Protest the airing of CBS Network's “SURVIVOR” on September 14

On September 14, CBS will premiere the 13th season of the inexplicably successful “reality TV” series, Survivor. The season will begin by separating the tribes (as the “teams” are called) according to race—Blacks, Whites, Asians and Latinos. Coverage on the BBC News website at http://news.bbc.co.uk indicates that the network claims it is addressing complaints of inadequate ethnic representation among the show’s contestants.

As a person of color, I am not surprised that the network executives, series producers, and program sponsors did not fully consider the implications of the show’s format. Although BBC quoted the network as acknowledging “the controversial nature of this format,” it seems pretty clear that they do not. So again, it is up to us, the Communities of Color, to give CBS the perspective it does not appear to possess.

SUGGESTED ACTION: You can take action by doing the following: Go to CBS’s website (www.cbs.com), click on Survivor Premiere, then Find out more, then Feedback. Send the network any message that you feel will be most effective in protesting the upcoming Premiere, and ask that they reconsider airing the show. If you would rather send a template protest, here is a suggestion that you can cut and paste into the Feedback form:

Dear CBS:

How exciting that the network will soon air the 13th “Survivor” season. I am looking forward to it, and I really hope to see someone who is [insert race here] win the money. Keep up the good work!

P.S. Here’s an idea for next season: I would like to see Jews versus Palestinians, or maybe Straights versus Gays. Another show that would be fun is Right to Lifers versus Pro Choice. Wouldn’t that be great?

TAKE ACTION; WRITE TO CBS TODAY!

People are so freakin' FUNNY.  They're predictable yet contradictory, interesting in some ways while droll in others... but mostly they're just plain comical.

I was sitting at home one night trolling some of the dating websites when it occurred to me that there really wasn't a way to meet people (well, women) that didn't involve a bar, alcohol, or flag football.  I got the idea to start a list-serve, a Yahoo! group, a bunch of women who might want to meet once in a while to have dinner or coffee, conversation that wasn't shouted over the din of music, maybe some arts & culture stuff or arthouse movies. 

I figured I might get ten or twenty responses from women who wanted to meet other women in ways that involved a bit more than alcohol and window-shopping.  In fact, what started off fairly slow has now grown to 100 women.  You might think that someone who was interested in such a group would be a different type of thinker, or at least a risk-taker.  Sadly, that hasn't been the case.

Most are more than content to sit back on their duffs and let someone else do the work and plan the events.  Interestingly, they're the same ones who say they will join in a particular outing then don't bother to show up.

I won't go so far as to say that it's typical of lesbians, but it might be just one indication of why this community is so fractured.  No respect, no initiative, no reaching beyond the confines of the comfort zone.  I guess I think it's comical because they're also the first ones to complain, about everything. *sigh*

It's a little annoying to me that the state legislature called a special session, to the tune of more than $60,000 in taxpayer money, to figure out a fix to the "immigration problem" but they won't lift a finger to solve the problem of 600,000 people who don't have access to affordable health care.

Hail to El Presidente ___________?

Voters in Mexico (and a few abroad) are awaiting the results of Sunday's elections for a new president, 500+ member congress, and mayor of Mexico City.  The two main contenders to succeed Vincente Fox as president are conservative, Harvard-educated Felipe Calderon, who favors globalizing Mexico's economy, and leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, champion of the poor underclass.  Calderon is favored in the northern states while Lopez Obrador has a solid hold on the southern, including Oaxaca and Chiapas.  But it may be some time before a clear winner is known, because polls were banned for the election, and the country lacks expedient vote counting methods. 

A Lopez Obrador victory will continue the trend of electing leftist leaders in Latin and South American countries: Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Bachelet in Chile.  It may also drastically alter relations between Mexico and the United States, because Lopez Obrador has vowed to renegotiate key provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was instituted largely on the premise of improving Mexico's economy (although it has done no such thing). 

For certain reasons, I would like to see Lopez Obrador win.  Unfortunately, he would not be in office long enough to bring substantive change to Mexico's political system nor to significantly improve the country's economy, but he can be instrumental in laying the groundwork.  As corrupt as Mexico's government has been for decades, and for all of the unrealized intentions of NAFTA, Mexico's people deserve opportunities to achieve their potential in the global marketplace.  Maybe, under the stewardship of Lopez Obrador, the country will finally see its foreign aid applied properly -- not to benefit government officials and cronies, but toward improving infrastructure that will create the jobs necessary to improve standards of living for the overwhelming majority of poor citizens. 

On the other hand, Calderon has the substantive government experience that Lopez Obrador lacks, even if he does have ties with Carlos Slim, the world's third-richest man and owner of TelMex and TelCel, monopolies that have all of Mexico's fixed- and cellular-phone services.  If Calderon can set aside leniency toward vested interests and, among other things, get corporations like TelMex and Pemex (the petroleum monopoly) to pony up sufficient taxes to subsidize major social reform, he can do Mexico a world of good.

Who knows?  Someday the immigration problem could be reversed:  at the rate the United States is going, I and others would gladly deport ourselves to Mexico in a heartbeat if jobs were available as well as decent places to live. 

The Supreme Court "gets" religion

I listened to the NPR coverage this morning on the Supreme Court's decision with regard to Dubya's Guantanomo tribunals, probably the only true "victory" the current Court has or will grant that respects human rights.

But the decision sort of missed the point with regard to the absolute futility of torturing prisoners, specifically those of Islamic faith.  (From here, I'm mostly conjecturing, but bear with me.)

The core belief of a religion -- whether Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam -- is that [the applicable] god will protect and sustain adherents through life's trials while promising absolution and forgiveness in death.  The torture rendered at places such as Guantanomo and Abu Graib becomes life for the prisoner victims, another inevitable trial to be endured by the faithful.

So the question is:  Why haven't these government and military yahoos figured out that true believers will endure any hardship for the ultimate goal of eternal absolution?  Is it because Christians (and Compassionate Conservatives) have their own limits and know full well that, in similar circumstances, they would sell their own souls to achieve immediate relief?

Here's a random thought which I am certain will draw a fair amount of disgusted -- if uninformed -- reaction.  It's very late and I haven't thought it through entirely, but I had to get it out of my brain.

What do John Geoghan, Maurice Blackwell, Edward Olszewski, Rodney Willis Rogers, Gary Timmons, Robert Melancon, and Don McCary have in common?  All were convicted of child molestation while in a position of trust.  All victimized boys.  And none was ever accused (much less convicted if laws were applicable) of being homosexual.  So why are there still bipartisan battle cries rallying against sanctions supporting equality for gays and lesbians?  As I was watching "The Murder of Emmett Till" tonight on PBS, I was struck by the narrator's comment that Emmett's murder awakened a community upon which war had been declared.  Till's murder is considered the watershed moment that sparked the civil rights movement; ten days after the murder, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus and unwittingly launched the Montgomery bus boycott. 

After Matthew Shepard was found beaten to a bloody pulp and tied to a Wyoming fence (he succumbed to the injuries days later), it seemed as if the gay and lesbian communities had awoken from a slumber not interrupted since Colorado's Amendment Two was passed in 1993.  They seemed to identify with the killing in much the same way African Americans understood the murder of Emmett Till.  But the energy was short-lived and, in November of 2004, Shepard's convicted killers sought to clear their reputations by going on record to say that Shepard was killed for drug money and not because he was gay. 

I'm struggling to make sense of the pervading notion that it's still okay to consider gays and lesbians less than equal human beings.  True, there were never water fountains and restrooms designated "Homosexuals Only" or restaurants that will serve gays and lesbians from the kitchen door leading to the alley; but why is it okay for a child-molesting priest to advocate excommunication of a gay parishioner?

This was a question posed on the local craigslist, under the heading "Women Seeking Women":

the word "dyke"

Reply to: anon-60475384@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-02-19, 5:08PM MST

I am curious about how other lesbians feel about "dyke", it seems to elicit strong reactions, even when used amongst ourselves. Discuss.

One response:

RE: the word

Reply to: anon-60561595@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-02-20, 1:34PM MST

I have no feeling towards the use of the word among friends. I think that society uses it as a way to try and put us in our place. It is just a word. I do not feel it is any different than the word Bitch used among women, or Fag used for gay men. Why should we allow a word to hurt us, or belittle our loves? I also think that society should research their slang words, when using them to hurt others, before shouting them at people. The term Dyke when used correctly is: A man made water containment system, a barier in which water is held. This proves that society is ignorant about what they are calling us. I hate to bring it up but a friend told me once that the African American community now uses the "N" word among each other to show society just how a word has no effect. Plus if you look that word up it also has a different meaning than what "white" people using would think: An uneducated person. It has nothing to do with race or ethnic background. I say that we should take the word (dyke)and use it as much as we can in an effort to reclaim our meaning for it.

My response:

Re: the word

Reply to: anon-60669890@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-02-21, 10:59AM MST

Most dictionaries will also include a definition denoting "dyke" as vulgar slang, and I have yet to see evidence that reclaiming a negative connotation results in empowerment.

Let's expand the argument to include elements of the recent Ward Churchill controversy: all persons who are upper middle class, high-wage earners should henceforth refer to themselves as "little Eichmanns," reclaiming the honor and integrity of the man who was a loyal and patriotic supporter of Adolph Hitler and Aryan supremacy -- let's just forget that he was an architect of genocide.

While we're at it, let all Jews refer to themselves as "kikes"; Mexicans as "wetbacks"; Blacks as "niggers"; Native Americans as "redskins"; Italians as "dagos"; Arabs as "towelheads"; Asians as "chinks" and "Japs"; differently-ableds as "crips"; police as "pigs"; and Whites as "crackers."

Yes, let's invigorate this community building exercise of enlightened self-identification with words that we want to reclaim... all while ignoring the reality that NO negative word exists for "heterosexual."

The follow-up commentary and my response:

STATEMENT: "I don't agree with that at all. While 'dyke' has had negative connotations for the general public since its inception in the 20s, it has typically been a positive term within the queer community. When referred to lesbians, it implies a masculine, or more butch woman. As the butch/femme culture began to emerge in America in the 20s and 30s, femmes would head to the bar hoping to find themselves a 'dyke.'"

RESPONSE: "Femmes" sought "dykes" in an effort to complete their mental picture of the equivalent of normalcy; in other words, they sought to maintain the surface appearance of a female/male partnership. Any interpretation of "dyke" as a positive label within this context simply confirms aquiescence to society's overtones.

STATEMENT: "Do you have a problem with the word 'butch,' too? Or 'bulldagger'? Language is created to name difference. While we may not have many words for heteros, claiming words such as dyke, butch, femme, whatever isn't singly about reappropriating negative words (especially since their origin is often ambiguous), but it is also about creating language for the diversity within our community. If we are all 'lesbians,' people get lost through the cracks of rigid definitions."

RESPONSE: Yes. To say that the terms "butch," "dyke," "femme," "fag" and "homo" are means of reflecting diversity is to admit ignorance that they are employed as weapons; why else do you suppose there are no derogatory terms for "heterosexual"? The overarching point of my original response is that anyone not heterosexual or White is considered abnormal -- and blithely employing the subject terms even amongst ourselves serves only to further subdivide an already fractured community that wouldn't know cohesiveness if it bit them in the ass.

And the apparent conclusion can be found at this link.

Being of Asian descent, I'm excited about the coming New Year.  Unlike Christmas, New Year's has special significance for the Japanese -- it is a time to renew ties with family, dispense with old debts and ill will, and clean the house to begin anew.  And, as with most Asian festivals, much of the primary focus is upon food: On New Year's Eve it is customary to eat a meal of wheat (soba) noodles to ensure good luck and black beans for prosperity, then visit friends and family on New Year's Day while enjoying a feast of different foods that each have their own symbolism. 

One very important symbolic ceremony doesn't take place much around here anymore because it requires a lot of people and considerable work space.  The mochitsuki (mo-cheet-soo-kee) is a grand community activity that involves pounding sweet rice grain into a sticky, smooth dough that is then formed into small cakes, or mochi (mo-chee).  It's an activity that takes a good deal of skill, too.  As one person rhythmically pounds the rice grain with long-handled wooden mallets dropped from high overhead, another person must reach into the barrel with nimble hands to turn the dough before the next mallet lands.  When the dough is smooth and shiny, other hands pinch the dough into small cakes which are allowed to cool on a table covered with a thin layer of sweet rice flour, then eaten with a sauce made from sugar, ginger and soy sauce.  Yum!  What a fantastic, tasty way to begin the New Year!

Despite the absence of a good, old-fashioned mochitsuki, I wish for everyone everywhere a year of personal prosperity.  May you, your family and dear friends experience inner peace and contentment... because each of you deserve nothing less.

UPDATE:  Acknowledging intense international and domestic pressure, the Bush administration on December 31 announced a ten-fold increase in aid to the tsunami-stricken countries.  Now all that remains is whether those countries will actually receive any of the aid package.  (Thursday's edition of the New York Times carried an excellent editorial (click here for the print version -- registration may be required) explaining that, despite a similar gesture to aid the Indian province of Bam after it was struck by an earthquake one year ago, they have yet to see any of the aid money.) 

Good news, at least concerning one person; the friend I thought was in Thailand for the holiday cancelled her trip.  She plans to go in April, instead, although conditions will no doubt be barely better than now. 

As I watched Monday's Nightline coverage of the tsunami's aftermath, I couldn't help feeling moved by the sheer scale of the disaster.  Something inside me stirred, I wanted to hop the next plane out.  But I also know the futility of going without a firm idea of what can actually be done.  A friend and I were talking at lunch today while watching the monitor above the bar when she echoed the sentiment of wanting to go there (she'd been in Sri Lanka before, although I'm not sure in what context).  By five o'clock this afternoon she'd already attempted to contact a friend who has connections in the Bangkok area, and I think she's actually going to leave in February.  Then I got a wild idea. 

First, ask anyone who witnessed the events on September 11 and you won't find many who didn't feel the same internal tug, wanting to go there, to do something -- anything -- as long as it was to help.  In fact, so great was the desire to reach out that many simply left their homes and jobs to go to New York City.  Second, contrary to popular belief, people are actually more willing to give of time and money now than ever before. 

I believe that volunteerism and civic commitment smolders in each and every one of us.  And it's a sociological principle that humans are naturally inclined -- even programmed -- to come to the aid of someone in need.  But simple life obligations of work, family, school and community compete with noble intentions to volunteer more time or donate more money to worthy causes.  And it has become more difficult to choose the "worthy cause" because social service needs continue to multiply.  What if the big corporations could be persuaded to subsidize employees who use their vacation time as rescue/aid workers?  For example, in exchange for a ten-day or two week commitment as a rescue/aid worker in Somalia or Indonesia, the employer pays for three or four days of the employee's time off.  One result would be an increase in the number of able bodies to relieve emergency workers in disaster-stricken or severely underdeveloped areas of the world.  Another, more significant, result would be an increased level of corporate responsibility, a term that has been blithely bandied about by Wall Street "watchers."

Some people may scoff at this idea, particularly those who are pressing for implementation of an early warning system such as the one that has existed for years in the Pacific Rim.  (The reason there isn't one in the Indian Ocean basin is because the countries in the basin are so disadvantaged as to not even factor in the global economy.  The countries' peoples then, and their welfare, are insignificant blips in the life continuum.  And let's not forget that there's not much oil in Southeast Asia.)  Even if there were an early warning system in place that undoubtedly would have saved lives, it would not prevent the incredible property and land damage that only water is capable of rendering.  Finally, Southeast Asia simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support the components of an early warning system.  Take a look at photographs of circa-1880s New York City, and you'll see garish towers supporting six to eight levels of telegraph and electrical wires; that was before city planners got smart and began burying utilities under the roadways.  Such is the condition of most of Southeast Asia's moderately developed countries.

A rescue/aid worker network would do a world (literally) of good, and it would certainly carry more sincerity than the piddly $15 million that President Bush so magnanimously offered (a particularly laughable gesture considering that the cost of the Iraq War is somewhere around $150 BILLION).  At the very least, it would serve to replace or supplement the National Guard forces that would ordinarily have been sent for disaster relief -- that is, if they weren't busy killing off civilians in Iraq.

Well, despite my best intentions, I managed to have a decent Christmas weekend.  Of course, a lot of that is because I won $40 playing poker -- not too bad for an hour and a-half's work.  And I won against my obnoxious and self-absorbed brother, who'd been telling all of us how he was going to clean our clocks after dinner.  And the really great thing was that I won most of the money on HIS game.  Heh, heh, heh.  Revenge is indeed sometimes sweet.

Now I'm worried about a friend whom I know is visiting Thailand for the holiday; her home recording indicates that she expected to be home Tuesday morning, but I haven't heard anything after leaving messages at her home and on the cell.  Can you even imagine what that scene must be like?  Imagine waiting all year to go on vacation, then falling victim to a freakin' natural disaster... and a tidal wave at that.  I am hoping that she was busy in her hotel packing her bags, nowhere near the beaches, and that I'll hear from her by the end of the week.  In the meantime, if anyone wants to make a donation to the relief effort the American Friends Service Committee is one of many organizations accepting donations. You can contact them at

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
AFSC Crisis Fund
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19102
215-241-7000
www.afsc.org

On to sports news.  Unless you've had your head in the sand you know that former NFL (National Football League) linebacker(?) Reggie White died unexpectedly Sunday from what doctors believe may be a lung ailment.  But I'm having trouble summoning a lot of sympathy for his untimely passing (unlike tonight's Monday Night Football half-time tribute that made the man appear to have lived as a saint).  Oh, he was a great player, racking up more sacks than any other defensive lineman, but White was also a bigot.  In 1998, he delivered a speech to the Wisconsin state legislature that denounced not only blacks but homosexuals, as well.  The sad thing was not that the Wisconsin legislature didn't put a stop to his drivel, but that White rightly guessed that he could get away with the speech given his stature as a professional athlete.  And it was exactly his athlete status that bought him credibility in supporting Trent Lott's Defense of Marriage Act and advocating for the "rehabilitation" of gays.  I'll tell you what... even if I could be "rehabilitated," it wouldn't be for the sake of someone like Reggie.

Christmas is the Christian form of ethnocentrism.

A media era will end tonight when "Now with Bill Moyers" broadcasts with its namesake as host for the final time.  Moyers's exit occurs, ironically, at the end of the same week during which FOX News announced the signing of arch-conservative Zell Miller. 

Moyers is one of the last journalists whose ethics are beyond reproach.  His departure from public broadcasting after more than three decades leaves a gaping wound in journalism because his was, as Meryl Streep said, "a voice crying in the wilderness -- on behalf of the wildreness -- for decades."  Indeed, Moyers ensured that certain subjects remained in our consciousness long after corporate media sidelined them because they weren't conducive to the bottom line.  He deplores, too, the marriage between government and media, telling anyone who will listen that the First Amendment was intended as "a firewall between politicians who hold power and the press that should hold power accountable."  Instead, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the FCC have capitulated to the media conglomerates, whose executives are generous contributors to the Republican party.  Moyers examined this issue during the April 26, 2002 "Now" broadcast:

Twenty years ago there were fifty owners of America's major media outlets.  Now there are six.  How a handful of companies came to exercise such control over the media is one of the [most unreported] stories of our time.  Two-thirds of today's newspaper markets are monopolies [and] the music and news delivered to over half the radio audience is controlled by four giant corporations.

Moyers will continue to produce documentaries with his wife, Judith Davidson Moyers, the president of Public Affairs Television.  That means his voice will be a little deeper in the wilderness, but that's still where the most unique creatures are found.

The fact that the Social Security program is in deep trouble has been known for at least two decades.  Roosevelt's New Deal vision of a society forever free from worry of another Great Depression was terrific in theory, but wasn't designed to withstand the economic deficits that have skyrocketed since the dot-com and tele-com bubbles disintegrated.  And no president has pushed for the privatization of Social Security as much as George W. -- never mind that he'll never have to rely on it.  Here's my thought on the topic. 

The stock market is nothing more than a gigantic pyramid scheme, one of the many carrots dangled in front of Americans to make them feel as though achieving the dream is still possible.  Actually, it does pay off for a select few -- like Bernie Kerick and Martha Stewart -- but another fact about the market is that one makes money only when one has money to invest in the first place.  Eighty-nine percent of Americans have no idea of the difference between a stock or a bond, let alone the advantages or pitfalls of either.  Couple this ignorance with tiered stock offerings that divide shares into Class A, B, C (and sometimes D) shares and the obvious inference that some are superior (senior) to others, and one soon discovers that even the stock market has social stratifications. 

A majority of Americans can't afford their own health insurance (because most of them work for Wal*Mart), can barely afford their homes if they're lucky enough to own one, and occupy the lower income strata that benefits least (if at all) from the much ballyhooed tax cuts of the current administration.  Exactly how these folks are supposed to find money sufficient to invest in a private "investment program," that may or may not ensure their future social welfare, is anyone's guess.  Even if there were investment money available, the likelihood of affording a class of shares that will actually pay a return is diminished by the simple economic fact of diminishing returns.  There will always be a finite number of shares available regardless of the number of splits that occur, and each split diminishes the value of the whole by deflating the value of individual shares (at least the class of shares that this type of investor can afford). 

The feds are betting that Americans will chase the privatization carrot exactly because of stories like Bernie Kerick's (who earned some $6.2 million from the sale of Taser International shares), and because Americans repeatedly prove themselves susceptible to get-rich-quick schemes every time they buy a lottery ticket.  The feds are encouraged because consumers continue to support Wal*Mart expansion, believing that the number of jobs created by a store opening in their neighborhood will infuse the economy -- when in fact the standard of living falls because the jobs pay a lower wage than those of the businesses that were driven out.  So it all comes down to the numbers that people are willing to see, rather than those which tell the real tale.  And it was precisely the unseen numbers that allowed companies like Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing to dupe so many for so long.

I'm not actually worried about my own social security.  At the rate the feds keep raising the retirement age bar, I won't have to worry about it until I'm 85-1/2.

Isn't is odd that it's only AFTER someone dies that you hear the interesting stories?  My maternal grandmother recently followed her ancestors home, yet all I ever knew of her were the grousings of her children (and the childrens' children, whose perceptions were undoubtedly clouded by the former).  Now, almost two weeks after she was buried with just one child and one grandchild in attendance, an uncle (by marriage) is sharing what he read in letters from my grandmother's half-sister. 

My grandmother was truly the last of a breed, the granddaughter of hatamoto samurai (personal guard of the Shogun).  She was born in the United States and educated in Japan, attaining a level of education that, for Japanese women of the day, was reserved for a select few.  Later, she would be called back to the United States and an arranged marriage, into a class much lower than she ever felt deserving of.  I knew for some time that she had a half-sister, whom she hadn't spoken to for well over fifty years, but this week was the first I ever knew of the existence of a brother.  Although I've never met either one, both are younger than my grandmother -- and I hope that, during a planned trip to Japan next summer, I will be visiting them and not their graves.  The half-sister had three children, whom I also hope to meet; but it's weird to know that there are relatives on the other side of the world whom you never knew of.  My immediate family is very small, and the joke we've always shared with friends is that if ever they met someone with the same last name as ours, dammit, let us know because they're related to us! 

Well, darn it all, I tried to pull the plug on this thing but I just can't -- I've got too much to say about the irony I see all around me.  Like the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) issuing warnings on RU-486 (the "morning-after" pill), citing dangers to women after one woman developed a serious infection and another died (from an unrelated cause) when it was discovered that both had taken the prescription-only pill.  Not one week earlier, Vioxx was recalled for its link to heart attacks and strokes -- information that the company had at least one full year before the recall.

Or how about the latest development in the so-called "Spy Files" case?  The local police department claims that it stopped conducting surveillance on alleged "terrorist organizations" (such as the Colorado Coaltion for Middle East Peace and the American Friends Service Committee), by showing up at protest demonstrations and canvassing nearby parking lots and writing down vehicle license plate numbers for tracking, and sometimes infiltrating the organizations.  Not only did the surveillance never cease, but the department refuses to subject neo-conservative groups to the same scrutiny (like the ones protesting at tonight's and tomorrow's Holiday Parade of Lights, after organizers of the parade barred any float displaying a religious sentiment).

Here's a good one... George W. just nominated the former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerick as this country's next Secretary of Homeland Security chief, succeeding Tom Ridge.  I dunno, you tell me what qualifies Kerick; the man is a high-school dropout.  Bush, playing the 9/11 card for the hundredth time this week, said Bernie was "at the World Trade Center minutes after the first plane hit" and "there when the towers collapsed."  What Bush didn't mention is that Bernie comes straight from a security consulting firm -- one in which he's a partner with Rudy Giuliani, and which stands to profit handsomely from what are sure to be plentiful no-bid contracts.  Apparently, if it was good enough for Cheney and Halliburton it's good enough for Bernie's and Rudy's Keystone Kops Konsultants.

Finally, the West is clamoring for Ukraine's popularly-elected prime minister, Viktor Yushenko, to step aside and allow the defeated Viktor Yanukovich to remain in power.  The U.S. even sent Colin Powell over there, claiming widespread election fraud and ballot box stuffing.  Well, aren't we a fine administration to cry "foul"?

Fini.  I give up.

But thanks for checking in.

I think I've recovered from election-induced depression, although the confusion is still making my head hurt.  My state went with Dubya but chose a Democrat for the Senate (and a freshman at that), while choosing evenly among Representatives.  Moreover, the voters rejected a state constitutional amendment* that would have subjected contractors to liability but then approved an amendment to raise cigarette taxes for a (so we're told) state health care fund.  Basically, the voters approved one group escaping payment for its mistakes while penalizing another for an activity of personal choice and risk that doesn't drain any more resources than drunk drivers.

The deed, however, is done.  Moving forward will require an equal or greater intensity than that which went into this election, and even greater scrutiny of world and domestic affairs.  I hope that Bush -- with the help of Congress -- will indeed make his primary goal that of peacekeeping and unity rather than perpetuating the divide-and-conquer, slash-and-burn imperialism of his first term.

*It still isn't quite clear to me why these issues were proposed as constitutional amendments rather than considered as legislative matters to be written into municipal or state statutes.  Shouldn't constitutions be amended only when doing so benefits an overwhelming majority of the citizenry?

After spending the better part of the day working the campaign and canvassing neighborhoods to get out the vote, there's nothing more to do than sit back and watch the returns.  I'm a bit puzzled why the networks are televising coverage at 7:55pm Mountain Standard Time when the polls in California don't close for another five minutes, and Hawaii's don't close for another three hours and five minutes? 

The woman I was partnered with tonight wondered aloud whether our efforts made a difference.  The only sure answer to that question is this:  we'll never know whether we made a difference, but I'm happy to have done SOMETHING.  My objective was to help get people to the polls if it meant driving them myself, but the best impression we could have made was simply being involved, to be out there working the neighborhoods and knocking on one door after another for hours on end. 

I only hope that, should the race be as close as in 2000, the Supreme Court will not step in to decide.  Unfortunately, the Court not only set a dangerous precedent by deciding that election but did so wholly inappropriately.  As a judicial entity, the Court's purpose is to decide only matters of judicial or legislative import -- it is not within the Court's province to answer questions of a political nature. 

Still, I will be terribly disappointed if Bush wins a second term.  A Kerry victory won't repeal the Patriot Acts, make possible a clean exit from Iraq, or reduce the power of big business... but it may again rightfully separate organized religion from government, restore assistance to those of greatest need, and encourage a more favorable global perception of the US (starting with rejoining the Kyoto Accord). 

If nothing else, a Kerry victory will most likely ensure a Supreme Court that will leave untouched a decision (Roe v. Wade) that has nothing to do with God and everything to do with freedom of choice.

Saw "The Motorcycle Diaries" tonight with my scoot buddies... and it is a must see.  The movie is based on the journals of Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Alberto Granado as they journeyed through Latin America in 1952, and how that journey shaped them personally and politically.  It is unfortunate that more people might not see this film because of its title and characters (probably every leftist in the area saw it in its first week), because the story is so much more than eight months of Che's life before he became a revolutionary.  One can't help but leave the theatre with a clearer notion that every life -- regardless of where or how it's lived -- is somehow interconnected with every other life. 

Go see it this weekend, and tell me what you thought.  If nothing else, I hope you come away feeling inspired and empowered, knowing that one person CAN make a difference.

Having been roundly chastised for not blogging recently, I'm back.  In my defense, however, I've been a little busy getting my ass kicked in grad school  -- and although I'm having a great time, trust me when I say it's a killer.  It's been bad enough trying to acclimate from semesters (15 weeks) to quarters (10 weeks), but then they split the quarters into two sessions.  And five weeks doesn't give you a lot of time to fuck up.  The class I just finished was Social Marketing Communication, which applies the principles and concepts of commercial marketing to the social change movement.  The workload was horrific, too -- two textbooks, four papers and a group presentation.  It's a wonder I didn't kill myself.  (Note to self:  Don't take courses taught by the assistant dean.)

Needless to say, personal time has come at something of a premium lately.  But it didn't prevent me from meeting my pal at a local restaurant/bar, under the guise of having a late night bite.  Turns out she wanted to introduce me to the barkeep whom I'd actually met a number of years earlier.  How pathetic is that, when your friends try to set you up with relative strangers?  Yes, her intentions were noble, but it's a sad state of affairs when the prospects considered are people of only passing familiarity even to the go-between.

Still, there must be a better way to go about this meet-and-greet business.  Bars?  No thanks.  Nothing for me to do there -- can't drink, shouldn't dance, and rather not be a wall support.  Social groups?  Too much emphasis on show-and-tell.  Internet sites?  Nah, no one seems capable of breaking the envelope of two or three email messages, nor does anyone seem to possess the fortitude required to actually meet.

Ah well.  I guess it's good that I'll be busy for the next five weeks.

While at lunch today, a friend and I ended up talking about relationships.  We were sitting outside observing passers-by, and I happened to comment on one woman in particular who appeared to be part Asian, whose overall look just struck me, and I said, "Now, she's cute."  You would've thought I'd revealed the secrets of the universe, because my friend nearly had a stroke:  apparently, she's been trying for some time to figure out what "type" of person I'm drawn to.  I guess she's puzzled as to why I've been single for a good while and, frankly, I'm mystified, too.

She asked whether I was too picky, and that led to a discussion about how very difficult it is to find people with whom we (both of us) are compatible.  Interestingly, she has been coupled for as long as I've known her, while I have remained unattached.  She asked whether I might be too picky, but I'm not certain that's the case.  It's true that there is rarely a perfect match -- but while she will have a companion for the sake of companionship, I want the whole package.  For me, there are levels of attraction, each subsequently leading to the other -- physical, emotional, intellectual and sexual.

Perhaps it's unfortunate that I wasn't blessed with the ability to engage in physical relationships without the emotional bond.  I guess that's what's called working from the inside out.  All the same, nearly every one of my friends have always been coupled in some fashion or other, whether through a monogamous relationship or steady if sporadic dating.  And I'm left wondering what qualities they possess that I do not -- or vice versa.  Maybe it's as simple as that they know how and are more than willing to play the game, while I am not.  It's too bad, because someone somewhere is missing out on a bright, active, honest, loyal, faithful and funny companion.

Good lord, I've just described a dog.

It amazes me that, as much money as I've spent on bargains found on the 'net, it has never occurred to me to look for tobacco products.  But as of today, thanks to the New York Times (registration required) and an article by Eduardo Porter, I can save money on that, too!  I intend to place an order as soon as this is posted....

The upshot of the article is that state attorneys general would like to sue the Seneca nation for mail fraud because it (and a few other Native American websites) sells tax-free tobacco products on the Internet.  The issue is, in a word, contentious because states are barred by treaties from taxing Indian tribes on sales of tobacco and fuel; so state legislators, faced with increasing budget deficits, are working feverishly to figure out how to get around those pesky treaties. 

The article reports that New York City estimates its annual revenue losses from uncollected taxes to be in the millions of dollars.  Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are marshalling forces with lobbyists for anti-tobacco groups, and a convenience store trade group would like to see legislation that specifically permits states to sue Indian tribes (which, by the way, are sovereign nations).

Read between the lines, though, and you will recognize as I did that big government -- as it has before -- is helping the tobacco industry itself avoid culpability.  HELLO!?!  Where did the tribes get their tobacco from in the first place?  The article reports that 20 billion packs of cigarettes were sold in 2002; and Philip Morris Company's 2003 Financial Snapshot reflects revenue of $60.7 billion.  (In fact, I'll buy and send a carton of cigarettes to the first person who finds and posts, via "Comments," verifiable figures reporting the tax breaks that Philip Morris Company has received from our government.)

Interesting, too, that Philip Morris has sued non-tribal and foreign Internet tobacco sellers -- but no Indian sellers. 

Some things never change.  People will always use tobacco.  And big government will always protect big business and shareholder profits, targeting symptoms instead of the sources.  Lyle Beckwith, senior vice president for government relations at the National Association of Convenience Stores, articulated this principle clearly:  "If you don't deal with the Indians, you don't solve the Internet tobacco problem." 

Because in business -- as in warfare -- the easiest (and most vulnerable) target is the little guy.

Pet Peeves.  We all have them, and I'll admit I have a couple.  One is managed fairly well because when it happens, the other person is simply reacting to their environment -- something competely out of their control.  (It kinda bugs me when I'm talking to someone and they turn to speak to someone else, do something, or point out something entirely unrelated to the conversation at hand.)  But what torques me most are inconsiderate or uninformed drivers. 

Like the ones who refuse to acknowledge that you've just let them edge their car in front of yours, because you realized that there are a shitload of cars behind you and they might not be as nice as you are.  So you let them cut in front of you... and then off they go, never breaking their chit-chat with the passenger (or the person on the other end of the phone).  And then the light changes just as they're zipping through... and now you're stuck at the light. 

Or how about those who STILL don't know that, unless posted otherwise, you can turn right on red? and left on red from a one-way to a one-way?  And while we're on the subject of turns, whatever happened to turn signals?  Are they optional equipment now??  (SUV drivers are the absolute worst for not using signals; I guess it's because that would fall under the category of multi-tasking, and everyone knows SUV drivers can't walk and chew gum at the same time.)

Then there are the drivers who've never figured out the purpose of those solid white lines that follow through the curve around a corner.  They're not solid because the cutting blade on the Public Works truck wasn't operating correctly; they're meant to direct the flow of traffic.  If you start the turn from the inside lane then you end up in the inside lane.  By the same token, if you turn from the middle lane then the solid line will direct you to the outside lane.  In other words, folks, don't cross those lines. 

But here's the biggest one.  In my day, new drivers were taught never to make a lane change without physically turning the head to look back over the shoulder and check for cars in the blind spot.  It's called a head check and, unless you're wearing a brace or have a stack of gold rings soldered around your neck, there's really no reason not to do it.  Yet I constantly see people going through wild gyrations to check their mirrors -- scrunching down to see the bottom of the side mirror, grabbing the steering wheel to lift themselves higher to see the view from the rear mirror, or leaning 'way over the steering wheel to extend their view of either side mirror.  Good grief, every one of those uses four times more muscles than just a head check.

Okay, I feel better now.  At least until tomorrow morning.  Maybe I'll drive to work pretending I'm in an SUV.

There are occasions when a photograph does so much more than freeze a moment in time.  Sometimes, they tell a story that would otherwise take 30 minutes to articulate.  A local paper printed a picture last week that captured, in a millisecond, true government hypocrisy.  It showed 627 immigrants taking their oath of citizenship in front of the state capitol building, and all manner of people were represented:  Latino/a, African, Asian, European.  Directly in the center were three men -- one from Nigeria, one from Ireland, and another from Costa Rica.  And all were wearing the uniform of the United States Army.

As I gazed at the photo, scanning the faces, I found myself wondering what each of them left behind in their countries of origin.  Perhaps the educational or job opportunities are greater here, or maybe they were drawn by a vision of owning a home made of something other than mud and straw.  Or maybe they believed the part of the Constitution that says Americans have a right to choose their religion, to express themselves through speech, to bear arms, and to cast a vote.  There's also a good chance that at least one was escaping persecution or certain death; heck, there are so many countries with US-backed guerilla forces, it's difficult to keep track.

Still, since 9/11, the War on Terrorism and the Patriot Act have made it tougher than ever to achieve American citizenship.  And as difficult as we've made it for Arabs and East Indians, we've never let up on the Hispanic immigrants.  Instead, we've done everything imaginable to further disenfranchise them, claiming that they rob Americans of jobs while draining government entitlement programs.  (Funny thing is, I have yet to see an Aryan building janitor.)

Which leads me to why I found that photo at once disturbing and supremely ironic.  The three men in the center -- the ones in uniform, who collectively represent a minimum of 20,000 air miles -- are expected to lay their lives on the line for what is turning out to be a wholly unwinnable war even though they are not citizens.  And then we have the temerity to accuse former senator Max Cleland, a citizen by birth, of being unpatriotic.

It remains a mystery to me why so many people still consider the United States a land of opportunity.

Isn't it interesting that, even as we're "fighting" the War on Terrorism, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire?  I know, I know -- if someone really wants an assault weapon they'll find the means to obtain one.  I guess what really troubles me is knowing that the NRA (National Rifle Association) will spend upwards of $23 million on President Bush's re-election campaign.

Good to know that Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" was so effective in opening the eyes of our erstwhile legislators.

I have a certain respect and admiration for people who have not only a good idea of their purpose but are happy with who they are.  It must be incredibly empowering to know of one's worth and value to others in their circle. 

I'm not there yet.  In fact, I'm not certain I've ever been close to it in all of my adult life.  I'm actually beginning to suspect that it's a genetic flaw, that it simply isn't possible to experience what others all around me are.

Immanuel Kant said "it is a duty to maintain one's life," but we preserve life AS duty requires -- not BECAUSE duty requires.  Does this mean, then, that there really are more unhappy people than we realize?  Kant went on to say that "if adversity and hopeless sorrow have completely taken away the relish for life, the unfortunate one, strong in mind, indignant at his fate rather than desponding or dejected, wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it -- not from inclination or fear, but from duty -- then his maxim has a moral worth."  Is this why societies established the prohibition against suicide?  Do we stand upon a higher moral ground for not succumbing to the sometimes overwhelming urge to depart our stations?

There's times aplenty when I could bear abdicating my share of that real estate.

The local Pacifica Radio Network station just started broadcasting in this metropolitan area!  After a year of struggle, negotiations, and fundraising, a local signal was purchased and programming began Sunday, just in time for coverage of the Republican National Convention in New York City.  Yes, the appearance at first glance is that Pacifica's programmers must be confused.  But the coverage is not just of what's happening within the walls of Madison Square Garden; it's also giving a picture of what's taking place on the OUTSIDE, including first-hand accounts by peaceful protesters.  In other words, they're covering the stories that will never make network [read:  corporate] media.  A truly independent media outlet is a welcome addition to this market, a perfect counterbalance to National Public Radio (which is about as liberal as [John] Kerry himself).

It's been most interesting to hear the divisions that exist even within the Republican Party.  Amy Goodman (WBAI's host of Democracy Now!) interviewed a convention speaker this morning, who complained and sputtered about immigrants taking American jobs and using government resources.  But the Governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, addressed the convention Tuesday night, saying that immigrants are not only welcome in this country but guaranteed to achieve exactly what they desire.  (Before Arnold decides to run for president, I hope he reads his copy of the Constitution.)  And am I the only one who remembers that W. said he would NEVER use September 11 as a campaign platform?  Republicans have some nerve calling Democrats wishy-washy....

Honestly, if I weren't so convinced that a vote for the Green Party was the same as a wasted vote, that's the direction I would go.  Whoever said that America has two parties, both right-wing, wasn't speaking a complete untruth.

New Jersey lost its governor, James McGreevey, last week when he announced that he is a "gay American," and that his infidelity violated his obligations of matrimony.  (Ah, if only every politician were so forthcoming and honor-driven.)  Unfortunately, McGreevey probably felt in his heart of hearts that by resigning after coming out, he was doing gays and lesbians everywhere a huge favor.  I have to disagree.

McGreevey did, however, obtain precisely the effect he desired.  The press and the public, rather than examining McGreevey's impropriety in giving his former lover a state job with a high degree of responsiblity (for which said lover had no experience) focused upon the issue du jour,  whether gays or lesbians can be effective elected officials.  No one seems concerned that McGreevey is just one more example of the power elite who successfully manipulated and dodged political ethics (if not policy).  And gay rights activists are, of course, all a-dither because McGreevey's announcement catapulted their cause right back onto everyone's radar screen.

And what's with calling himself a "gay American," as though it were the latest chic ethnic identity?  Looking at it from my own generally accepted standard (to borrow a term of legal import) of race-based perspective, I sort of resent the implication that I/we should acknowledge a previously unclaimed heritage -- as if to do so would confer certain entitlements.

I found myself agreeing with an advisor of McGreevey who urged him not to resign.  By framing his resignation as the result of a conflict of moral/matrimonial obligations, and employing the same as subterfuge for his ethical and administrative violations, McGreevey cheapened the very real internal conflict that every gay and lesbian grapples with in questioning whether to remain in the closet. 

Reports from observers and monitors in Venezuela indicate that populist president Hugo Chavez overwhelmingly and fairly won re-election last Sunday.  It is an interesting result, in light of information that at least one payment was made by the US government to backers of Venezuela's opposition party -- which purchased records of voter information from ChoicePoint, a US identity verification service.  ChoicePoint was also involved in the 2000 Florida election snafu, providing information that led to the [illegal] purge of that state's voter rolls.  The company apparently did such a splendid job domestically that the Justice Department offered it $67 million for information on voters in Brazil and Mexico, too.

Do you detect a pattern here?  It appears that US-backed forces in these countries simply haven't been able to meet government mandates, requiring an escalation in tactics by attempting to engineer election outcomes.  Indeed, the election was done by computer.  (Bonus question:  Guess the manufacturer of the electronic voting machines used in Sunday's election.) 

My worry is that the outcome of the election will be used as ammunition to defend the use of electronic, paperless voting in our November presidential election.  It isn't a stretch to speculate that proponents of paperless voting will tout the veracity of the system by holding up Venezuela's election results as an example.  In the meantime, I'm certain that Bush is clinging to the hope of re-election and more opportunities to oust the popular Venezuelan (and Brazilian, and Mexican, and so forth) president -- if not with guns, then with computers.

UPDATE [8/18/04]:  Excellent column by Medea Benjamin, at alternet.org, defining at least part of the reason Chavez soundly defeated the opposition.  His administration's willingness to fund expansive social programs for Venezuela's underserved -- with income derived from sales of the country's oil -- has earned the majority's loyalty.  No wonder the opposition is pissed; when poor people have access to (free) health care, education and job training, it's a step toward equality.

Hello again to any who may have missed my banal musings.  In the two months since my last post, my work status changed quite dramatically from two shifts per week (less than part-time) to five (really full-time).  While that's been nice in terms of money (treating myself to a very nice birthday present as well as acquiring a more powerful scooter), it threw my circadian rhythm (assuming I ever had one) into an endless loop.  I think I'm finally adjusted ... but the cat is still really pissed.  Oliver is a thirteen-pound orange tabby with one helluva case of separation anxiety.  He insists on being in the same room with me even if it's the smallest one in the house (i.e., the bathroom), and his preferred method of demonstrating his dislike for my increased absence is to lunge at my feet as I swing them into bed at night.  It's gotten so bad that I now take a squirt gun to bed with me.  I hope I don't die in my sleep because the newspapers will have a field day --"Woman found dead in home next to Super Soaker."

The new scoot's been nice, too (when it's not being towed away -- long story, another time).  It's a 2003 Piaggio (division of Vespa) BV200, in platinum, with side and top cases.  Purist riders who favor the vintage look won't like it but it's definitely for the progressive modernists.  It is such a blast, I never want to quit riding!  I picked it up June 26 with 15 miles on it, and it now has 500; and I can't wait to blow through the break-in period to get it to top speed (book claims 76, I've hit 60 once or twice).  And it's already been to its first scooter rally, Mile High Mayhem, in Denver.  For all you scooterists who've never made it there, I highly recommend the event; lots of scoots, lots of quirky folks, and something for everyone.

          

* * * * *

Let's change gears now.  If your state held a primary last Tuesday, did you vote?  Did the election turn out the way you wanted it to? 

I voted, but the results were a GIGANTIC disappointment.  My state is one where the Congressional race was a hot contest, since a Republican senator is stepping down.  The Democratic candidate I liked was defeated, the Republican candidate I most despised won, an initiative that would have prevented the circus from coming to this city went down to defeat, and the biggest weasel among the District Attorney candidates won in a landslide.  But more than anything I was disappointed that, in this city of a million and a-half people, barely fifteen percent could be bothered to actually get out and vote.  Basically, 15% of the population decided how the other 85% will live during the next four years ... and even beyond. 

Meanwhile, polls have George W. at his highest approval rating ever.  (How's that for a poll that has "skewed" written all over it?)  This, even as he invokes memories of September 11th in his latest nationwide television commercial, an appeal he pledged to never use.  I just wonder how much influence The Heritage Foundation has over this president; is it as much, or more, as was exercised over President Reagan? 

And speaking of The Heritage Foundation ... nothing scares me more than a Republican of color.  (Actually, gay Republicans are scary, too.)  If W is re-elected, keep an eye out for conservative (Filipina) columnist Michelle Malkin to be appointed to a Cabinet position.  Malkin is currently promoting her new book that defends America's World War  II internment of Japanese Americans, and advocates racial profiling in the name of national security.  (For a terrific blog entry discussing Malkin and her book, see Matt Stoller's August 7th entry at The Blogging of the President.)  Malkin probably also thinks Amadou Diallo was a gangleader in the making and it was better to remove his potential influence before it was too late.  The interesting thing about Malkin's position is that she once decried the internment -- until The Heritage Foundation took her under its wing and turned her into a hugely successful and syndicated columnist.

          

* * * * *

Finally, one more chance for audience participation.  Did you ever have an attraction to someone that you just couldn't shake, no matter what you tried?  On the other hand, do you know of some secret technique that will do the trick?  If the answer is "yes," do tell because I could certainly use some suggestions.  There's nothing more annoying than wanting something which you have no hope in the universe of getting.  And it's not as though I don't have any experience with it.  The same thing happened about six years ago (turned out to be a miserable failure) and it took two years to get past it -- I can't waste that much time again.  Maybe someday I'll recount the details here; for now, I just want to get past it.

Until next time ... peace.