the frig blig

Soaking up the beautiful spring sunshine in Ballard Saturday, I ran across these LaRouche-istas with their amusing ‘Impeach Barack Obama’ poster (wherein the President sports a Hitler-style mustache). One of them asked me if I thought Obama was a socialist.

Not wanting to get involved in a discussion of fascism vs socialism, I merely remarked that if Obama was a socialist, everyone would have a fucking job.

Have a good day.

I’ve lived in this here Murica my whole entire life and am embarrassed to admit I don’t know how to instigate a proposal for federal legislation other than asking a congresscritter to sponsor it. Just to complicate matters, there are two different legislative bodies which must pass any bill, and it’s usually modified in the process. Am I daunted? Maybe a little. Will I try to find a legislative sponsor for my idea? How hard can it be to ask?

OK I suppose I’ll ask my reps and report their replies in a future blig post. Do this thing right.

Frog out.

As this article in The Register reports today.

The following guest commentary is reprinted from Eat The State:

We Could Each Be Dr. King

by Geov Parrish

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been 81 this year. He has now been dead for longer than he was alive. As his living memory fades, replaced by a feel-good “I have a dream” whitewash that ignores much of what he stood for and fought against, it’s more important than ever to recapture the true history of Dr. King–because much of what he fought against is resurfacing or is still with us today.

Last year, our annual, facile third-Monday celebration of King was inextricably linked with the improbable yet true inauguration the next day of Barack Obama as the United States’ first African-American president. Pundits (mostly white) sucked up a lot of air, ink, and pixels comparing the achievements of the two.

It was a gross disservice to both. Obama is a politician who happens to be a groundbreaker; his race is, to be sure, a key part of his identity, but racial issues are not what propelled him to power. (Maybe, just maybe, by 2012 his performance, not his skin color, will be the primary consideration in voters’ appetite for him.) Dr. King, by contrast, was a groundbreaker who became an (unelected) politician. Obama inspired billions through who he is and through his gift for inspiring rhetoric, but he is, at the end of the day, a politician trying to get and stay elected. King was not about elections; he was about liberation. Dr. King spoke truth to power; Obama is power. Obama is not King. King was not an Obama. We need to remember the difference, and remember that King was far more than a dream that Obama (supposedly) became the culmination of.

King, the man, was, along with Mohandas Gandhi, one of the two most internationally revered symbols of nonviolence in the 20th century. He spent his too-brief adult life defying authority and convention, citing a higher moral authority, and gave hope and inspiration for the liberation of people of color on six continents. King is not a legend because he believed in diversity trainings and civic ceremonies, or because he had a nice dream. He is remembered because he took serious risks to his own life (and eventually lost it) fighting for a higher cause. King is also remembered because, among a number of brave and committed civil rights leaders and activists, he had a flair for self-promotion, a style that also appealed to white liberals, and the extraordinary social strength of the black Southern churches behind him. And because he died before he had a chance to be widely believed a relic or buffoon.

What little history TV will give us around King’s holiday this year will be at least as much about forgetting as about remembering, as much about self-congratulatory patriotism that King was American as self-examination that American racism made him necessary and that government, at every level, sought to destroy him. We hear “I have a dream”; we don’t hear his powerful indictments of poverty, the Vietnam War, and the military-industrial complex. We see Bull Connor in Birmingham; we don’t see arrests for fighting segregated housing in Chicago, or the years of beatings and busts before he won the Nobel Peace Prize. We don’t hear about the mainstream American contempt at the time for King, even after that Peace Prize, nor the FBI harassment or his reputation among conservatives as a Commie dupe.

We don’t see retrospectives on King’s linkage of civil rights with Third World liberation. We forget that he died in Memphis lending support for a union (the garbage workers’ strike), while organizing a multi-racial Poor Peoples’ Campaign that demanded affordable housing and decent-paying jobs as basic civil rights transcending skin color. We forget that many of King’s fellow leaders weren’t nearly so polite. Cities were burning. We remember Selma instead.

And we forget that of those many dreams King had, only one–equal access for non-whites–is significantly realized today. More than a half-century after the Montgomery bus boycott catapulted a 26-year-old King into prominence, even that is only partly achieved. Blacks are being systematically disenfranchised in our elections, and affirmative action and school desegregation are all but dead. Urban school districts across the country these days are as segregated and unequal as ever, and a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court has helped usher in a new era where possible redress for discrimination is steadily whittled away.

Sure, gifted African-Americans like Obama can achieve at a level unthinkable in King’s day. But the better test of a society’s colorblindness (or gender equity) is not how the most talented of each race or gender fare, but how the mediocre do. A black mediocrity on the level of George W. Bush could still never, ever become President of the United States.

An even bigger problem with how we celebrate King’s legacy, as a generation dies off and the historical memory fades, is that he has become an icon, not a historical figure (distorted or otherwise). History requires context; icons don’t. The racism King challenged four and five decades ago in Georgia and Alabama was also dominant throughout the country. Here in Seattle, few whites know that history: the housing and school segregation, laws barring Asians from owning land (overturned only in the ’60s), the marches downtown from predominantly black Garfield High School, police harassment of both radical and mainstream black activists, the still-unsolved assassination of a local NAACP leader.

Every city in America has such histories. We don’t know the stories of the people, many still with us, who led those struggles. And we rarely acknowledge that the overt racism of Montgomery 1955 is no longer so overt, but still part of America in 2010. It shows up in our geography, in our jails, in our schools, in our voting booths, in our shelters and food banks, in our economy, and in the very earnest and extremely white activist groups that often carry the banner on these issues.

If our cities were serious about his legacy, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. would run through downtowns, and there would be MLK Elementary Schools in the suburbs. Instead, in just about every big city in the US, school districts and city councils put King back in the ghetto, along with both the legions of people who worked with him and the many more who’ve taken up his work since.

Opponents of affirmative action and racial equality can claim King’s mantle and, “if he were alive today,” approval only because in 2010, pop culture’s MLK has no politics. And, for that matter, no faith. For white America, King’s soft-focus image often reinforces white supremacism. “See? We’re not so bad. We honor him now. Why don’t those black people just get over it, anyway? We did.”

All that is a lie. Dr. King’s vision is today as urgent as ever. While Jim Crow and the cruelties of overt segregation are now largely unimaginable, much remains to be done. And the moral outrage of Americans, that made King’s work so politically effective? We don’t do that anymore. We can torture thousands of mostly innocent Iraqis and Afghans, in plain sight, and nobody is held accountable. It’d take a whole lot more than Bull Connor’s police dogs to make the news today.

The saddest loss in the modern narrative of Dr. King’s career is the story of who he was: a man without wealth, without elected office, who managed as a single individual to change the world simply through the strength of his moral convictions. His power came from his faith, and his willingness to act on what he knew to be right. That story could inspire many millions to similar action–if only it were told. We could each be Dr. King.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., nonviolent martyr to reconciliation and justice, has become a Hallmark Card, a warm, fuzzy, feel-good invocation of neighborliness, a literally whitewashed file photo for sneakers or soda commercials, a reprieve for post-holiday shoppers, an excuse for a three-day weekend, a cardboard cutout used for photo ops by dissembling politicians of all colors.

Dr. King deserves better. We all do.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations the right to unlimited spending on federal campaign contributions as reported in the Huffington Post.

As has been noted ad nauseum, corporations primary interests do not usually match up with the best interests of human beings. In that light, this is a bad decision which leads one to forecast a tilt toward corporate interests in the federal political sphere (or more accurately, a greater tilt toward corporate interests).

As long as we’re granting corporations more of the rights originally granted to citizens in this country, why not just go ahead and grant corporations the right to run for public office directly? This would eliminate the middleman, the humble politician, who could save face by not having to apologize for passing legislation pushed by his corporate bosses. The corporations could just write their own laws, and pass them directly. The biggest debates would result from the conflicting interests of various corporations. Although with bigger and bigger monopolies, that might be less frequent than would occur in a “free market”.

Current events have got me thinking:

Re: providing post-earthquake aid to Haiti — what role is the Dominican Republic playing? I’d expect them to be first responders since they share the island. But I never hear mention of them in news reports.

Re: Google’s publicized decision to quit censoring searches on their system in China — what censorship does Google perform for other countries’ governments? I’d like to see a comprehensive list of the countries Google serves and their respective government censorship and/or snooping requests, but haven’t noticed any reporters asking that question.

Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell, of all people, are sponsoring legislation to prohibit banks from acting like Wall Street speculators, or “bar commercial banks from undertaking brokerage activities” as reported in The Seattle Times this morning.

Needless to say this is a good idea, restoring the regulation (formerly known as the Glass-Steagall Act) enacted during the Great Depression.

What’s puzzling me is the nature of the sponsors — prominent republicans. Of course they know their party, being financed almost completely by big business, is totally opposed to this idea. These are the same interests who arranged it’s repeal under the Clinton administration.

One can be cynical and speculate that McCain and Cantwell are pushing the bill with the expectation that it will be voted down, leaving them looking like good guys. Do senators ever do stuff like this? Is there such a thing as a clean and/or honest Washington politician?

President Obama today accepted the Nobel Peace prize, a mere nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan.

What the heck are the Nobel committee members thinking?

In recognition of this contradiction, Obama delivered an impassioned defense of war in his acceptance speech, tempered with the need to fight war according to “rules of conduct” that reject torture.

Certainly he must be aware of the torture performed by his own administration at formerly secret locations in Poland, Romania and Lithuania. If Obama is so opposed to torture, why did he personally sign a directive to stop public disclosure of photographs of brave Americans torturing prisoners in those spots just a few weeks ago?

This recalls the day when the Nobel Peace prize was awarded to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. How many Cambodians and Vietnamese died for Kissinger’s vision of “peace”?

And how many more Americans will die pursuing Obama’s vision of Afghanistan and who knows where else?

> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: capt.charlesdjacoby@gmail.com
> > To: undisclosed-recipients
> > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:40 AM
> >
> > Hello ,
> >
> > I am hoping as well that we can work together on a better and higher
> > platform. I am a war veteran with the United Nations troop in
> > Afghanistan, on war against terrorism.. I served in the 1st Armored
> > Division in Baghdad Iraq.
> >
> > Based on the United States legislative and executive decision for
> > military action in Iraq, I am among the soldiers that have
> > criticized the U.S. policy on Iraq. Based on this, I have been court
> > martial and found innocent as I have a strong opinion towards peace
> > in Iraq. I will need this car for my purposes as I will be
> > relocating to Europe because of some security reasons and this is
> > why I contacted you so that we can put head together towards my
> > plan to invest in Europe. As a result of this,it will be important
> > for me to reveal to you that I have in my possession the sum of
> > $26.2 million USD. which I got from crude oil deal in Iraq. I have
> > been deployed to Afghanistan but I have this box in Iraq and as soon
> > as I hear from you of your reassurance to assist me then I will
> > communicate for the delivery with the help of a red cross cargo jet.
> >
> > I have this money stored somewhere very safe in our camp in Fallujah
> > Iraq waiting for a moment like this to put the money in good use and
> > now that I have been moved to Afghanistan I want the box moved
> > without delay.. I have a very profitable investment plans on hand.
> > Instead of allowing this terrorists to get the money and spend it on
> > purchasing arms from Russia, it is better channeled to saving the
> > world. I cannot move this money to the United states because I will
> > be in Europe for about 3years, so I need someone I could trust. If
> > you accept, I will transfer the money to Europe where you will be
> > the beneficiary because I am a currently settling some scores with
> > the pentagon so I cannot be parading such an amount so I need to
> > present someone as the beneficiary.. I am an American and an
> > intelligence officer for that so I have a 100% authentic means of
> > transferring the money through diplomatic courier service. I just
> > need your acceptance and all is done.
> >
> > Please if you are interested in this transaction I will give to you
> > the complete details you need for us to carry out this transaction
> > successfully. I decided to find someone that is real and not
> > imaginary and that is why I went to a secured site where I can be
> > sure that the person is real. I believe I can trust you. Right now i
> > am very careful with the way i communicate so as to reduce any kind
> > of risk until this money is finally in your custody. i shall be
> > communicating to you through email and would also give you a call
> > when it is necessary so as to inform you on any important
> > information. I want you to be brave as i have everything under
> > control. I have every proof of this fund in my possession to show
> > you that everything is authentic.
> >
> > I can brief you on further inquiry when I am in a secured place . I
> > am writing from a fresh email account so if you are not interested
> > do not reply to this email and please delete this message, if no
> > response after 3days I will then search for someone else. I am doing
> > this on trust,so i would want you to put aside any act of greed or
> > the thought of cheating as we have a lot to gain in this business
> > relationship. 26.2 million USD is a lot of money which is the dream
> > of anyone. I am in Afghanistan right now and need to secure this
> > money and send it to you if we reach a proper agreement.
> >
> > I wait for your contact details so we can go on. In less than 5 days
> > the fund should have been delivered to you and I will come over for
> > my money. I will give to you 30% of the sum and 70% is for me. I
> > hope I am been fair on this deal.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Capt. Charles David Jacoby

Today is Sunday November 15. This morning’s New York Times front page has the following “above-the-fold” articles: one about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan (the alleged “Fort Hood killer”); one about “more than a dozen” members of the House of Representatives using the same words about health care (courtesy of lobbyist Genentech); one about President Obama visiting China; and one titled High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War.

The Maj. Hasan story speculates about his motives. Since he’s currently alive in the hospital, hopefully his lawyers will give him an opportunity to speak for himself eventually. However, that hasn’t stopped people from coming up with their own theories. One intriguing theory is articulated by the following quote:

“Some experts on terrorism say Major Hasan may be the latest example of an increasingly common type of terrorist, one who has been self-radicalized with the help of the Internet and who wreaks havoc without support from overseas networks and without having to cross a border to reach his target.”

In other words…his actions were a result of his own thinking. He was not following anybody’s orders but his own. Scary.

The ‘House Record … Lobbyists’ story talks about how corporate lobbyists spoon-feed sound bytes to Washington lawmakers. Shocking. By all means, let’s do something about it…oh wait…bribing lawmakers is constitutionally-protected free speech. And writing your own speeches is so last century.

The ‘Obama Visits China’ story talks about how the U.S. President is being oh-so-careful to not do or say anything that might make our Asian Overlords angry. ‘Nuf said.

The ‘Troop Debate’ story contains a very interesting estimate — “… the rough formula used by the White House…about $1 million per soldier a year…”. So it becomes trivial to calculate rough estimates of how much money our government is spending on the war in Afghanistan. I suspect our soldiers might find it interesting too, when comparing it to their salaries.

There are currently roughly 62,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan (according to the National Priorities Project). The current U.S. population is 307 million. Unemployment just topped 10 percent, which comes to 30 million people without jobs. So just by cutting our current troop level in half — not eliminating it, mind you, just cutting it in half — and giving the money saved to all of the unemployed citizens in America — we would instantly turn all 30 million unemployed into millionaires. Some of them might consider starting small businesses, which would hire other people — driving up wages since there would no longer be unemployment. I personally would consider this a good thing for the economy — maybe way better than giving TWO HUNDED TIMES this much money to bail out Wall Street. But I don’t have a degree in economics, and I consider helping out ORDINARY CITIZENS down on their luck at least as important as helping out the millionaires and billionaires who run Wall Street. So clearly I’m out of touch with federal priorities.

Which brings me to a tiny, six-sentence story on page 22 titled Gates Blocks Photographs of Prisoners. This article notes that Secretary of Defense Gates has invoked new powers, granted by Congress and signed by President Obama last month, to block the release of photographs of foreign detainees abused by American captors. This was a result of the ACLU’s having sued for release of the photographs of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq being abused by Americans, and federal courts having ruled in favor of the ACLU.

Well it’s just another example of America’s proud tradition of censorship and hiding the truth from that most dangerous faction, the public! We certainly don’t want to give our citizens THE TRUTH, especially the UGLY TRUTH! They might start thinking for themselves!