezebel</a>, started by Julie Zeilinger, a teenage feminist who is not afraid to fight the patriarchy.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-20376633545085470482009-07-13T16:27:00.000-07:002009-07-13T16:29:15.473-07:00As if we could expect any less from Dick Cheney<span style="font-weight: bold;">Dick Cheney Now Linked To C.I.A. Concealment, Is Officially The Shadiest Dick Ever</span><br /><br /><a href="http://gawker.com/5312633/dick-cheney-now-linked-to-cia-concealment-is-officially-the-shadiest-dick-ever">http://gawker.com/5312633/dick-cheney-now-linked-to-cia-concealment-is-officially-the-shadiest-dick-ever</a>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-14751888599919546022009-07-09T18:26:00.001-07:002009-07-09T18:31:36.122-07:00Capitalism: A Love StoryThat's the name of Michael Moore's new movie.<br /><br />I am REALLY EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Moore on the movie:<br /><br /> It’s got it all — lust, passion, romance and 14,000 jobs being eliminated every day. It’s a forbidden love, one that dare not speak its name. Heck, let’s just say it: It’s capitalism.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/michaelmoore.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 390px; height: 599px;" src="http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/michaelmoore.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-76086055017844982032009-07-05T13:51:00.000-07:002009-07-05T13:54:16.934-07:00TumblelogI just realized I posted that I'd be creating a micro blog at Tumblr, but I never gave the URL.<br /><br />It's <a href="http://thesuburbanradical.tumblr.com/">TheSuburbanRadical.tumblr.com</a><br /><br />Easy to remember. It's where I'll post things that don't always have to do with politics or current events. Maybe a random musing here or there.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-35478882699319821852009-07-05T12:22:00.000-07:002009-07-05T12:23:58.299-07:00BAM!<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/05/biden-ignores-warnings-of_n_225888.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/05/biden-ignores-warnings-of_n_225888.html</a><br /><br />WE ALL TOLD YOU SO! WE ALL TOLD YOU SO!ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-71980335123521155412009-07-05T11:08:00.000-07:002009-07-05T12:17:37.066-07:00Honduras and The Shock DoctrineLast year for my birthday my parents got me the Naomi Klein book <span style="font-style: italic;">The Shock Doctrine</span>, which I asked for, since I'm a total Klein-geek. (I also got <span style="font-style: italic;">No Logo</span>, but I haven't read that yet.) I finally got around to reading it, almost a year later. I'm only about 200 pages in, but it's blowing my mind. The basic premise of the book is this:<br /><br />Free market capitalism as we know it today wasn't born out of peaceful reforms in welfare-state economies. Rather, whenever these countries wanted to radically change their economy into a laissez-faire structure, they had to shock their populations into accepting these changes, or use shocks to quickly restructure the economy. This was the philosophy of the most famous free market economist ever, Milton Friedman.<br /><br />The scariest thing about this is that the shock treatments that the "disaster capitalists" use directly mimic the use of shock therapy, and later torture, to "remake" people.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pv-_8lLke6g&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pv-_8lLke6g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><br />People have never willingly subjected themselves to neoliberal policies, and they've mostly been enforced by brute force. There is, then, a discrepancy between the traditional notion of capitalism and freedom (coincidentally, <span style="font-style: italic;">Capitalism and Freedom</span> is the name of Milton Friedman's most well-known book). Pure capitalism cannot exist in a democracy. It must be shocked into existence by quick action from governments when disasters happen.<br /><br />Think someone like Friedman would never admit the incompatibility of capitalism and democracy? Well, think again:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N-q4c7_7zLk&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N-q4c7_7zLk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Friedman's followers at the University of Chicago's school of economics (the "Chicago School") have had a long history of overthrowing Latin American democracies to institute radical free market military dictatorships, the only environment where capitalism can live undisturbed by protesting people. The "Chicago Boys," as they were later known, helped topple regimes in Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, and others. This was always with some sort of American support, whether it was from American corporations, the CIA, or the White House.<br /><br />That is why the military coup of the democratic Honduran government doesn't strike me as surprising, just disgusting. President Zelaya, ousted by the coup, wasn't exactly freedom-oriented, but his pro-union, anti-neoliberal stance would certainly be of some distress to the right wing.<br /><br />I submit that the military coup in Honduras was nothing more than the execution of economic shock therapy. The reports of<a href="http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/16242/"> labor leaders being rounded up and the free press being shut down</a> are clear indicators that a fascist Friedmanite free market revolution could be the goal in Honduras.<br /><br />Now we just have to wait and see what happens.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-77275920901818516712009-06-24T11:43:00.001-07:002009-06-24T12:19:29.071-07:00We must protect the sanctity of marriage!You have to love politicians like Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina. This guy might be king of the idiots in the way he tried to get away with his extramarital affair--by running off to Argentina without telling his staff where he was going, causing everyone to wonder what the hell happened to the governor of South Carolina. Here is what he had to say about that. <a href="http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=FXFGZGBp">AP</a>:<br /><blockquote>"I've let down a lot of people, that's the bottom line," Sanford said at a news conference. He said he's known the woman about eight years, but their relationship turned into something more a year ago while he was on an economic development trip to Argentina.</blockquote>I don't want to be unfair to Republicans. Democratic politicians <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal">have had their own share</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair">cheating on their wives</a>. But gosh darnit, it just feels good to say to them, "GOTCHA!"<br /><br />Because for people like Sanford, protecting the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with having a working marriage of your own. It has nothing to do with respecting the values of monogamy in a two-person setting of a relationship. No, for Mark Sanford, it means <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_Civil_Rights.htm">making sure that gay people can't get married, can't get civil unions, and can't adopt children</a>.<br /><br />As I said before, Sanford is an idiot. Who else would do this:<br /><blockquote>A former three-term congressman, Sanford most recently snared headlines for his unsuccessful fight to turn aside federal stimulus cash for his state's schools. His vocal battle against the Obama administration -- and libertarian, small-government leanings -- won praise from conservative pundits. Ultimately, a state court order required him to take the money.</blockquote>Oh, believe it or not, the dolt also said this once: "It is my personal view that the largest proclamation of one's faith ought to be in how one lives his life."<br /><br />Nice, Sanford, nice.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-46551623588969864652009-06-23T16:33:00.000-07:002009-06-23T17:08:28.698-07:00This is not surprising.So <span style="font-style: italic;">The New York Times</span> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/politics/24nixon.html">just wrote an article</a> about some newly-released audio from former President Richard Nixon. Like always, he's a jerk. But this time, he's being a really, really racist jerk. Really racist.<br /><blockquote> Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family." But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.<br /><br />"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding: "Or a rape."<br /></blockquote>I wouldn't put it past Nixon to think that he associated interracial love with the old, hateful notion that black men were always after white women.<br /><br />Oh, Tricky Dick. When will history ever vindicate you?<br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-85292237976125932252009-06-23T15:38:00.000-07:002009-06-23T15:39:20.650-07:00TumblrLet's try out a micro blogging platform.<br />Nobody reads this, but I'll still post on here.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-76542972966508466322009-06-14T09:46:00.000-07:002009-06-14T10:48:26.842-07:00Or does it explode?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://tehrandaily.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/iranian_protest_election_results_26.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 518px; height: 742px;" src="http://tehrandaily.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/iranian_protest_election_results_26.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><center><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Dream Deferred" by Langston Hughes</span><br /></p><p>What happens to a dream deferred?</p></center> <center><p>Does it dry up<br />like a raisin in the sun?<br />Or fester like a sore--<br />And then run?<br />Does it stink like rotten meat?<br />Or crust and sugar over--<br />like a syrupy sweet?</p></center> <center><p>Maybe it just sags<br />like a heavy load.</p></center> <center><p>Or does it explode?</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">Over the past two days, I'm pretty sure the world exploded. Or at least Iran did. If you've been following (at least as best as reporters can in a counry that went to hell in a day), then you've seen that the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president, was most likely a sham. So that's when crowds supporting the opposition candidate Mousavi started burning everything.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Ahmadinejad didn't exactly make it hidden that he planned to disrupt democracy. Mousavi's text messaging networks were jammed hours before the election. He even had to migrate his website to a <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/mousavi1388/">Google Sites address</a> to avoid censorship in Iran.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Israel's government's reaction to this hasn't been stellar, to say the least. Via <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25627629-15084,00.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Australian</span></a>:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote><p>However, in the run-up to the Iranian polls, Mr Ahmadinejad's re-election has come to be seen as a strategic advantage. "There is no one who has served Israel's information program better than him," wrote columnist Ben Caspi in the daily Ma'ariv yesterday. </p> <p>Israeli security officials note that decisions regarding major issues such as the nuclear program are made in Iran not by the president, regardless of who he is, but by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a small group of senior clerics. </p></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: left;">They have a good point in that last sentence. Khamenei is the man behind the curtain for every political move in Iran, which is a theocratic republic (emphasis on theocratic). The only way to overcome such an oppressive state of affairs is for an internal people's revolution, which is why regardless of who wins the elections, the Iranian people need to take a stand against the Supreme Leader. Easier said than done, but it has to be done if they want progress.</div><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Biden "doubts" the election. Hopefully the U.S. will do more diplomatically to see that this thing resolve itself peacefully. But hopefully we take a hard stand against theocracy. That most likely will not happen though.</p><p style="text-align: left;">On a different topic, a far-right terrorist shot and killed George Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor who saved countless women's lives. Everyone immediately, and rightly so, pointed their fingers at Bill O'Reilly, the man who helped provoke the violent acts by going on long and often nonsensical diatribes about Tiller, who he calls "The Baby Killer."</p><p style="text-align: left;">Joan Walsh went on <span style="font-style: italic;">The O'Reilly Factor</span> to debate this, and I think it's safe to say that Bill O'Reilly almost collapsed near the end under his own denseness.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p></center></div><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CDV1jsPlKD8&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CDV1jsPlKD8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />It's important to note that no matter how often O'Reilly says that Tiller has "blood on his hands," it is really O'Reilly that is an accomplice to murder. Walsh points that out numerous times throughout the debate.<br /><br />More right wing violence happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., which is a tragedy, plain and simple. But the shooting can be linked to right wing media pundits showing their anger and coaxing their viewers into dangerous and insane actions. Shephard Smith, of all people, points this out:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bxvunbIWNyI&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bxvunbIWNyI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />The left needs a Michael Moore film right about now.<br />Wait, there's one coming out soon! Yay!<br /><br /><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KhfzvzKm_xk&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KhfzvzKm_xk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-15156991262378243662009-05-17T15:07:00.000-07:002009-05-17T15:10:11.526-07:00The best Democracy Now! episode in a whileAmy Goodman has on Naomi Klein and friends about worker takeovers of abandoned factories. Watch it, it's really good.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed_show_v1/300/2009/5/15"></script>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-57196048566044607022009-05-07T19:22:00.000-07:002009-05-07T19:23:09.544-07:00Broken campaign promise<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/07/obama-budget-bans-federal_n_199436.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/07/obama-budget-bans-federal_n_199436.html</a>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-51368355028669505762009-04-15T21:31:00.000-07:002009-04-15T21:32:43.410-07:00Perfect illustration<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2009/04/16/boll/story.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 600px; height: 807px;" src="http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2009/04/16/boll/story.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-23553583242700006962009-04-11T19:57:00.000-07:002009-04-11T20:00:37.568-07:00I guess innocent civilians are S.O.L.Via a <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589?from=rss">Newsweek article</a>:<br /><blockquote><p>Running for president in last year's Democratic primaries, Barack Obama promised to restore a federal ban on certain semiautomatic assault guns—a position that's still on the White House Web site. The ban was originally passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 and lapsed five years ago. In recent years the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has also lifted virtually all restrictions on imports of foreign-made assault weapons, permitting a flood of cheap Romanian, Bulgarian and other Eastern European AK-47s to enter the country, according to gun-control groups. "There's been an absolute deluge of these weapons," says Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center.</p><p>But Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned the issue. Emanuel helped orchestrate passage of the original assault-weapons ban when he worked in the Clinton White House. Now he and other White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform, say congressional officials who have raised the matter. (According to his office, Emanuel couldn't be reached for comment because he was observing the Passover holiday.) A White House official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal strategy, says, "There isn't support in Congress for such a ban at this time." Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, says, "The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," pointing to $2 billion in new funding for state and local law enforcement in the stimulus package.</p></blockquote>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-68904426173740197622009-04-11T12:47:00.000-07:002009-04-11T12:58:43.908-07:00I never wrote about Hitchens on MarxBecause I don't really care. I haven't read The Atlantic in weeks. No time anymore.<br /><br />However, if there is one thing I can say about the article, what bothered me was the conclusion. Hitchens mentions that it appears that capitalism and Marxism are symbiotic. This might appear to be true at first glance (after all, what's a revolution without something to revolt against), but Marxists have a vision for society after a capitalist state. Also, Hitchens uses evidence from the Austrian school to criticize Marx, but the fall of Milton Friedman's followers shows that libertarian economists shouldn't be regarded as economic heavyweights.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-45599726186069794892009-03-25T20:05:00.000-07:002009-03-25T20:16:40.140-07:00Hitchens on Marx<span style="font-style: italic;">The Atlantic Monthly</span>: Christopher Hitchen's <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/hitchens-marx">article on Karl Marx</a>.<br /><br />I suppose I'll write something on it soon.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-18930673348318933332009-03-23T19:40:00.001-07:002009-03-23T20:38:17.578-07:00Goodman and Krugman, feminist perspective, and letting Geithner failAmy Goodman had Paul Krugman on <span style="font-style: italic;">Democracy Now!</span> today, and <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/23/the_zombie_ideas_have_won_paul">they talked about the Geithner plan</a>--or as Krugman calls it, "cash for trash."<br /><br />I actually discovered something about Paul Krugman in this interview that I didn't like, which was only inevitable. He supports NAFTA vehemently...something that I guess I was too young to know that he supported. It makes no difference in what he says on NAFTA, I suppose.<br /><br />Suburban radicals don't support NAFTA. His beard still rocks though.<br /><br />Questions. People need to start asking questions. Why will a toxic asset suddenly be worth more in the near future? Who's to say that investors will want to buy them in the first place? Why are we even proposing a plan that punishes taxpayers more than investors in the worst-case scenario? Why do we insist on letting the market play a part in the solution?<br />A couple of <a href="http://letters.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/03/24/tomo/view/?show=all">coments from the comments section</a> of the most recent Tom Tomorrow cartoon on Salon.com:<br /><blockquote><h3>I think the invisible hand</h3> <p>Is very visibly jerkin' us off..</p> <div class="letter_entry_author">-- Klytus </div><h3>The Invisible Hand is wacking off...that's what got it in trouble</h3> <p>Yup...and we're all going to go blind because the Invisible Hand did it way too often, against the wishes/demands of his nanny, i.e., regulations.</p> <div class="letter_entry_author">-- yojimbo_7 </div></blockquote>This sexual metaphor can be taken further too. With the times so tough, many women are turning to the sex industry as a last resort for joblessness. Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville gives <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/03/bad-economy-is-good-for-women.html">a great analysis of this</a>, and brings up the masculine-centric aspect of the mainstream media's coverage of this crisis:<br /><blockquote><span id="fullpost">In a good economy, choosing to work in the sex industry as a last resort isn't <i>nearly</i> as acceptable as it is when the entire country is shit-toiling (except the men dropping thousands of dollars on strippers and porn). But now that the economy's in the toilet, it's acceptable for women to sell their bodies even if they don't really want to!</span></blockquote>Fianancial crises suck and they make my head hurt. I'm going to sleep. But I leave you with <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/">more from Salon</a>:<br /><blockquote>But all the Sturm und Drang expressed hither and yon about how the Obama administration is damning us all to a decade or more of economic doldrums by not pursuing immediate bank nationalization <em>today</em> is just a bit overwrought. The U.S. economy is not going to stop shedding a half-million jobs a month if we nationalize Citigroup today, instead of two months from now. We are deep in a recession and it will be quite a while before we crawl out of it. Two months of caution do not mandate a "lost decade." Indeed, we will know in a matter of months whether the Obama administration's current efforts are gaining any traction, and if they aren't, then there <em>will be</em> no other alternatives. Perhaps the smartest thing that Geithner's critics could do is just step aside and let him fail.</blockquote>Oh yeah, I almost forgot--happy belated sixth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War!ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-15060155423735901452009-03-21T08:44:00.000-07:002009-03-22T15:21:58.363-07:00A blogging hiatus, Geithner, AIG, and SuburbiaIt's been almost a month since I last wrote anything on here, which is in bad form for a political blog.<br /><br />But I've noticed that since I've become angrier and angrier as this financial mess drags on, it's been harder to verbalize my rage. So I took a break from blogging. I hoped that maybe there would be some progress. I was naive.<br /><br />Jon Steward <a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?collectionId=221532">crushed Jim Cramer</a> on <span style="font-style: italic;">The Daily Show</span>, but there hasn't been a change in the corporate media's attitude towards cheer-leading the banks.<br /><br />The Obama administration has finally revealed itself to be anti-progressive, and their financial plan has Paul Krugman saying this:<br /><blockquote><p>To this end the plan proposes to create funds in which private investors put in a small amount of their own money, and in return get large, non-recourse loans from the taxpayer, with which to buy bad — I mean misunderstood — assets. This is supposed to lead to fair prices because the funds will engage in competitive bidding.</p> But it’s immediately obvious, if you think about it, that these funds will have skewed incentives. In effect, Treasury will be creating — deliberately! — the functional equivalent of Texas S&Ls in the 1980s: financial operations with very little capital but lots of government-guaranteed liabilities. For the private investors, this is an open invitation to play heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose. So sure, these investors will be ready to pay high prices for toxic waste. After all, the stuff <em>might</em> be worth something; and if it isn’t, that’s someone else’s problem. </blockquote>I could write about my disappointment with Obama on not listening to sane economists, but this music video does it for me:<br /><blockquote></blockquote><br /><object width="425" height="264"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XOYAuk809fY&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XOYAuk809fY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="264"></embed></object><br /><br />And AIG. It's time to call bullshit on their "contractual obligations" to pay millions of dollars in bonuses. They knew damn well where their company was headed at this time, and now taxpayers are accounting for greed.<br /><br />But Geithner helped them do it of course. Chris Dodd should have taken more of a stand against it, but I suppose with the President and the Treasury-Secretary against you, you do what they say. From <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/blame_dodd_attacks_ignore_facts.html">FactCheck.Org</a>:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The public record shows Dodd authored an amendment that would have prevented "any bonus" being paid to top executives of firms getting bailout money. It was the White House and the Treasury Department that insisted Dodd's amendment be watered down to apply only to bonuses paid under agreements signed in the past five weeks. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has taken public responsibility for that.</span></span></blockquote>It's so cliche, but the Democrats and Republicans really are two sides of the same coin, which happens to be in the pocket of...the banks? the corporations in general?<br />The capitalist superstructure.<br /><br />Obama's appeal to populist rage was the perfect example of a government's manipulation of people's collective feelings through the prevailing hegemony. He can go on Leno all he wants, but the public is going to see through this smokescreen. We have to.<br /><br />On a completely different note, I wasn't sure if I should bring in my personal feelings about suburbia into this blog, but since I am a suburban radical, it wouldn't make sense not to. I recently experienced a revelation that makes me remebmer why I call myself a Marxist in the first place.<br /><br />I am in a half-year economics course in my high school, which basically serves as an introduction to modern capitalism. We have briefly studied the "supply" side of things and the "demand" side. I am forced to argue on Keynesian talking points, because there is no room, I realize, for a "labor" side of things. That's why Marx was and is so important. There is no branch of economics that doesn't reify workers except for those influenced by Marx.<br /><br />Suburban schools are the most obvious products of capitalism and the false consciousness that accompanies it.<br /><br />Just a thought.ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-3339177295986736862009-02-28T21:19:00.000-08:002009-02-28T21:20:57.482-08:00More cartoonsThis Mr. Fish cartoon really speaks to me, but probably because I really hate "The Family Circus":<br /><a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004467">http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004467</a>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-2052050130709798352009-02-26T13:50:00.001-08:002009-02-26T13:51:50.424-08:00The end of print mediaI don't want to think that it's true. But with the advent of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Rocky Mountain News</span> closing, I'm getting very afraid.<br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/rocky-mountain-news-last_n_170291.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/rocky-mountain-news-last_n_170291.html</a>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8752572318942911886.post-2967853094368265922009-02-24T19:27:00.000-08:002009-02-24T19:28:57.561-08:00Nobody messes with Joe.<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FyC-SU8Emhc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FyC-SU8Emhc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>ProletariatPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01513426823143650543noreply@blogger.com0