Nov. 30
"Lament and Anger"--That's the title of tonight's Around the Internets. Not to be confused with "Love and Anger" or "Love and Money."
Scott McCloud will be speaking here in Pittsburgh December 7th at CMU. He's probably the best guy on Earth when it comes to the theory of comics. His books are also wonderful and elegant reads. I reviewed one of his books here. Check out some of his online essays here. Definitely will try to make that.
Interview with Ed Burns, the creator of The Wire, one of the best shows ever. Ed Burns not only used to work homicide but taught as a public school teacher.
More tube news: preview of the Monday night's Heroes.
Two disturbing vids from Kurt Nimmo about the history of our wars against the Third World (short version: generally we just murder poor brown and yellow people.) and a trailer for a movie about the many mercs in Iraq who, quite frankly, are completely unaccountable. Kurt writes a longer piece where he argues that these private forces are death squads. That does have a Latin American kind of familiarity to it..
Atheism student has been expelled for talking about atheism, or, in this case, expressing his out of control idea that he doesn't think leprechauns are real.
There's a great series at the Daily Kos/MYDD about how people were trying to organize a PIRG office in Los Angeles and the predictable Wal Mart like response to the effort from the Nader spawned PIRGS. Its part of a bigger story--I think someone wrote a book about it--about how most jobs on the left--ACORN, the PIRGS, the Grassroots campaign--kinda suck. Its not just the low pay. It's the fact that there's no job security and you're kind of treated like just another disposable retail worker. I can publicly testify that ACORN is the zaniest. For God's sake stay away from them. Related: Here's kind of a defense, sorta. It matters because people's first experience with the American Left is likely to be a very negative one. ACORN and PIRG people are almost cult like. Not good for the movement.
Even more related: The IWW is in town and they're attempting to unionize canvasses. Or at least that's what I read at the bottom of My ACORN piece:
Canvassers Need a Union
by Pittsburgh IWW Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2006 at 3:28 PM
pittsburghiww@yahoo.com
Don’t agonize, organize!
No one doubts that the canvass industry is notorious for underpaying and undervaluing its workers. The high turnover rate and low morale are clear indications that canvass workers struggle each and everyday. As frontline workers in the most high profile, successful and lucrative political, environmental and social justice movements of our day, we deserve better. We recruit and build membership and fill the coffers of some of the biggest and most respected non-profits in the world. Without professional canvassers, these organizations would collapse.
The Pittsburgh Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) want you to know that canvass workers have a right to demand better working conditions, pay, and hours—but we can only stand up for ourselves and our families if we organize across the industry. By the remarkable similarity of unacceptable working experiences for most canvassers, it is clear that the bosses have conspired to prey upon us as expendable, transient, and voiceless workers.
But let us remember the famous words of IWW founder, Mother Jones: “My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: ‘We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.’”
DON’T AGONIZE, ORGANIZE--with the Pittsburgh IWW Canvassers Union. For more information, contact: PghIWWCanvassersUnion@yahoo.com
I think the only one left though is Clean Water's. They also organized a march against Starbucks a couple of days ago.
Nov. 27
Richard Dawkins had some really interesting things to say about South Park, Ted Haggard and the Steven Colbert show here:
Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent.
and here:
I had a good time in New York. The Colbert show was fun, notwithstanding my misgivings before (which I have removed, because they now seem misplaced). While I was waiting, he came in to see me as himself, introduced himself and made sure that I understood his act: “You know I play a complete idiot?” I must say, when he is in character, he does it extremely well. The real Colbert is obviously highly intelligent and a very nice man. Aficionados seem divided about 50/50 over whether the real Colbert is religious. He is obviously too intelligent to be religious in any simple conventional sense. I suspect either that it amuses him to blur the distinction between his ‘character’ and the real Colbert. Or perhaps he is religious in the Einsteinian sense that all of us are, and goes to church because, like Martin Rees, he ‘believes in belief’ (Dan Dennett’s happy phrase).
Related: There's 15 hours online of the Beyond Belief conference. I was blown away by session 9. Features atheists going at each other at a much higher level than, say, Ted Haggard vs. Dawkins. (Personally I think its just professional jealousy on how successful both Harris' and Dawkins' books have been...)
Nov. 26
Looks like Laura Staniland and Mark Rauterkaus have come out against gambling in the Hill District. I understand that the black clergy is against because they're against "gambling"--it appears that they must have missed those Pennsylvania lottery ads.
I'm going to disagree. The question for me has to do with civil liberties and also costs versus benefits. From what I've read, Capri, the bidder with the most amount of money on table is promising millions of dollars in public redevelopment and a 30 percent hiring rate for minorities (And in Pittsburgh that just isn't a small thing. In fact, considering the forces that are pushing deindustrialization it could be years before it won't be such a small thing.) Second, gambling seems to be the only kind of taxation that people actually like. Its not as if you stop gambling in the hill then people stop gambling. They just go to the tracks in West Virginia or Vegas or Atlantic City. Ditto for prostitution by the way. Legalize and decriminalize I sez. Might as well keep the money local. From what it looks like the benefits outweigh the costs. I also find this somewhat spontaneous opposition to be suspicious. Tonya Payne has never heard of the opposition. I suppose if I was jaded I might think that they were funded by opposition gambling bidders and not a spontaneous opposition but I like to bask in the ocean of my naiveté. But I would like to know their point of view. Over the next couple of days I'll be listening to this and this.
I had totally forgotten about this but who did the Pittsburgh Courier finally endorse? Well, they didn't endorse Lynn Swann, but they did endorse Rick Santorum. Yeah, right. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: There is no legitimate black press in the US. There is no African American Al Jazeera that represents the interests of Black Americans who vote for the Democratic Party, as opposed to traitorous black republicans and generally dim people. It's a fucking crime. If you want to find legitimate non sellout black opinion you must journey to the Internets, period.
Speaking of the legitimate black press, the people behind the Black Commentator, the closest thing we have to the late and missed Emerge Magazine, are doing a new project. They do nice safe corporate media stories like "The Niggerization of Palestine." (hat tip to Uncle Scam at Amsam for that story.)
I I have to admit that I wasn't that impressed with the new Bond film. Should have blown my last six dollars on The Fountain. Perhaps next week. I thought the performances were interesting. I like the athleticism of the new Bond. I suppose at the core of Bond movies is always a troubling politics. In the real world, half of the things that Bond would be doing I would kind of hate, probably destabilizing Chavez or working overtime to fix the Nicaraguan elections. Here, we know he's trying to stop a funding network for "terrorists" (Good luck.). We don't know if they're people whose eyes bleed blood or if they're just nationalists who want the US out of Iraq. Just once, at 24 or one of the Bond films, I would like one of those bad terrorists to tell us why they hate the US. I bet they could give us a legitimate reason or two. But all they do is snarl and torture people, which is something that only really really bad Bond villains would authorize, in movies anyway. For me, while it was a nice gritty recentering of the series, the world needs a stylized reshoot like in Sin City. Of course, there's always my fave unwritten science fiction masterpiece: James Bond in outer space. That way you could do more with locales. That's what I enjoyed most about the Star Wars movies: those snazzy alien worlds. You could even do interesting things with alien virtual worlds. Even came up for a name for the journalist hero, kind of Greg Palast with weapons: His name would be Skychom. Izzy Skychom. If I ever write it...don't bet on it.
Nov. 21
Assorted Around the Internets
Steven Barnes likes the new Bond movie. I've heard nothing but good things about this film.
Best and funniest arguments in favor of impeachment.
Highlights:
The reasons given for this congressional Stockholm syndrome don’t stand up to scrutiny. “It would tear the country apart,” many say, as if that hasn’t already happened. It was the Clinton impeachment which accomplished that, and perhaps the nation would benefit psychically from a well justified tit for that brazenly opportunistic tat. But even if it doesn’t, Bush needs to be impeached.
Bush needs to be impeached because Bush worshippers just plain deserve it. It was they that were giddy with self-righteous rage, so desperate to take Clinton down that they didn’t care how pathetic their excuse was. They need to be paid back, and to know they asked for it. They need to be demoralized and dismissed before they take the government back and damage it further. They need, after all, to know their reign was a colossal failure, a blight on the record. They need to know that now and forever, George W. Bush will be to presidents what OJ Simpson is to all-star running backs. These people understand things in terms of winning and losing, and they need to know that, in the end, they lost.
Bush needs to be impeached because the only language these people understand is power. Their hearts will not be touched by forgiveness. Any mercy is a sign of weakness to them. If you want to earn a thug’s respect, you’ve got to kick his ass up and down the block. No negotiation. No compromise. Slash and burn. Teach these assholes a lesson. Leave them broken and gasping in a puddle of their own urine. Don’t ever let them forget the humiliation and the shame of it.
But beyond revenge and humiliation—the reasons that Republicans will actually understand—Bush needs to be impeached because he is a criminal of the highest order, and because tolerating criminals at the seat of power is itself a crime against the nation. The core problem in Washington today is not the president’s lack of respect for the law; it’s that congress has done nothing about it. The first step toward restoring a reasonable government is correcting that.
Bush needs to be impeached for the same reason any conservative will tell you that drug offenders need to go to jail forever. In other words, if a president abuses his power, misleads the nation, flouts the constitution, breaks longstanding international laws and ignores congress—and then, when the opposition takes power, nothing happens—what kind of message does that send to the next power-mad president? Bush—and Cheney—need to be impeached because that’s how this thing works.
Bush needs to be impeached, but it’s not going to happen. Not a chance. Because as wrong as the Republicans are, they’re right about one thing: the Democrats just don’t have the courage to do what’s right.
Related: Debate over at the John Conyers blog over impeachment. Look, this frak-up of an idiot president stole the presidency twice by making sure that African Americans couldn't vote. I want my vengeance. By the way, impeachments work great for the party pursing the impeachments. Politically, its great for the dems. Even if they had relentless and ruthless hearings day after day without impeachment it would be great. So the corporate media and Washington's wise old men won't report it and don't want it--probably because they want the republicans to win.. Fuck 'em. We don't need or even want them anymore.
Praise of new Al Jazeera Channel.
Nov. 19
Election News Roundup
Introduction: Pre-Election Concern, Election Day Relief, Alarming Reality
There was an unprecedented level of concern approaching the 2006 Election (“E2006”) about the vulnerability of the vote counting process to manipulation. With e-voting having proliferated nationwide, and with incidents occurring with regularity through 2005 and 2006, the alarm spread from computer experts to the media and the public at large. It would be fair to say that America approached E2006 with held breath.
For many observers, the results on Election Day permitted a great sigh of relief—not because control of Congress shifted from Republicans to Democrats, but because it appeared that the public will had been translated more or less accurately into electoral results, not thwarted as some had feared. There was a relieved rush to conclude that the vote counting process had been fair and that the concerns of election integrity proponents had been overblown.
Unfortunately the evidence forces us to a very different and disturbing conclusion: there was gross vote count manipulation and it had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of what would have been, accurately tabulated, a landslide of epic proportions. Because virtually all of this manipulation appears to have been computer-based, and therefore invisible to the legions of at-the-poll observers, the public was informed of “isolated incidents and glitches” but remains unaware of the far greater story: The electoral machinery and vote counting systems of the United States did not honestly and accurately translate the public will and certainly can not be counted on to do so in the future.
And:
Only 7,000 votes separates the Democratic Senatorial candidate Jim Webb from incumbent Republican George Allen. Leading up to the election, the State of Virginia rejected more than 91,000 names submitted from voter drives, blocking their registrations. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School says that Virginia’s +methods of rejecting voters had a notably racial bias. Golly. Put the two numbers together — the 91,000 citizens questionably barred from voting and the teeny-weeny Senate vote margin, and Virginia begins to look a lot like Florida on the Potomac.The blockade of voters at the Virginia polling station doors followed on last year’s promise of Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman to mount a, “challenge to voter eligibility” in Virginia. Mehlman vowed, through an attack on the voter rolls, to “do whatever we can” to keep control of Virginia. And he did. Voters blocked (and other purged from voter rolls) received “provisional ballots.” The state only counts about 15% of these.
You do the math and tell me who really won Virginia and the Senate.
And let’s not talk about the Montana vote - and we won’t now that Rumsfeld’s useless carcass has been thrown in front of the TV cameras.
--From Greg Palast
And from the Free Press:
The percentage of uncounted votes in the allegedly "fraud free" 2006 Ohio election is actually higher than the fraud-ridden 2004 election, when the presidency was stolen here. A flawed voting process that allowed voters to be illegally turned away throughout the morning on Election Day may have cost the Dems at least two Congressional seats and a state auditor's seat.
The evidence comes directly from the official website of GOP Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell Blackwell website. But researchers wishing to verify the number of uncounted ballots from that web site should do so immediately, as Blackwell is known for quickly deleting emb+a+rrassing evidence. In 2004, Blackwell deleted the evidence of excessive uncounted votes after the final results were tallied.
Despite Democratic victories in five of six statewide partisan offices, an analysis by the Free Press shows a statistically implausible shift of votes away from the Democratic Party statewide candidates on Election Day, contrasted with the results of the Columbus Dispatch's final poll. The Dispatch poll predicted Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland winning with 67% of the vote. His actual percentage was 60%. The odds of this occurring are one in 604 million.
--from Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
So let's define the election the right way: It was great that the Democrats won majorities in both the House and the US Senate, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a need for serious reform of our election machinery. But first, one more quote from Steve Gilliard, who, here, speaks his master's voice, Markos (thoughts on him here and here). Turns out, after about six years of work, seven or eight books by great writers and world class thinkers, Kos wants to help the voter integrity movement. I mean its a good turn and all and we'll take the hope but Greg Palast, Mark Crispin Miller and Bob Fitrakis were way out front on this. Okay here's his quote from Steve:
After all the bullshit about how Rove was going to steal our elections, after all the times I explained how this was not possible, here's the case. Diebold machines simply suck. Hacking is less of a problem than that they just don't work. But it's easier to whine and bitch than do.
Well, first, it wasn't bullshit. In fact, had the "white redneck" vote turned out as usual it would have worked. "It", as has been stated many a time by various voter rights advocates, would have been a combination of both voter suppression (and the notorious non counting of provisional ballots in Ohio and elsewhere.) and machine hacks. Of course, as has been pointed out here and other places we're not allowed to even look at the election machines to even figure out if there has been a hack. There was a massive legal fight to preserve the 2004 ballots that was won without the help of Markos.
So, to sum up, its great that dems won but that doesn't mean that the machines worked because your side won. In fact, it means nothing if you believe in democracy. Our goal now is to push Conyers and/or Waxman to look into this. Ask him to invite people like Greg Palast, Mark Crispin Miller, and Bob Fitrakis to capital hill. This is still the most important issue. The overall goal, of course, is to restore and protect the black and latino vote. If that happens, then the current majorities in congress can be held and expanded upon.
You never know. The Republicans might figure out not to charge the rednecks 3 dollars a gallon or more--and not to lower the prices right around election time that tells everybody "we think you're stupid"-- by 2008 and all our gains will vanish. (I really hope Conyers reads and helps enact this.)
Nov. 16
Well, what do you know. Someone, with little respect for the law, posted my review of Thomas Friedman's book "The World is Flat" at Daily Motion where I can watch Veronica Mars and Superman reruns all day. Damn those French. Just awful. But it is cool to hear my words read by a cool Bill Curtis like pro actor type.
And I'm having a very civil discussion with Steve Gilliard about the merits of Greg Palast. Very polite with a Masterpiece Theater tone.
No comments:
Post a Comment