Meesher's Blog

Slipping Standards

2005-11-08T16:50:00.000-05:00

Judging by the way in which columnists in the Philadelphia Inquirer responded to the recent transit strike here, there has been very little effort made to teach these white-collar and "educated" workers anything in the way of American labor history. At least one of them compared striking transit workers to "trust-fund brats," which can only be described as a perplexing way to talk about underpaid wage-workers who are of course as far from spoiled and privileged as is possible.
The sticking point in the contract dispute was health benefits, which had been paid by the state for as long as the Transit Authority had existed. Some workers in the private sector expressed incredulity at the idea that an employer would pay for their employees' health insurance. The reality is not, however, that transit workers are somehow spoiled because they expect benefits from their employers, but that, along with a decline in real wages in recent years, there has been a major decline in the level of benefits given to employees. Somehow in a period of constant economic expansion there has been little return for the working class. So little, in fact, that what was once expected is now seen as some sort of absurd luxury. And how else can wage earners get and keep reasonable pay and benefits but by organizing and striking?

What?!

2005-06-25T20:58:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine recently got a cultural-sensitivity training packet from work. The part that stuck out was a list of stereotypes: "African-Americans tend to see the whole picture instead of the parts... African-Americans tend to sympathize with others' problems... African-Americans tend to focus on meaning rather than precision of speech."
Has anyone else encountered this sort of "sensitivity training," or was my friend the victim of a spot-the-mistake prank? Cultural sensitivity is one thing, and suggesting that people of a certain race all have the same brain, which is what these stereotypes suggest, is a whole other creature. Black people don't all think in the same way any more than white people all think in the same way, and it is ridiculous to decide "I had better give the whole picture when I explain this" based on the race of the person to whom one is talking.

Amateur Politicians, Please

2005-06-22T22:12:00.000-04:00

The annual report on spending by the British royal family came out today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1512088,00.html), and the total is £36.7 million, or about $67 million in the last year. The money was spent on staff, maintenance of palaces, travel, insurance, and parties. Leaving aside my un-American hatred of monarchies, the question still must be asked: why do taxpayers need to pay so much money to keep them up? Couldn't the royals be held to a more modest salary, say, the profits from their enormous farms, if not completely eliminated? My own side of the Atlantic isn't blameless in this respect either. The Congress, a rich man's club because of the need to finance campaigns, is nevertheless paid tens of millions annually, and the Executive Mansion and other presidential perks are very, very expensive. Also, after they leave office, American politicians simply roll in it, with book deals, speaking engagements, and cushy advisory jobs.
Do we need our leaders to be richer than us, to live in extravagant luxury actually, for them to seem legitimate? If so, that is a very frightening thought. And if not, I propose cutting their pay. Let's say the average salary in your constituency, and nothing if you're already rich.

From The Mouths of Babes

2005-06-17T13:12:00.000-04:00

The local broadsheet, the Baltimore Sun, has taken to printing columns written by high school and college students in the editorial section. I would have no problem with this if only they could write! There are three problems with these larval columnists. First, they simply haven't been writing long enough to get good at it. Then they replace this lack of experience with their school lessons, so that every column looks the same: five paragraphs with a carbon-copy introduction, body, and conclusion. Finally, and this is probably more the fault of the newspaper editors, they address topics so meaningless and juvenile that they belong on the back of a cereal box. One of the columns was on why high school seniors don't work as hard as they ought to. Honestly.
Newspapers shouldn't discriminate against young writers, as that would hurt my sapling self. But there's no need to pump in Gen-Y fluff without a brain behind it. Doing so probably even works against young writers who want to be taken seriously.

Sorry

2005-06-14T00:36:00.000-04:00

I heard about the Downing Street Memo shortly after it became public, but my thought was, "that's for ignorant hyper-skeptics; everyone already knows that the US and UK invented the excuse for the war in Iraq." It recently occured to me, however, that there probably are people who don't know that. To those people I say that I'm sorry. Read the Memo if you haven't done (it's quite short). Or, if you must, take my word that it shows that the Prime Minister specifically, and the British and American governments in general, were planning the war far in advance and that they manufactured the WMD/ejection of weapons inspectors excuse.
We went to war not for weapons or democracy or freedom, but because a nice vigorous war would help during elections, give a hand to the arms industry, and bring in some cheap oil. That's not politics; it's crime. Impeach and remove.

Five of Many

2005-06-06T19:54:00.000-04:00

John Brown, the American abolitionist who tried to lead a slave rebellion and was gruesomely executed in the attempt, came up in conversation today. I said at the time that he is one of my five greatest heroes, which caused me to think about who the other four would be. Here is the complete list, in no real order:

John Brown
Nat Turner
Lucas Radebe
Oliver Cromwell
Fidel Castro

Questions and comments would be appreciated, but concerns I can do without. I'm not really sure why "concerns" is part of that cliché at all. So just questions and comments, please.

United States of Europe?

2005-06-03T15:55:00.000-04:00

It seems like a very significant world event is being widely ignored in the US, and that event is the creation (and rejection) of the new European constitution. Except for a light reading of The Guardian, I haven't found much information on this constitution or its ratification, so I'm turning to my European readers (yes, both of you) for clarification. Who supports the constitution, and who is against it? Do you think this is the first step in making Europe into one nation? And why did French and Dutch voters reject it?

A Free Ride

2005-06-01T08:59:00.000-04:00

Cheaper, cleaner, more efficient. Isn't that the American way? Apparently not, because many people in this country are not just neutral to public transportation, but actively against it. We love our cars, even if buses and trains would cause less pollution, cost less in upkeep, and dramatically reduce the problem that local politicians constantly complain about but can't fix, traffic. Despite the historic significance and modern importance of railroads, Congress and the Executive are working together to destroy the national rail system by making Amtrak bankrupt and then privatizing it. Despite the fact that public transportation could easily be extended to reach every small corner of the country, we continue to spend inconceivable amounts of money on building more roads and maintaining existing ones for the ever-increasing number of cars.
Ever since the tire companies bribed city officials to stop popular streetcars and trolleys in Baltimore and other cities (Goodyear was found guilty of this in Baltimore; it's in the public record), there has been a trend of politicians supporting automakers' profits over their own citizens' best interest. The two possible projects in Maryland now are a real subway system in my lovely city and a giant highway between the D.C. suburbs and the Baltimore suburbs. Guess which one is going to happen.
The solution is an enormous re-investment in the rail system, big increases in local bus and subway systems, and the elimination of fares for passengers, so that everyone can use them. This might seem expensive, but not if you compare it to the cost of cars, roadbuilding, suburban expansion, gas, and gas-driven foreign policy.

No Justice

2005-05-26T11:49:00.000-04:00

The Civil Rights movement in America is not defeated, but it is not victorious either. In July of last year, a 17-year-old black boy named Noah Jamahl Jones was beaten to death by six young white men at a party in Pasadena, Maryland, a mostly-white suburb of Baltimore. On the twelth of this month, an all-white jury found the first defendant not guilty, and charges were dropped against the remaining defendants. In a country where people of color are jailed at an incredibly disproportionate rate, usually for non-violent crimes, a group of vicious white murderers goes free without so much as a stern lecture.
Some people are arguing that Jones is not a modern-day Emmett Till (the black 14-year-old who was murdered 50 years ago by two white men, who were in turn set free by an all-white jury) because two of his friends came to the party armed. In effect, they are saying that he deserved to die because his friends had guns, which is of course absurd. The point is that racial inequality and tensions still exist, regardless of how many African Americans are in the Cabinet. The gains of the Civil Rights movement were never complete, and they will continue to erode unless people actively fight for them.

An Obvious Lie

2005-05-22T00:58:00.000-04:00

One of the fundamental differences between people who accept the current capitalist system and those who don’t must be that the former think that there are few problems in the world and little room for improvement. As any pro-capitalist will tell you, capitalism has “won” and market economics rules the day. Accordingly, anyone who approves of the system must be ignorant of, or indifferent to, the problems inherent therein. Market capitalism is not the final answer for the world: widespread and extreme poverty, perpetual war, and an enormous gap between classes is proof of that. The argument that capitalism solves any of these problems is obviously false; if it were true, they would be disappearing right now on their own, which is not the case.

Negative Times Negative

2005-04-27T23:11:00.000-04:00

While it is true that racism does not just exist in one direction (there is racism directed from members of every race to every other race, to a greater or lesser degree), discrimination by poor minorities against the powerful majority is not nearly as sinister or as harmful as the other way around, and is possibly even a positive force.
As a white boy who grew up in a neighborhood that is overwhelmingly black and working-class, I can’t count on hands and feet the number of times it was said that I was “black,” which meant that I was cool, that I wasn’t weird and foreign, and that I wasn’t a snitch. This demonstrates the nature of racism against whites in America: it is a protection against the destruction of minority cultures and communities by the hegemonic white culture. It is also a protection against the only whites that many poor minorities encounter on a regular basis, namely the police and other authority figures.
While poor whites have a legitimate claim to being victims of discrimination, most of that discrimination comes from the mainstream white community; resentment of minorities by poor whites is misdirected. Racism is an extension of class struggle. When it is directed by those in power towards the poor it is oppressive, but when it goes the other way it can be a liberating force, if properly understood and properly used.

Dying Well

2005-04-25T20:47:00.000-04:00

A subject that Western culture is either unable or unwilling to address properly is that of death. It is impossible to talk about death in our society without being accused of morbidity or of glorifying violence. The other reaction is concern that the speaker might be contemplating suicide, which shows just how taboo the subject is. This could be seen as just a cultural quirk, but there are serious consequences for our practice of ignoring death.
First, our refusal to talk about death leads us to ignore tragedies, or to not understand them. Children are told nothing about death, even to the point of telling them that a relative has gone to a farm or the like, in an attempt to shield them from sadness forever. Thus, the only exposure they have to death is in violent movies, video games, and toys. This entertainment alone can't make people oblivious to the pain of others, but when it is coupled with a societal and internal shield from one's own pain, the result is that children are taught that death is either cool or "a shame." There is no development of our capacity for empathy, which is one of the reasons why Americans can accept deaths in war, as long as neither our families nor our communities are affected.
Another consequence is that Westerners find it difficult to die comfortably and happily. I am not arguing for a religious solution to this, although it is true that religious individuals may have an easier time with accepting and understanding their deaths. Any person with a pinch of spirituality can die happily if given time and help, but we discourage people from doing so. The sick and elderly are put away in sterile hospitals and homes to protect their families from grief, those who know they are dying are expected to fight it until the end, and we are expected to accumulate wealth and accomplishments before death to preserve our legacies. This taboo is not harmless, and we should encourage an intelligent and comprehensive discussion of death in the public arena.

Just In: Ice Is Cold

2005-04-22T00:06:00.000-04:00

Why not make the National Hockey League a mostly Canadian league, with a few teams over the border in New England and the Upper Midwest? It's no wonder the current incarnation of professional North American hockey is collapsing: most of the US is far more concerned with stock-car racing than with ice hockey. I never understood the existence of teams in Texas, Florida, and Southern California. For one thing, few people in the South have followed the sport for any length of time, so their interest is only superficial. Also, outside of Canada and Northern Europe, ice hockey is reserved for the fairly wealthy people who can afford both equipment and artificially frozen rinks. Unlike football, baseball, basketball, soccer, and (ahem) car racing, hockey can't be played in the street. There are no children in Florida who go to the local pond to skate around, and it is ridiculous to have a sports team in a place where the local population doesn't play that sport.

Good News & Bad News

2005-04-19T22:47:00.000-04:00

American mass media is flawed. I don't mean just in terms of their ideoligical leanings; there are enormous flaws in the actual content and styles of delivery as well. Chief among these is the focus on the individual. Television and newspapers have made everything into a "special interest story," and when something happens that affects a large group of people, they find one individual in that group and concentrate most of their attention on him or her. This increases Americans' sense of relativism between issues. They see one only one person, or very few, affected by any event, which makes it seem like events are equally important whether they happen to one person or millions. Thus, the average American TV viewer thinks that a woman on life support really deserves as much attention as millions dying from famine or war. A large part of this, of course, is the pandemic celebrity-worship that brings every story back to a movie star or politician, and leads to the actions of reality-television people being reported on the news.
The other aspect of the media that is more easily recognizable is the fact that they hardly report news. The New York Times is the only broadsheet that springs to mind that doesn't rely largely on wire reports. Most newspapers tell only a small part of what is going on in the world or even in their own communities, and the amount of actual information given on the television news is of course even less. I am not saying that the media should move over for blogs, or anything like that. What I would like to see is that the news outlets push to deliver more real information, not sappy biographies, and trust the American people to understand what is happening. I'm not in favor of a complete imitation of British newspapers or the BBC, but there is much to be learned from them.

Why I Don't Vote For Democrats

2005-04-16T17:30:00.000-04:00

I have voted for some Democrats, ones who I consider reasonably left-wing and are in the party because it is the only way for them to get heard. That being said, I usually mark the ballot for some minor-party candidate: Greens or the various socialist and communist parties. Friends say that I'm wasting my vote, and that we need to elect Democrats to keep Republicans out of office.
The Democrats are a party of the rich; they always have been. They do not advocate redistribution of wealth. They fight war after war. They support giant corporations, and they are against the poor at home and abroad. Democrats might not be as bad as Republicans (I can hardly see a difference), but they are still a negative force and something to be fought against.
Throughout the history of this country, there has been terrible poverty during every Democratic, and Republican, administration. This is not by accident. The Democrats represent rich capitalists, and it helps rich capitalists for most other people to be poor, living hand to mouth. It is nothing new for them to speak progressive reform when they are forced to, but they do this out of the necessity of getting elected, not from some philanthropic sense.
Why, then, vote for leftists who won't get elected? Because of all the people who say that they would do the same if they had a chance of winning. The only way for a party to get a chance of winning is for people to vote for them, and I might as well be among the first to do so.

My Preemptive Strike

2005-04-13T11:36:00.000-04:00

Don’t get me wrong; an American invasion of Iran would be catastrophic and horrible. The same goes for Syria and North Korea. But there is a war, one that looks like a very real possibility, that gives me more fear than any of those. A war with China would mean the loss of millions of lives, because both sides have armies measured in the millions and powerful nuclear arsenals.
All of the signs are pointing to a clash between these two capitalist superpowers. China is making enormous economic leaps, which will pose a challenge to the United States. Many experts already agree that American hegemony, our complete and unrivaled dominance of the world, has already ended. China will increase its push into markets and sources of raw materials now controlled by the US, which will put the two countries into a position of conflict. Also, the American stance on Taiwan, and possibly the situation in North Korea, could force a war.
Please, please, please, don’t let a war between China and the United States happen. No time is too soon to work to prevent this war, because it a real threat and a very serious one. This is something all reasonable people can agree on, so be prepared with an argument and a plan for what you yourself will do to stop the war before it starts.

Going And Coming

2005-04-11T20:20:00.000-04:00

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps," they tell the poor, "stop being lazy and get a job." This admonition, I would assume, applies to the poor in other countries as well; surely conservatives don't want to fund aid to other parts of the world.
All of this just makes it more unfair to take an anti-immigrant stance, since immigrants simply hear the advice to get a job and come to this country to find one. The editorial page today in the Philadelphia Inquirer, a fairly liberal (not that I assign that word much significance) paper in an area where immigration isn't that big a deal, was a virtual haven of immigrant-hating. I'd hate to think what it is like in other parts of the country.
Let me be specific: the anti-immigrant position is racist and it is stupid. Perhaps those who are against people moving towards capital to find work are not trying to be racist, but nobody is complaining about Europeans and Canadians entering the country; they don't want Latinos here. Also, history has shown time and again that immigration, even of poor, unskilled workers who don't speak English, really does help the country. This cannot be considered an issue for reasonable debate, but rather a fringe topic wherein well-informed people generally agree.
Finally, one of the articles in the Inquirer decried the decline of Christianity in Europe. The author was actually able to get published her fear that Christians would "lose" Europe to Muslims. Let's not kid ourselves, the history of Christianity in Europe is one of war, oppression, torture, and violence. There is nothing to recommend Christianity over Islam except the prejudice of the person doing the recommendation. Again, we needn't tip-toe around the subject: resuming a Crusade mentality of Christians-against-Muslims is simple racism, and it doesn't need to be given equal time in the press.

Iraq- 2015

2005-04-07T15:01:00.000-04:00

In the current world system, there are only a few possible futures for Iraq, none of them good.
- The US occupation continues. American and European corporations move in even more and become entrenched in the country. The vast majority of Iraqis live in slums, earning just enough to sustain themselves, while the few who live in rich urban centers tell Americans how much better off they are. Armed resistance continues.
- The armies leave, but the corporations stay. People are still increasingly poor, exploited by a few foreign companies, and Iraq is completely ignored in the West. There is a possibility of a civil war.
-An economically left-wing government, socially oppressive or not, takes over the country, hurting the multi-national corporations who want to operate there. The US invades again or encourages a coup, and everything starts over from the top.
There is no chance of another Germany or Japan miracle. Those required a huge amount of (shock, horror!) socialist-style investment by America in the form of the Marshall Plan, something no American politician is going to approve of these days. I am in no way discounting the ability of Iraqis to take care of themselves, but they will simply not be allowed to do so.

RBG

2005-04-04T00:05:00.000-04:00

The abbreviation RBG usually stands for "Revolutionary But Gangster," which refers to someone who adopts radical left-wing political ideas but doesn't forget his hardcore, no-nonsense "gangster" style.
I've taken the liberty of borrowing the abbreviation to mean "Revolutionary But Godly," which is what I hope the next pope will be. There is a school of Christian thought, Liberation Theology, that puts forward the revolutionary (but very self-evident) idea that Jesus was an advocate of the poor and oppressed and that the role of the Church should be to help the poor in their struggles against the rich. This school has been developed mostly in Latin America and was opposed by John Paul II because he viewed it as overly communistic. With luck, the next pope will be more open to Liberation Theology: the papacy is still a very powerful position, and having an "RBG" pope would be an enormous boon for the world.

Unrest

2005-03-31T21:55:00.000-05:00

Several big protests happened in the last week, notably in Kyrgyzstan and Mali. The former was a response to the election last month being stolen by President Askar Akayev, who has the support of the US because of Kyrgyzstan's strategic position. His dictatorial rule of the country was of course ignored until he was forced to flee on the 24th of March. Hopefully, a better government will replace the ousted one, but it is unlikely if America intervenes on Akayev's behalf, because dictators are good for business.
The protest in Bamako, Mali started as a pitch invasion in the World Cup qualifier between Mali and Togo, when Togo went ahead with a late goal. According to the BBC, Malian fans then went into the streets outside the stadium, blocked roads with burning tires, and smashed Togolese restaurants, with a number of people being injured in the process. While such violence in sports is horrible, it is important to remember that this is not just an African problem: pitch invasions and rioting are common in sporting events in Europe and America as well.

La Liga

2005-03-31T21:29:00.000-05:00

An AP article that appeared on page 3 of the Philadelphia Inquirer sports section today admitted what I've already been saying for a while: Major League Soccer (MLS) are not going to succeed in marketing themselves to mainstream America. The average non-Latino American is a provincial creature who likes provincial sports, and it makes sense to recognize that the soccer audience in the US comprises Latinos and recent immigrants. The admission comes in naming new clubs "Real Salt Lake" and "CD Chivas USA," and renaming the Dallas Burn "FC Dallas." The big problem I have with the article is that the it makes a big deal about Real Salt Lake having to live up to their namesakes. Real Betis are in third place in the Spanish first division, followed by Real Zaragoza and Real Sociedad. But of course, the writer is talking about the big-money side, Real Madrid, although that seems not to warrant mention. Surely FC Dallas have more to live up to, since FC Barcelona are sitting in first place in the league.

Apologies

2005-03-31T21:16:00.000-05:00

Sorry to my reader for the lack of posts: things were happening here but that's no excuse. I'll try to write more regularly, so watch this space.

Sharpton In Philadelphia

2005-03-23T20:54:00.000-05:00

The Reverend Al Sharpton came to speak at Temple University today. The billing for the event said that he would be telling his life story, which he did touch on, but he mostly addressed current issues and his 2004 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. I thought that this was more interesting anyway.
Mr. Sharpton spoke about the problems facing the Democratic Party: they don't have a strong identity and they allow the Republicans to distract them from the important issues. I don't disagree with this, but I don't hold any hope for the Democrats actually becoming progressive and worthwhile enough for me to worry about them. He did voice support for third parties, and seemed discontent with the Democrats, which was encouraging. The majority of the speech centered on the war in Iraq. Mr. Sharpton explained how the Republicans keep changing the justification for war to stifle dissent, and countered the current explanation of democratization by suggesting that the Sudan, among other examples, had a greater need for democracy, or for foreign intervention. He expressed his concerns that Iran would be the next country Mr. Bush would invade, if allowed.
Another large portion of the speech was devoted to the issue of morality in the United States. Reverend Sharpton, responding to a Temple student who stupidly challenged the preacher on his knowledge of the Bible, argued that his religious views on the morality of gay marriage or abortion shouldn't be imposed on others. He used the New Testament example of Jesus stopping an adulterous woman from being stoned to death: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He also argued that childcare, education, healthcare, redistribution of wealth, and reform of the justice system were more important moral issues, but he stopped short of calling for the abolition of the prison system.
Finally, Mr. Sharpton firmly stated his support for reparations, arguing that they should be paid as remuneration for state-supported segregation rather than for slavery. In response to Kweisi Mfume's complaint that black congresspeople aren't united on this issue, he suggested that their constituents threaten not to reelect them otherwise.
All in all, I agreed with a great part of what Reverend Sharpton said, and I like his style even more in person than on television.

Home By Christmas

2005-03-20T15:57:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was the 2nd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Those of us without the memory of a goldfish will recall that the US and British armies were supposed to go into Iraq, destroy their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and leave quickly. I don't think any government official said explicitly that the soldiers would be home by Christmas (a common recruiting slogan in previous wars), but that has more to do with the political correctness of the holiday than with how quick we were told the war would be. There was supposed to be a pro-American democracy, that is, a docile and obedient American colony, established almost immediately. I didn't believe any of this, but it is what we were told.
Let me put forward another example, one that I have mentioned before. In 1898, the US took control of the Philippines from Spain during the Spanish-American War. The spoken intention of the American government was to give the country its independence almost immediately, because America, of course, isn't interested in empire. The official occupation ended up lasting until 1945, and the US still has enormous economic control over the Philippines. The low estimate is that 200,000 Filipinos died from the war and subsequent occupation, which is comparable to the Lancet numbers for Iraq. It should be obvious now that Britain and America won't leave Iraq for a long time, and then only when they have complete control over the country's wealth.

Forest For The Trees

2005-03-19T16:44:00.000-05:00

I feel I should say something about Terri Schiavo, the woman in Florida whose feeding tube was removed yesterday after she spent 15 years in a "vegetative state." The fight over whether she should be kept alive has been all over the internet for ages, and many people seem to think that this case is the most important issue of the day. It is not. No one really likes to imagine the possibility that this woman might still have brain activity and could still recover, just as no one likes to imagine that an aborted fetus or zygote might already be a fully developed person. The thing is that these issues are debatable. On the other hand, there are people being killed in war, being tortured, dying from starvation and easily treatable diseases; there is no debate about whether this is happening. Why give so much attention to the debatable case of one individual when there are so many clear-cut cases that would be so much easier to do something about? I'm not arguing for either side, I'm saying that this individual, ambiguous issue is taking energy and attention away from more important ones.

Satire-Defying

2005-03-16T17:30:00.000-05:00

Today, Mr. Bush nominated Paul Wolfowitz, the current Deputy Secretary of Defence, to head the World Bank (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1439191,00.html). Wolfowitz is known as being one of the leading figures to push for the war in Iraq, and for never in his life having done anything related to his new job. Mr. Wolfowitz has never worked in reducing poverty, protecting the environment, protecting human rights, or even banking, all of which are, believe it or not, what the head of the World Bank is supposed to do. We can only assume that he will follow Mr. Bush's misanthropic lead in these areas, since there is nothing else to base our expectations on. I don't think I need to tell anyone that this would be bad for poor countries. They can look forward to more debt, worsening living conditions, and the occasional American invasion. These things would probably happen anyway, but Mr. Wolfowitz will just make matters worse.

The Basics

2005-03-13T23:47:00.000-05:00

There are a few very simple beliefs that must be held by all parties for any discussion of the world to be worthwhile. Anyone who holds these beliefs can be involved in reasonable debates and can have valid disagreements with others (They are indeed very basic ideas). I feel it best to present them in list form:
- That which is helpful to humanity is generally good.
- ~90% of people in the world deserve more than they have in life, to a greater or lesser extent through no fault of their own.
- ~1% of people in the world have more than they need.
- Neither you nor any politician is infallible.
- People must act; God or fate will not take care of everything.
- Humans are fundamentally equal, regardless of race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, intelligence, or ability.
- Violence and oppression are generally wrong.

If there is anything that you disagree with on this list, or that you feel I left out, please let me know.

Wage Slavery Going Strong

2005-03-08T23:42:00.000-05:00

In what feels almost like a personal attack on my mood, the Senate rejected not one but two increases in the minimum wage today (http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/08/news/economy/wage_bill.reut/). Granted, the one proposed by Mr. Santorum of Pennsylvania was so full of breaks for businesses that it wouldn't really have helped workers. But it is just about impossible to live comfortably with the proposed wage of $7.25, let alone the current level of $5.15. How can it be that there isn't any rise at all? A full-time job (2,000 hours/year) at the higher level would earn $14,500 in a year, which is hardly even worth showing up at work. Someone who gets the current minimum wage full time earns about $10,300 in a year. In this country, that is the absolute poorest of the poor; it is difficult for some Americans to imagine how horrible life can be for somebody who gets $10,000 per year.
In Britain, a less wealty country than the US, the minimum wage is £5.05, which is equivalent to about $9. This is still very low, but it shows that America has something to live up to. How about a $12 minimum wage, to start with?

Out Of The Frying Pan

2005-03-06T23:12:00.000-05:00

Joshua Haberman, writing in today's Baltimore Sun (6 March, 2005 p. 5C), argues for the universality of the Ten Commandments, not that they should necessarily be displayed in courthouses. Mr. Haberman claims that the Commandments are no longer a sectarian document, but that they are the basis of morality throughout the world. He also says that not one word of the Commandments "could offend a non-Jew or non-Christian."
I have a problem with this sort of thinking, far more than with the actual display of religious text in courthouses. To put up a document and say "this is the source of morality for Jews and Christians and we live in a Christian country" is one thing: it makes no claims to superiority and attempts no conversion, however much it requires a law "respecting an establishment of religion." But the idea that there is no morality outside of the Decalogue, that my ethical sense and yours comes from no other source than a decree from God to Moses, should offend non-Jews and non-Christians. How arrogant to assert that one's own religious text is the inspiration for another's good deeds! To claim that my morality was taught to me neither by my parents nor by my own goodness but by your god, that is to spit in my face. Mr. Haberman extends the display of the Ten Commandments from a quaint and contained demonstration of the majority's beliefs to a proselytizing and insensitive attack. Please, leave well enough alone.

American Eurocentrics

2005-03-02T21:50:00.000-05:00

There is a theory, and a way of thinking, being thrown around lately that runs something like the following:
"the American invasion of Iraq is bringing the benefits of democracy and the American Way to the Middle East"
This theory, known as Modernization or Diffusion of Modernization, was developed in the US during the Cold War to justify neocolonialism to former colonies. The main idea of the theory is that, in order to advance, poor countries must develop an American-style system, and accept American corporations and banks. Modernization theory is the latest incarnation of Eurocentric Diffusionism, the idea that all ideas and inventions, including democracy, naturally diffuse outwards from Europe and America, and that other peoples are incapable of independent invention. This is obviously a myth, though one that is deeply ingrained even in the minds of non-racists. It stems from the evident European domination of the past few centuries, which in turn was caused not by superiority but by the windfall of wealth found in the New World that jumpstarted European expansion. J.M. Blaut, among others, describes and refutes the theory well in his book, "The Colonizer's Model Of The World."
If the Middle East did adopt American-style democracy and commercialism it would certainly be different, but not necessarily better. There is a huge risk that the region would grow to increasingly resemble much of Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, with far more poverty, exploitation of natural resources, and economies based on producing cheap products for very low wages. The forcible introduction of American "modernity" might feel right for Americans and Europeans, but it is not the salvation of the people of the Middle East.

And Liberty And Fraternity

2005-02-28T11:37:00.000-05:00

The idea of equality, or at least the word "equality," is widely used and widely misunderstood or ignored. If it is used to mean that any American has a chance to head a corporation, then the word is useless. If "equality" means that there is represenation of every race in professional sports, then it is pointless. But those cannot be the only applications of the word.
The true concept of equality means that every person is as important as any other. It may seem cliché, but that idea is revolutionary and still very dangerous. That a millet farmer in Mali is worth as much as a corn farmer in Nebraska is something very few Americans would really accept and believe. Few people in the world think the life of an ex-felon factory worker is as important as that of the President. Compare the news coverage dedicated to the personal lives of each. Note the way relatively small numbers of American and European dead are emphasized in news of disasters in other parts of the world.
So the idea of equality is not widely accepted. Why would it be dangerous if it were? Because it would mean that every single person in the world deserves not just famine relief, second-hand clothes, and the polio vaccine, but a truly equal quality of life. And to get to that point, America and Europe would have to lose their supremacy, and the elite within countries would be brought down to an equal level. Equality means some people must lose wealth so that many more can gain it, and that is very dangerous to those on top.

The Sharing Game

2005-02-23T20:50:00.000-05:00

Though it might conflict with the usual focus of this space, I will once again be talking about the politics of sports.
Cities should own their local sports teams. Team owners make fortunes from the residents of a city, get taxpayers to fund stadiums, and, at least in America, move town without the slightest consequence. The only solution to this problem is for the local government where a team plays, or a group of fans, to collect its revenue: the entire community would benefit, ticket prices could be kept reasonable, and teams wouldn't abandon their homes. The perfect example in this country is that of the Green Bay Packers, who are owned by shareholding supporters who don't receive profits. If an owner won't give a team to the city, and fan groups can't buy it, I see no problem with it being taken. Fans own teams in all but name; it makes no sense for some individual to make profits off of them.

Immigration

2005-02-21T22:22:00.000-05:00

You heard it here. The Conservatives will not win the election in Britain, but their anti-immigrant stance, fueled by the BNP (British National Party), is being passed on to Labour. They will take away the possibility for low-income unskilled immigrants to gain citizenship. There are also plans to lock up asylum seekers and deport them after five years. According to The Economist (Jan. 29), 74 percent of Britons think there is too much immigration, but hardly any are worried about people who come to work. So, since most people move to work and refugees aren't allowed to, very few Britons are against any of the people who go there at all, as long as they know the truth. The fact that the Tories followed the far right's lead led to New Labour treating anti-immigrant policy as popular opinion.
The reasons why not allowing refugees into a country is terrible go without saying, but I could see an argument that unskilled workers shouldn't be allowed to become citizens. That argument, however, is insufficient. First, every person in the world deserves the wealth kept in Britain and America as much as Britons and Americans do. Also, immigration, even of unskilled workers, has been shown to increase the prosperity of a country, with America as a perfect example of that effect.

Suffrage

2005-02-18T21:28:00.000-05:00

Ex-felons deserve to vote. It is beyond ridiculous that a citizen of the country who has served his time for a crime can never again participate in the government. The only possible justification for the continued disenfranchisement of ex-felons is that they are still "bad people." The first problem with this is that it gives the lie to the idea that prisons work; there is an assumption that they make people worse rather than reform them. The second problem is that the vote can't be taken away from "bad people," because that would open things up for an arbitrary decision by election boards as to who is bad and who is good, which is of course ludicrous.

Mfume In Philadelphia

2005-02-16T12:05:00.000-05:00

Kweisi Mfume spoke tonight at Temple University. While I was put off by his putting a large part of the blame for the state of urban schools on the teachers, rather than acknowledging that they need far more support and training, his speech was very good for the most part. He spoke about the need for action to stop the genocide in Sudan, the increasing divide between the rich and educated and the poor and illiterate, the need for students to use their education to actively improve the world, and his own life experience. While I normally don't discuss local politics in this space, I will once again express my support for Mr. Mfume's potential run for the Senate from Maryland or for Mayor of Baltimore. The former congressman and president of the NAACP would be extremely helpful for the city of Baltimore, if only because he would be a huge improvement on the politicos who now hold those positions.

Moral Descent

2005-02-13T20:56:00.000-05:00

An article in the Guardian from the fourteenth of January (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1390317,00.html) describes US plans to build new American prisons in countries with poor human-rights records, including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. This would be to enhance the ability of the CIA to detain prisoners indefinitely, and to torture them or have them tortured without consequence. That this country is expanding the already enormous prison system into other sovereign states is reprehensible. That the hardly-disguised reason for the expansion is to bypass American rules of habeus corpus (and the much eroded rules for treatment of prisoners) is horrible. There can be nothing more un-American, if anything is, than torturing prisoners who have been neither accused nor convicted of a crime, and keeping them in jail for years.

What's Important

2005-02-09T21:59:00.000-05:00

In the torrent of causes and theories with which people concern themselves, there are some that simply mustn't be ignored, because they are really more important and urgent than others. There is still genocide in Sudan. There is still a horrifying level of violence and other problems in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, despite the official end of the war there. The victims of the tsunami are still there, and they still need aid for recovery. It's easy to focus on traffic congestion, abortion, gay marriage, and the like, but those issues don't matter relative to the destruction of millions of lives.

Not Fair

2005-02-07T18:19:00.000-05:00

Using data from the 2000 US Census, the group Human Rights Watch found that 63% of adults incarcerated in the United States, more than 1.2 million out of 2 million, are black or Latino (http://hrw.org/). Blacks and Latinos combine for only about 25% of the population in this country. There are twelve states where between 10 and 15% of adult black men are in prison. Getting past the idiotic claim that African Americans and Latinos are more inclined to commit crimes, the implications of this data are enormous.
First, the idea that racism is no longer an issue must be put to bed. Racism cannot be ignored as an important factor in American society. Secondly, the myth that white America does not oppress black and Latino communities is shown to be false. If for no other reason, the imprisonment or ex-felon status of so many young men is obviously extremely important in the economic depression of poor minority communities. Finally, the simple fact that 2 million Americans are in prison at any one time is horrible. Hardly anybody goes to prison for the first time as a cold-hearted killer, but the awful conditions of most prisons are nearly reason to be one upon release. The truth that jails cause crime is obvious. Parisians stormed the Bastille, and I can't see a reason why revolution can't be a response to the incarceration of a generation.

Preaching To The Satanists

2005-02-04T19:44:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to bother pointing out the problems with the State of the Union adress. If you can't see that Mr. Bush is a terrible man, and a criminal, who needs to be stopped, then I have neither the patience nor the charisma to explain to you why that is so. People ignore history, ignore the truth, and ignore their sense of human decency, listening only to their televisions. What should make me think they would listen to me? So while I won't exclude anyone from the debate, I will make clear that this is a space for reasonable, intelligent discussion. If you're not in favor of helping other people, all other people, then please don't bother to comment.

Respite And Nepenthe

2005-02-02T21:15:00.000-05:00

The Iraqi people are not children. There was civilization in Iraq long before Europeans stopped drinking out of skulls. And Iraqis were no ignorant bumpkins when Britain took over the Ottoman provinces of Basra, Mosul, and Baghdad after WWI. It does not surprise me that they were able to hold a reasonably successful election, if several dozen deaths can be called a "success." I am happy for Iraqis.
It would be wonderful if an election could erase the horrors of war. I would advocate immediate elections in Sudan and the DRC. It would be perfect if an election could erase the legacy of British colonialism and the future of American colonialism. I would champion elections throughout the world above all else. The truth is that it does not. Torture is still happening, and it is becoming entrenched as the American interrogation method. Thousands of people are still dying, civilians and American troops. And the army will stay for a long time, to be followed by economic emperialism or abandonment.
The fault for the problems in Iraq lies with the British colonizers and with the American invaders. Saddam Hussein was created by senseless British colonial policy and strengthened by American support. Arguments can be made about whether his rule or war is worse, but both are Anglo-American crimes.

Me, Me, Me!

2005-01-30T23:52:00.000-05:00

Probably the biggest divide in schools of social thought, and I don't make this claim lightly, is that between individualism and collectivism. It is impossible to understand any political or moral argument without identifying which side supports individual rights and which favors group benefit, or what mix of the two are at play. Unfortunately, many people don't even consciously recognize that there is a schism, let alone how it applies to political decision-making. I will not prescribe one side or the other as the best school, because unchecked individualism leads to feudal oppression and empire, as in the United States, while the complete submission to the group in Stalinist Russia allowed people to view atrocities as beneficial. I do, however, lean towards favoring the group over the individual, because the system I live in is so incredibly skewed the other way and because, while it is possible for a collectivist society to be good for nearly all of the individuals, any individualist society will inevitably serve to hurt most of its citizens for the comfort of a few.

Moore Or Less

2005-01-26T20:22:00.000-05:00

In past posts and comments, I have promised to write further on the subjects of Michael Moore, individualism, and the connection between race and incarceration. This is the first of those overdue posts.
I could take or leave Michael Moore. He is a classic "liberal," well-intentioned but not nearly radicalized enough to cause significant pain to the ruling class. Upton Sinclair was a muckraker who took strongly to the revolutionary ideas of socialism as a response to the horrors he documented in "The Jungle." Because he was in favor of actual change in society, the elite reviewers ignored his political ideas and focused instead on the details of what was happening to the middle class' meat. Michael Moore is a muckraker whose politics stick so closely to those of the pro-rich, status quo Democrats that people actually pay attention to what he is saying. I am not saying that this is good. It is nice that he draws attention to the crimes of the corporations and their government, but he somehow can't split from the Democrats and actually advocate serious change for the poor and oppressed.

Asylum: By Appointment Only

2005-01-24T16:40:00.000-05:00

Today, British Conservative leader Michael Howard announced his party's plan to use "controlled immigration" and asylum quotas as the Tories' central theme in the upcoming election (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1397345,00.html). This is wrong. It is blatantly racist and ignores even the most basic of historical facts. As a mainstream party, the Conservatives give a sense of legitimacy to racists by implying that Africans and Asians don't belong in the country. There is also an idea, as widespread as it is wrong, that it is fair for resources and doctors to go from poor countries to rich ones, but that untrained workers don't have a right to cross the same borders in search of a decent life. People in Europe and America don't have a monolopy on being poor and unemployed, so there needs to be international cooperation between workers to stop bosses from using nationalism to divide and oppress.
Finally, there is the obvious and powerful example of immigration restrictions and quotas before and during World War II, when many Jews weren't allowed to escape into Allied countries. Mr. Howard's limit of several thousand refugees per year could leave many more in a terrible position.

It's A Game of Two Halves

2005-01-23T19:39:00.000-05:00

I was asked by a friend recently what point there was in protesting Mr. Bush's inauguration when there is virtually no way to get him out of office. While it is important, day in and day out, to organize labor unions, fight gas and electric companies, and improve city schools, not everything that must be done can be accomplished through direct action. To stop wars and reduce military funding, fight famine, end the "war on drugs," and redistribute wealth internationally, we must petition the government. Short of violence, one of the most effective ways to express disapproval of atrocious actions by the state is to mobilize in large numbers. Even if elected officials are unmoved, people who feel they are the only ones who don't like war and torture will be assured that, in fact, there are other moral people in the world.

War Criminals Deserve...

2005-01-18T23:24:00.000-05:00

A new presidential inauguration? That doesn't make sense. This is just a reminder that the counter-inaugural protest takes place this Thursday at Fourth and Pennsylvania in Washington. Please show up early, because the protest starts at 9 AM.

Turkey Talks

2005-01-16T21:37:00.000-05:00

A month ago, the European Union agreed to open talks with Turkey over Turkey's entry into the Union. The talks will start in the fall of this year. It's about time. What a great step towards ending racism in Europe it would be to admit a majority Muslim country. Also, the Turkish citizens in Germany wouldn't be so marginalized or threatened with deportation. The first move has already been successfully made, because Turkey compete in Europe in sports. I'm not saying that this would be a solution to any major problem, but it's a positive advance.

What Is It Good For?

2005-01-14T17:37:00.000-05:00

The filmmaker Angus Macqueen explains my own opinion better than I could (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1385987,00.html), has more experience in the subject, and can probably hold an audience longer than I can, so I'll summarize: the "War on Drugs" isn't working. Politicians, trying to comfort suburban constituents who are unaware of their own children's habits, leave behind gang battles, overdoses, imprisonment, untreated addiction, and crop destruction to be picked up by inner cities like Baltimore and the peasants of Colombia and Afghanistan. The benefits of government production of cocaine and heroin, an assurance of relative safety and low prices to discourage a black market, would easily outweigh the downside that a few extra people might try those drugs.
Of course, rational people shouldn't even have a disagreement on the subject of marijuana prohibition. First, countless studies have shown that the effects of cannabis are no worse than those of alcohol or tobacco, and putting people in jail for its possession is insane. Also, unlike cocaine and heroin, legalization of marijuana would completely eliminate the market for it, as anyone can grow it in a back garden, so even government production would be unnecessary. In fact, the only reason why alcohol and tobacco are legal when cannabis is not is that they require large-scale production, meaning that there are companies to defend their legality. Of course, people shouldn't go to work or drive while high, but the same applies to working and driving drunk.

Bush Out Now

2005-01-11T16:17:00.000-05:00

The counter-inaugural protest will be on the 20th of January at Fourth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C., starting at 9 AM. In San Francisco and Seattle the protests will be at 5 PM at the Civic Center and Federal Building, respectively, and the L.A. protest is at the Westwood Federal Building at 6 PM. For more information from the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, go to http://www.internationalanswer.org . Please show up if you disapprove of what Mr. Bush is doing to this country and to the world.

Not Enough

2005-01-07T23:50:00.000-05:00

Before anyone comments that Alberto Gonzales "disavowed use of torture tactics," as the Baltimore Sun headline said today, he didn't even come close to convincing me that he doesn't torture his neighbors for fun. In the hearings on Wednesday, Mr. Gonzales evaded questions about whether soldiers would break Army rules on torture by following White House guidelines, denied that detainees have any legal rights, including the right to not be tortured, and practically pled the fifth on every question about his role in Mr. Bush's policies on torture.
This is not okay. A candidate for Attorney General of the United frickin' States cannot allow torture or even be ambiguous on the subject. Those should have been the easy questions:
Senator X: Is torture ever okay, even on "illegal combatants," "ghost detainees," or people you say don't exist?
Judge Gonzales: No, torture is never okay. I commend to you that I will prosecute anyone who is accused of torturing anyone, even if I think the victims are terrorists.
Was that so hard? Please, Senators, you don't have to appoint every sadist Mr. Bush tells you to. Surprise us and don't confirm Mr. Gonzales.

Equal Opportunity

2005-01-05T15:53:00.000-05:00

Mr. Bush seems to think that normal, non-racist people can't object to his choice for Attorney General because Alberto Gonzales is Latino. He is wrong. Everyone, regardless of their ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, religion, or disability, can be a sadistic and mean-spirited misanthrope. Perhaps people who have suffered hardship and oppresion deserve more understanding regarding how they developed their views. But if they think that the Geneva Conventions rules governing the torture of prisoners are "quaint," as Mr. Gonzales does, they don't deserve to be made Attorney General, and it is fine to say that. The current American moral crisis has nothing to do with abortions, gay marriage, or nudity on TV. The crisis is that there is growing evidence that our government not only condones torture in allied countries, but performs it in Guantanamo, in Abu Ghraib, and by shipping prisoners to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. Having an Attorney General who supports that practice would destroy what was left of the justification for our belief that this is a moral country.

2005 Predictions- World

2005-01-01T23:30:00.000-05:00

1. The United States will start another war, either directly or by proxy.
2. Millions of people will not get enough food.
3. The gap between rich and poor will get bigger, both worldwide and locally.
4. The United States will not stop using third parties to torture prisoners.
5. Iraq will get worse.
6. Afghanistan will get worse.
7. Plan Colombia will not work.
8. Millions of people will live in extreme poverty.
9. Cuba will continue to lead the way in quality of life for its citizens.
10. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be resolved.
11. The Israeli government will continue to misrepresent world Jewry.

2005 Predictions- Baltimore

2004-12-29T14:25:00.000-05:00

1. At least 300 people will be murdered in shootings and arsons related to the drug trade.
2. Many others will die from overdoses or be put in wheelchairs by gunshots.
3. Many children will get lead poisoning or some other serious health problem.
4. Most of those children will not see a doctor.
5. Thousands of people won't be able to afford gas and electric, which will cause fires.
6. Thousands of people who have jobs still won't be able to afford enough food.
7. Most young people who should graduate high school will have already dropped out.
8. More people will leave, making things worse for those who can't.
9. More businesses will leave.
10. More houses will be boarded up; many people still won't be able to afford decent housing.
11. Thousands of people will go to jail.

Christmas Charity

2004-12-28T20:05:00.000-05:00

The recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean is a terrible disaster and one of the worst events in recent memory. I do not mean to diminish in any way the horror of this tragedy, and I commend those who want to help the victims. I feel I must point out, however, that many people in most of the countries affected suffer under terrible conditions even when the international news cameras are off of them. In Bangladesh and India, in Sri Lanka and Somalia, millions are too poor to afford decent housing, food, clean water, or health care, and can lose even the lowest-paying jobs to ever poorer countries on the whim of foreign corporations. It is good that Westerners are paying attention to these countries, but they must not be forgotten after the holidays, especially when we in the West are responsible for so many of the horrors that former colonies and abandoned Cold War allies have to deal with.

Happy... Ermmm

2004-12-24T14:36:00.000-05:00

Frankly, it doesn't bother me when people wish me a merry Christmas. Having said that, I know how uncomfortable it can make people who don't celebrate Christmas. It's the same as mentioning a bible passage at a public gathering; everybody feels happy and better and loving, except for the people who don't know it and are made to feel as though they should. This brings up the issue of tribalism, as many things do, where people are kind and helpful, but only to those in their group. I will write more on this later.
Since we have a nominal separation of church and state in this country, and we do, neither local governments nor the Federal Government should express their support for Christianity. "Merry Christmas" is, however, a traditional cultural phrase, practically free of its pagan roots, and ordinary people should of course be allowed to say it.
Merry Christmas

Hooray Sharing!

2004-12-22T15:28:00.000-05:00

A common conservative idea is that the state is a bad thing, that government should be as small as possible because they fear a large, socialist government. But the general idea of socialist government is that people can help each other more easily when organized into a larger group. It can’t be bad when people make positive contributions to each other’s lives, by providing housing, food, health care, and education to those who don’t have them. Anyone who loans their neighbor a cup of sugar, donates money to medical research, or helps to build a Habitat For Humanity house should be accused of small-scale socialism.
It goes without saying that any large state that is also oppressive or harmful to its people or to other groups should be stopped. However, it is not necessarily the case that any state with large humanitarian programs will be oppressive and harmful. Also, a nation that does oppress people has abandoned socialism and must not be confused with governments that are centered on helping the collective interest.

Pots And Kettles

2004-12-19T23:28:00.000-05:00

Many fairly sensible people are already getting ready to support Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential election. It's a bad idea. First, I don't think she can win, because she is hated by much of America and because the Republicans are experts at election fraud. The more important reason not to waste one's energy on her bid, however, is that she is not the saviour of the progressive movement. She has pushed for some reasonable policies, but only within the narrow framework of American politics, meaning that there is little that seperates her from George Bush or any other leader of the major parties. She is no champion of poor workers, as she has never expressed support for a real redistribution of wealth. She is no enemy of violence and imperialism, as she voted in favor of war. Clinton is better than the alternative, but not enough so to justify working for her election instead of more worthy causes.

Tin Soldiers

2004-12-17T16:01:00.000-05:00

I feel that war re-enactors are both disrespectful to soldiers and horribly positive about war. War is not fun. During wars, people die from sickness and famine as well as combat. Those who survive often have their lives destroyed, soldiers and civilians alike. If Civil War re-enactors portrayed army hospitals and prison camps as well as battles they would probably not have so much fun.
What really upsets me is the AP photo of “World War II enthusiasts” having fun yesterday dressing up like soldiers at the Mardasson war memorial in Belgium. World War II was one of the worst events in human history. Millions of soldiers died, and millions of civilians were killed or tortured. How is it all right to joke around about this? I can’t imagine many things being more insensitive to war veterans than pretending to be them without having experienced what they did. At least the Civil War ended 139 years ago, so nobody is left alive to offend.

Czars Are Bad

2004-12-15T16:28:00.000-05:00

The drug policies in this country are stupid, disastrous, and racist. Thousands and thousands of people are sent to jail for drug possession, only to remain addicted when they get out. Thousands more die of overdoses or waste away as junkies. Wars between drug gangs lead to enormous murder rates; most of the 300 annual homicides in Baltimore wouldn’t happen if not for the drug trade. The violence and the power of the gangs lead to economic depression in cities, as businesses won’t invest in them.
While 69% of the American population is white, white people comprise 72% of illegal drug users (National Household Survey on Drug Abuse). And yet, 42% of federal prisoners and 58% of state prisoners for drug crimes are black, most of whom are there for possession. The more general statistics for race and incarceration are astonishing, but I will cover that subject later.
There are simple solutions to the drug problem, and it is a combination of stubbornness, ignorance, and greed that keep them from being carried out. I say greed because politicians like to rent out the cheap labor of prisoners to their corporate friends. The most important thing to do is to decriminalize the possession and use of drugs, and invest the money that would be used for prisons into rehabilitation programs. Addicts need help, not to be punished. If the government treats addicts, possibly by gradually decreasing dosage, then dealers won’t make profits and will go out of business. The details need to be worked out, but this plan is better than the current one for everyone except the politicians and the drug dealers.

State Nanny

2004-12-15T16:20:00.000-05:00

The British Home Secretary and Blair ally, David Blunkett, resigned today because of the scandal surrounding his former lover's nanny, with accusations that he helped her rush through her visa application (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1374464,00.html). Honestly, next to some of the things that the British government is responsible for, a bit of light corruption is nothing. Why are politicians disgraced for minor embarassments, rather than for starting wars or ignoring starvation and genocide?
Also, you might have noticed that I don't do links. This is not just because I don't know how, I also don't want to start relying too heavily on other sources for my own analyses, as this space is more for commentary than for breaking news.

Barbie Factory

2004-12-14T17:36:00.000-05:00

I’m not normally one to discourage a style of dress or personal appearance. Tattoos, piercings, and makeup work for some. Liposuction and plastic surgery betray a negative self-image and misogynistic views, but it’s not my business if people get them. There are, however, some styles that I do not condone:
-Straightening hair
-Dyeing hair blond
-Wearing blue contact lenses
-Getting rhinoplasty
Doing so reinforces the falsehood that people of Scandinavian and Germanic descent are more attractive than others. It is obvious that this is the perception of too many young people, and older people, because the trend is all in one direction; few people make themselves look more like another ethnicity.
If you have curls in your hair, wear them proud. If there’s a hook in your nose, hold it high. And if your features are dark, leave them that way. I don't mean to sound corny, but there are people who will think you look better the way you are. Others will think you look better dressed like a punk or goth or whatever. But to make oneself Nordic is to deny one's own ethnicity, and it is wrong.

At Least They're Honest

2004-12-13T13:47:00.000-05:00

When I read the article in today's New York Times (December 13, 2004, p. A1), I checked to make sure it wasn't the first of April. It's not that the Pentagon is "using deception," or lying. It's not that the U.S. government, through the military, is planting false news stories in foreign papers, crediting false websites to other groups, and combining propaganda machines with public relations divisions. All of that is expected. What suprises me is that all of this is being discussed in public. If the Department of Defense wants people to still trust them, they are showing an enormous disrespect to average Americans, because it should be impossible to ever believe a government department that openly debates when and how to not tell the truth. It is simply bizarre that the Pentagon is openly saying that they are going to lie. I'm stunned.

Johnny Come Marching

2004-12-11T03:35:00.000-05:00

Well, it's a good day, I guess. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage would not violate their constitution. That's nice. It seems that Parliament will now pass a law allowing same-sex weddings throughout the country. This is another example of why immigration from Mexico shouldn't even be an issue, since sane people would keep going straight on north, using the United States as a resting place. Seriously, though, we are behind much of the industrialized world on this issue. For example, civil unions have just been legalized in New Zealand. Give up, homophobes, it's the twenty-first century.
On another subject, I'd like to acknowledge my favorite hometown paper, Baltimore's most-alternative alternative weekly, the City Paper (http://www.citypaper.com/). If not for this publication, I would have grown up with the Tribune Company subsidiary Baltimore Sun as my only broadsheet. The government line of the mass media can be a terrible influence on a young boy.

War of the Nations

2004-12-09T21:28:00.000-05:00

When discussing H.G. Wells' novel War of the Worlds, one can argue about the scientific beliefs of the 1890s, or how one would deal with an actual alien invasion. The one point that can't be argued with is that, if there were an agressive attack of aliens intent on destroying life on Earth, it could not be immoral to defend humanity by fighting against the invaders. I wouldn't even be particularly upset if we fought against a standing alien army that was stationed on Earth but not actively killing us. Now, it's a slightly different story if the occupying army is composed of American soldiers, who have families at home, often have no choice other than joining the military, and believe that what they are doing is right. The thing is, however, that I find it all but impossible to find fault with someone who battles against an uninvited force in his own nation. It seems like one of the few situations where killing seems at least somewhat justified. I can't imagine a single country that would submit to and cooperate with a conquering army without at least some resistance. I also imagine that some might even find it reprehensible to not fight for one's own country against the invaders. What I object to is the labeling of the Iraqi resistance as "terrorists." However bad they might be as people, it is fairly understandable that they are fighting against the American military in their own country. In The Philadelphia Inquirer, there was a headline that read, "Iraqis are facing daily intimidation" (December 9, 2004, p. A10). The article made no mention of intimidation of Iraqis by the U.S. Army.

Politics For Kids

2004-12-07T20:36:00.000-05:00

In the Guardian Unlimited newsblog, I saw a post that claimed that many scholars see a Nietzschean or Randian message in the Pixar film "The Incredibles" (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/). They noticed, as I did, that a major theme of the movie is that people with more ability shouldn't be held back by notions of equality. For those of you who have seen the film, I found the villain, Syndrome, to be so wonderfully egalitarian and likeable that I wondered if perhaps he was meant to be thought of as the real hero. His most memorable line was "everyone will be super," a truly noble sentiment that was offset by a lighthearted followup, "which means no one will be," to reassure the kids in the audience that he's still a bad guy. Maybe there is a secret theme of equality in this film. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Do Not Remove

2004-12-07T01:00:00.000-05:00

I hate to return to an issue so early, but I feel I skirted the issue on the November 30. It's often said that there is a narrow political spectrum in this country, so there is no reason to pay attention to political labels. However, it's important to understand how labels are used, because they define debates.
The phrases "far-left" and "radical leftist" are used to define two broad groups. One is the "wierdo radicals," who support Lyndon LaRouche, hold up Stalin as a hero, and hope for a worldwide mag-lev train system. These people tend to have good intentions, but are usually confused. The other group under the same label are ordinary radical progressives: people who have the interest of others in mind and are willing to debate.
The group known as "liberals" tend to have their hearts in the right place, but they often are misled by the official line. This group also includes people who give lip service to humanism while leaving their own pockets lined. The next group are called either "centrists" or "right wing". These people are not pleasant human beings. They are interested only in their own welfare and they bear hatred for other groups. Some of them might, however, just be badly tricked. The "far-right" or "fascists" are possibly slightly better than the centrists, because they are the same except that they don't hide their own hatred.
Simplistic? You bet. Fair? I think so. Of course, many people are labeled undeservedly, and my definitions are intentionally open to discussion. These are only the impressions I get of those who are so designated in our media and our conversations.

Spirit of Team

2004-12-05T17:33:00.000-05:00

For many people in the world, sports replace religion, or the two stand on equal footing. Since I don’t want to deal right now with the issue of whether religion is ultimately a positive or negative force, I think it is important to ask the same question about sports. Perhaps that is cowardly of me, but I will address religion later.
First the positives. The most commonly heard is that both playing and supporting sports give people something to do. This is true. Of course, there is the assumption that anything one might do instead would be negative. So perhaps only bad people should go into sports. The more important positive is that athletic competition provides a sense of community to cities and towns, brings together countries to meet in international tournaments, and can be used to ease tension between nations as a substitute for war. All of this is true. What better place to increase working class solidarity than at a 40,000 seat stadium, provided the working class can still afford the tickets? What better way for kids to have fun in their own neighborhood than with a game of street football? And in the international arenas, the United States and Soviet Union often had contact only in sports, while Pakistan and India won’t go to war as long as they are still playing cricket. So a World Cup might be the new World War, with less violence. Finally, sports have been at the forefront of racial integration, especially in the United States.
There is, of course, an argument on the other side. Sports are inextricably linked with violence: hooliganism in Europe, bar fights in North America, and armed clashes between players and referees in Africa. Football matches in Britain and Eastern Europe have long been safe havens for racists and fascists, a trend which has now spread to Spain. Also, sports can paradoxically instigate war, such as the “Football War” between El Salvador and Honduras, where the taunting of opposing teams by fans led to military conflict.
To increase my show of cowardice, I’m not going to answer the question of whether sports are good or bad, as it is impossible to compare the importance of the joy created by sports to that of the hatred stemming from the same source. Perhaps we should apply the same conclusion to religion.

Uncertainty According To Me

2004-12-03T02:44:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure if Kweisi Mfume is going to run for US Senate in Maryland after retiring from the presidency of the NAACP, or if he'll finally be convinced to be crowned mayor of Baltimore, or if he'll decide to stay out of public life. I would vote for him in either of the first two cases, regardless of the opponent, and reluctantly support him in the third. Something that bothers me in the matter is the treatment of Mr. Mfume in my new local newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer. First, the retirement of the president of a very important national institution got just two sentences mention on the front page of the December 1 issue. Then, on the editorial page December 2, Mfume is called "articulate" and "smart." I should hardly need to point out that it won't be assumed that a 56-year-old politician and activist with a decades-long record possesses those qualities only if he is a black politician and activist. This is especially noticeable coming just after Tyrone Willingham's unfair firing at Notre Dame. Willingham was probably called "articulate" by the media during his spell as Fighting Irish football coach more times than President Bush is described as "inarticulate."
I'm not usually one to pass on rumors, but this one intrigued me. So my second piece of uncertainty is that I've heard that "dirty bombs," homemade atomic bombs, wouldn't actually kill anyone if set off in a city; they would just make a lot of people sick. Have any of my readers heard of this theory? Is it legitimate?

Union Yes!

2004-12-02T00:55:00.000-05:00

I’d like to voice my support here for labor unions. As the family profession is teaching, that mostly means teachers’ unions to me, but the same rules apply to all unions outside of professional sports. If not for unions, we would be working 80-hour weeks without weekends, benefits, or safety precautions. Unfortunately, that is the situation we are returning to as a diminishing number of workers are in unions and the unions themselves are getting weaker.
The teachers’ union in my home town of Baltimore is especially powerless, due to state law and a contract that prevent strikes, a lack of attention from members, and a leadership that is in the pocket of the school board. Because of its ineffectiveness, the union is unable to prevent layoffs, bad working conditions, and low pay for teachers. The other school system employees have it even worse, losing their jobs at a moment’s notice with no alternative job available.
Although this is the richest country in the world, workers in other industrialized nations have more time off and better pensions than Americans, and the gap continues to widen. While France is switching to a 35-hour work week, Americans are working a full 20% more than we did thirty years ago. Many countries in Europe give month-long vacations, while in the United States two weeks per year is a luxury.
The main reason why we need unions, however, is that an enormous number of people in this country are living in poverty, even if they have jobs, because non-union jobs don’t pay enough. 12 percent of Americans are below the poverty line, and 11 percent of household don’t have food security, or access to enough food to be healthy. This in itself indicates how low the poverty line is, since those just outside of poverty are still close to the level where they cannot afford food. Also, 17 percent of children are in poverty. These percentages are well above the unemployment level, showing how many people are employed but remain desperately poor. Unions are the only way to prevent this abuse by employers. The minimum wage is good, but it is ridiculously low, and it will never be allowed to rise to a level that will support a family. Bringing workers into unions and making sure that the unions are accountable to the workers will ensure that everyone can afford a decent life.

Monkey Americans

2004-12-01T20:30:00.000-05:00

I read in another blog (http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/) that there was a recent Gallup poll showing that only a third of Americans believe that evidence supports Darwin's theory of evolution, 79 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial. The study also said that 45 percent of Americans believe that humans were created by God in their present form 10,000 years ago. Wow. I wonder if there's a precedent for the country that does the most scientific research in the world having such an unenlightened population.

Hatred By Any Other Name...

2004-12-01T01:38:00.000-05:00

I saw a cartoon called "Sutton Impact" in the Philadelphia Weekly newspaper, in the November 24-30, 2004 issue. Now this is a supposedly liberal comic strip that appears in a left-leaning publication. So you can imagine my shock when I saw some of the most filthy, hateful, ignorantly unfunny stereotypes that i’ve read in quite a while (well, not that long actually, there are some pretty nasty people in the world). I had known that poor white southerners, along with the obese, are one of the few groups against whom one can still discriminate with no fear of reprimand. But I had no idea that this level of hatred of people for being poor and living in a particular region was acceptable as humor, especially in a progressive newspaper.
Two poor, white, southern men are mocked mercilessly in the strip for:
-Having a limited formal education
-Supporting relatives fighting in the war
-Being unemployed
-Being homophobic and abusive
-Driving drunk
-Speaking in a dialect other than proper Bostonian
-Being patriotic
-And perhaps most tellingly, for being duped by Republicans
The cartoon goes so far as to call such people “gap-toothed, missing link troglodytes.” Now forgive me my ignorance, but it seems to be no wonder that many poor Southerners feel put off by the elite in the Democratic Party. Maybe if the clever Ward Sutton, who wrote the strip, and others like him realized that Dixie turns to conservatives because she is shunned or ignored by the Dems, they would actually be able to help people get an education and out of poverty. But I’m forgetting the fact that centrist Democrats have a history of ignoring even loyal supporters, as poor minorities in the cities are either locked up or kept in slums by both major parties.
Don’t think that because I bash Democrats, I’m going to “switch over” and become a conservative. It is possible to not be an elitist, status quo liberal without becoming a fascist, war-mongering, hateful, elitist conservative.

Exciting Clarification!

2004-11-30T01:56:00.000-05:00

I feel I should clarify a few things. My sub-title or whatever you want to call it says "moderate rantings." I consider myself to be a political moderate. Some others, however, might think of me as an extreme leftist because of their own skewed stance.
I am a moderate because I am against both free-market capitalism and fascism. While I support armed popular uprising on principle, I am wary of the violence it can bring. I am, of course, against any war of aggression, like any normal person. I sometimes feel that execution is needed, but I realize that Justice should be more level-headed. I also dislike abortions, but know that my opinion on the matter is meaningless and that a woman should be able to choose. I see the need for a drastic change in drug policies, as the criminalization of addiction is a terrible and racist policy, but I understand the reasonable fears one might have of the alternative. I feel that civil rights are extremely important, but that everyone can't just do whatever they want.
I am a moderate because the only position on which there can be no compromise is that there is an immense need for the redistribution of wealth on a local and global level. Poverty is an enormous and awful disease on the planet, and one that is kept rampant for the most part by the wealthy elite. That is to say that the wealthy within countries and the wealthiest of countries are responsible for keeping the rest in wage-bondage and loan-bondage. Class warfare is not a dead concept, it is a necessity if the vast majority is ever to live in comfort.
I am a secular humanist. Secular because it is how I was raised and I have yet to find religious zeal. Humanist because I feel that the most important thing is that every single individual in the entire world has as much comfort and happiness as any other.
(Originally published 30 November, 2004)

The World's Problem

2004-11-29T01:01:00.000-05:00

The biggest issues in the world are obviously the conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire). There can be no argument with this fact. Millions of innocent people have died in these wars. I simply can’t understand why or how the majority of people in this country, along with the media, can ignore the horrible, unthinkable tragedies that have occurred and continue to occur in either country. Of course, most of the corporate media have reasons to make it seem either that the policies of the two major parties benefit the world’s poor or that those poor don’t matter: because the policies that are actually very harmful to the poor benefit large corporations and their friends. But it is still hard to imagine how we can ignore genocide on its current scale. After the genocide in Rwanda, the world community generally lamented what happened and said that it could have been prevented with a fairly small peacekeeping force. What nobody seems to mention is that that conflict is still ongoing; it has moved into the DRC and has claimed thousands upon thousands of lives. Where is the outrage? Where are the protests? These wars are not the result of ancient tribal grudges, they come from recent colonial history; they were caused by the colonial powers who used entire countries, set groups against each other, and discarded them. Why don’t these now-moral nations take resposibility, or try to rectify their mistakes? People are dying, and some Americans list traffic delays as their biggest concern. People are dying, and we start another war. Part of not forgetting the Holocaust requires us not to repeat it. It is being repeated right now, and we brush it off as Africa’s problem. This should not be happening. Something is wrong.

First Post Ever

2004-11-23T15:24:00.000-05:00

Well, I won't write much today, as I haven't even told anyone about my blog. So I'll just tell anyone who might be reading this about myself. I'm a student at Temple University in Philadelphia, I come from Baltimore, and my interests are politics and a long list of sports teams all of which I follow obsessively.