I got a whole list of blogs that I love to read, but there are three that really stand above the rest. For me, Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, and Joe Posnanski are daily reads (just so they do not feel left out, Ta-Nehisi Coates and the staff at the Hardball Times are also on the top of my list)- Sullivan's posts are short vignettes about his thoughts and daily news that he posts multiple times a day. Glenn Greenwald and Posnanski are longer, so there are (sad) days where they have not updated. Greenwald, though, is more focused and scholarly, he is after all a constitutional lawyer. Posnanski's blog is how I'd like mine to be- meandering with plenty of parentheticals (he calls them posterisks). Anyway, they are all quite thought-provoking and very insightful. Many of the ideas I get from my posts are directly as a result of writing that they have done.
Not to slight Joe or anything but this post today is about the other two, Sullivan and Greenwald. They are separated on the ideological spectrum, one is a small government conservative, one is an unabashed liberal, but both been incredibly outspoken on the failures of the Bush Administration, particularly the expansion of presidential power, the domestic spying regime, and the general incompentence which has accompanied this administrations response to everything. (sidenote, I think that eventually we could have a political party, which is a combination of the best of libertarianism and progressive liberalism, I want to write about that combo later) But what I think is most commendable is their continued vigilance on the subject of torture.
I don't think people still understand the gravity of what Bush/Cheney authorized during the past 8 years. WE TORTURED! Say it to yourself: the United States of America tortured people! We have to repudiate this every chance we get. This is NOT just another policy dispute- it gets to the very fabric of who we want to be as a country. I don't understand why there is not more outrage in our media and in the populace as a whole.
People talk about how Barack Obama should not prosecute the people who authorized these atrocities, that it would be too political, that the right wing would skewer him. While I think that Obama's consensus governing style and willingness to listen to dissent is going to work for our country in the long-term. But for the health of our country I also think that we must repudiate to the maximum extent, the policies of this administration. If that means a Truth Commission then so be it, but we've already let these monsters sully our reputation, are we going to let them get away with it too? If we do, it not only means that we've allowed torturers to go free, but we also say out loud that those in power are above the law.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Comin' Out Hard
I don't remember actually meeting my mother's father for the first time, but I do remember the environment. It was winter time, it was probably 1990 but it may have been 89. We walked up what seemed like an enormous flight of dark brown stairs. My memory tells me that the stairs were a little chipped, but honestly, it was too dark to see anything but the steps outline, which, along with my mother's hand, guided my little feet up the stairs. There was no light inside the actual stairwell, it was illuminated from a source inside the apartment. The light was off-yellow, a brownish yellow, like the bulb had been stained by almost constant cigarette smoke, it made everything seem old. Looking back, it reminds me of a 70's blaxploitation movie. And that's where the memory ends. It's always me walking up the stairs with my mother, and presumably the rest of my siblings, never reaching the top, just endlessly climbing towards the smoke yellow light.
I figured out that the memory was from visiting my grandfather through deductive reasoning. The door we entered into was one on the side of a store and the stairs led to a single, slightly rundown apartment. My grandfather was the only person in my family that lived above a store, in this case a liquor store. Therefore, it must have been him. And even though I don't remember actually meeting him, the memory itself gave me a sense of fear and a sense of strength, but mostly fear.
I got a chance for a do-over meeting when I was 10. He still lived above a liquor store, not sure if it was the same one, at the very least the staircase was the same. We got to the top and there he was, sitting on a white chair facing the doorway, a trucker hat on his head and his grainy tv screen turned to the news. His coffee table was filled with bills, letters, a VFW magazine and stacks of road maps. I guessed correctly that he'd been a trucker in his former life, and a retired veteran in his current one. But I really noticed was him physically. He was huge, well over six feet tall, broad shoulders, long limbs. (why the hell am I so short? oh, yeah). And more importantly, he was hilarious. He reeked of alcohol and cursed more than any person I'd ever met. Crotchety wouldn't even begin to describe him; the bitterness that he had at the world came out in expletive form. If Guiliani spoke with a noun, verb, and 9/11, my grandfather was a noun, maybe a verb, and motherfucka. I would later learn that his bitterness was almost entirely justifiable, but at the time I just thought that he was the Black, cursing incarnation of Statler and Waldorf always hating on everything, always making jokes, and always being extraordinarily ornery.
But if my grandfather was funny, it was my uncle who lived with him in that small liquor store apartment that was cool. He was light-hearted, taking the brunt of my grandfather's curses but more than keeping up in his comebacks. He was big too, not as tall as my grandfather, but even more broad shouldered. There was this confidence that just exuded from him, that, especially for a 10 year old boy, was inspiring. I couldn't wait until I became a man. Man- besides my father and my brother I had never really interacted with any males in my family before. All of my closest relatives were women. My uncle was definitely excited to see his little nehpews for the first time also, because he asked my mother if he could take us out to Lake Michigan the next day. Now, my mother knew her brother, she knew what kind of guy he was, but she let us go out with him anyway. Then again, my mother also my brother and I ride to go get a puppy with this old white guy who lived in our trailer park who we'd literally just met. He said that there were free puppies at some other trailer park, we pleaded with her, and she let us go. My mom was truly one of the last of the old school parents.
Anyway, the next day we got inside my uncles ancient big bodied Oldsmobile, and all of my thoughts about his coolness are confirmed. He warns us as he puts the car into drive that he doesn't listen to the kind of rap we listen to, this being 1996, the beginning of the shiny suit era, he meant Mase and Puff Daddy. He pops in his tape, the only one he listens to the entire day, and instead of heavily sampled rap about having a bunch of money and writing checks, I hear stories of Armed Robbery, niggas gettin merked with 9 millimeters, pimps pimpin out a multitude of ho's. Here me and my brother were, two black nerds from South Carolina, riding around in a big-body hoopty. I didn't learn until later that it was Eightball and MJG's critically acclaimed debut "Comin' Out Hard" that we were listening to, all I know is that I felt hard just listening to it.
Before we head to the lake though, my uncle tells us that he has to make a couple stops, make his rounds. We pull up to this brick apartment complex near a small park, and my uncle quickly jumps out. He tells us to wait in the car while he does his business. A lady greets him at the front door and takes him upstairs. Me and my brother are silent, only Eightball is speaking "Mr Big, Mr Big, they call him Mr. Big." We must have waited like twenty minutes for him to get finished, the lady hands my uncle a key as he walks out the door, I guess for easier access. He's grinnin' as we drive off, headed for the highway.
We're doing something over the speed limit, the tape already having started over, gun shots fill my ears. A nice looking lady in sunglasses speeds past us on a black motorcycle. "Hey poo-poo, what's good?" my uncle yells out the window. He leans over to check out how her ass looks propped up by the seat of the bike. He lokos around just in time to see another lady on the passengers side of the car to our right. He greets her outrageously- "I LOVE BIG TITTIES!" I think she blushes a little. So that's how you get women.
We pull off onto an exit and head to the gas station. I thought we'd run out of gas, turns out the gauge is just broken. We wait in the car again, he comes back with a pack of Newports and a can of beer, Old Milwaukee I think. I'm only certain about the Newports. We get back on the freeway; me and my brother are hoping that we'd finally get to the lake. Now, I'd seen plenty of people drive and smoke, and I'd even heard of people drinking and driving. My uncle, with unmistakable talent, drank, smoked, and drove all at the same time. He had the Newport in one hand, the can of Old Milwaukee in the other. Having run out of hands, he proceeded to drive with his knee, down the freeway, doing ninety. As me and my petrified brother are clinging to our seats, saying one last Our Father, he jokes "Man, I shouldn't be doing this... I don't even have a license right now!"
At least we were headed to the lake now. Except we weren't. I gotta make a few more stops man, and then we'll get to the lake, he told us. While we were driving to, I don't know where, he told us stories. About his time in LA, becoming a Crip, going to prison for armed robbery. The worst story was what they did to this one guy when they found out he was in prison for raping little kids (it involves a broken off broomstick). He talked about his (now ex) wife (who to this day I never met) and his dogs, my mind tell me they were either boxers or pit bulls. He loved those dogs, and the bitch (his wife) had put them down to spite him. Just because he was a little reckless, just for a little thing like cheating on her a couple times and not coming home for a month. Was that so wrong? I looked down and my brother did the same. We really didn't have a concept of infidelity besides the fact that it was indeed wrong.
We never made it to Lake Michigan that day. Me and my brother watched my uncle literally get the keys to a woman's place a little while after he met her. We drove around the hood as he'd randomly yell at women- try and talk to ones that were definitely under 18. We made stops at corner stores, at one of our cousins houses, at my uncle's friends house (we didn't get to go in there either). And when all the stops were over, as the sun was going down, and we FINALLY drove to the east side to go to the Lake, his car broke down. Wouldn't even begin to turn over. So we had to walk; all the way back to my grandfather's tiny apartment above the liquor store on 5th street.
Is it inately male to admire another man who just doesn't give a fuck? That has to explain my fascination with my uncle when I first met him. He was larger than authority, larger than life. Every single thing that my mother told me was wrong, he did, with absolutely no regard. It's wrong to drink and drive: my uncle drank beer after beer driving down the freewayt. It's wrong to drive without a license: I'm not sure he's ever even had a valid drivers license, and honestly, he shouldn't have one. He was ALWAYS strapped- (although I didn't see one that day, ever time I've seen him since he's had a gun on him). He cheated on his wife with reckless abandon, not even pretending to have discretion.
And he got women- by the barrel, it was awe-inspring to watch. My uncles a good-looking guy, but not that good-looking. He doesn't dress nicely, he never really has a steady job. He's damn near or already 50 and still lives with his father. But women flock to him. When I started high school, he'd give me nice watches to wear to school, he had a drawer full of them, all given to him by women. Other things inside that drawer- a large number of house keys, another gun, and an assortment of prophylactics. When I lived with my grandfather the summer before high school he had ladies always blowing up my grandfather's phone. For someone trying to be cool it was quite a lesson. A bad one for someone eventually trying to find a nice girl, but a lesson that I took to heart. The choices my uncle made was never really an option for me, but it did influence how I thought about women and "relationships" at least for a little while.
I'm 12 years older now, most of the things I thought were cool back then are just sad now. I definitely don't want to be him, but I can't lie and say that occasionaly that lifestyle isn't attractive. There's a fleeting moment, where going to the office, reading books, taking care of responsibilities, just isn't enough. I wanna ride shottie with my uncle listening to Eightball and MJG and feeling more powerful than I actually am.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Tell Them How You Really Feel
On the train I was listening to Bobby Womack's "If You Think You're Lonely Now (Wait Until Tonight Girl). It's one of my favorite 70's black guitar man songs, and Bobby Womack is probably the best black soul guitarists of that era. I love the opening the most; that first guitar lick, the gravel in his voice during the monologue, and his ability to mix angst and frustration that boils over into anger. And the background singers are just heavenly. It's clear that he loves his lady but he also makes it clear that he's fed up with her contradictions, her constant nagging. But instead of finding a more constructive way of dealing with their problems, he leaves. He tells her how he really feels, in all its complexities and in the process reveals his own failings.
I'm certainly reading too deep into this song- but I can imagine the circumstances from the story of greater Black America, a little bit after the Civil Rights movement. He feels ashamed about not being able to give his wife/woman/girlfriend the things she wants- his has little in the way of job prospects. I think about him, living in Detroit or Cleveland, his plant shutdown, what can he do? Travel for work? Perhaps, but then he's never home, then she's lonely. But doesn't it feel a little bit refreshing to be away from all that- nagging and anger and frustration. He could travel for work and send back the money- leaving little for himself. He could stay home, try and look for work, and be berated for being unsuccessful. Or..... he could leave for work and keep his money. More money for him, less money for the wife- for my kid?
The problem with male soul/R&B music today is that they cannot display their vulnerability while retaining their ability to come hard with it. For the most part it's an either or proposition. Part of it is the dominance of hip-hop in the Black community. Our current soul/R&B singers were weaned on the cockiness of hip-hop and it is reflected in what and how they sing. You tell a woman/girl/bitch/ho how you're gonna dick her down, break her back, or how she's ain't nothin but a ho/bitch. In the song at least, you are an all powerful sex god able to both that no woman can resist. There's a place for that in music, but there's also a place for something a little more honest and it's tough to find, particularly in the popular stuff.
But Bobby Womack still came hard while revealing his softer side. The anger inside his voice was just as palpable- but it was grown man anger, anger built around trying to build a household. You don't have to be lame to be honest, and you don't have to say things like "she gone let me beep/beat, beep/beat, beep/beat, beep/beat" from that awful Bobby Valentino song. The chorus goes way past playfulness into silliness and undermines the sex god archetype- it's the worst of both worlds really.
I blame Marvin Gaye for the current state of male R&B. Yeah I said it. I blame Marvin Gaye for the current state of R&B in the same way that I blame Michael Jordan for the isolation-revolution that took over the NBA in the mid to late 1990's. It's not their fault personally. Because he had the best combination of skill, intelligence, and savvy, Michael Jordan increased his teams chances of winning by being isolated at times (although he also worked in the triangle offense). It was not isolation in and of itself that was key, it was the man doing it. But coaches thought that putting your best player at the top of the key to go one-on-one was a great strategy. It wasn't and it's extremely boring for players under MJ's stature.
Marvin Gaye with "Let's Get It On" showed how being candid could be a selling point in a more open and permissive age. Not that there weren't other artists who were candid before (blues artists, both men and women had always been upfront about sex in their songs), but because Marvin Gaye was so popular it became acceptable. But Marvin Gaye was also a great great song interpreter, made one of the best (concept) albums in music history, was an accomplished drummer and lyricist (even if he didn't always show it), and was both critically and commercially acclaimed. My point is, that in the hands of an all-time legend like Marvin, the candidness (which is positively tame now) works well. It was one of the tools in his ever evolving arsenal, one that he leaned on very heavily in his later years, but one, because of his extraordinary gifts, he wielded quite capably. Too often for today's R&B artists, it just comes off as arrogant and nasty- and unfortunately that's the only tool in the box for them. Just because it worked for Marvin and some other artists (of the newer R&B artists, Usher's Confessions comes to mind) doesn't mean it works for you. A&R's, please tell your artists to get some different tools, you don't need a sledgehammer for everything.
I'm certainly reading too deep into this song- but I can imagine the circumstances from the story of greater Black America, a little bit after the Civil Rights movement. He feels ashamed about not being able to give his wife/woman/girlfriend the things she wants- his has little in the way of job prospects. I think about him, living in Detroit or Cleveland, his plant shutdown, what can he do? Travel for work? Perhaps, but then he's never home, then she's lonely. But doesn't it feel a little bit refreshing to be away from all that- nagging and anger and frustration. He could travel for work and send back the money- leaving little for himself. He could stay home, try and look for work, and be berated for being unsuccessful. Or..... he could leave for work and keep his money. More money for him, less money for the wife- for my kid?
The problem with male soul/R&B music today is that they cannot display their vulnerability while retaining their ability to come hard with it. For the most part it's an either or proposition. Part of it is the dominance of hip-hop in the Black community. Our current soul/R&B singers were weaned on the cockiness of hip-hop and it is reflected in what and how they sing. You tell a woman/girl/bitch/ho how you're gonna dick her down, break her back, or how she's ain't nothin but a ho/bitch. In the song at least, you are an all powerful sex god able to both that no woman can resist. There's a place for that in music, but there's also a place for something a little more honest and it's tough to find, particularly in the popular stuff.
But Bobby Womack still came hard while revealing his softer side. The anger inside his voice was just as palpable- but it was grown man anger, anger built around trying to build a household. You don't have to be lame to be honest, and you don't have to say things like "she gone let me beep/beat, beep/beat, beep/beat, beep/beat" from that awful Bobby Valentino song. The chorus goes way past playfulness into silliness and undermines the sex god archetype- it's the worst of both worlds really.
I blame Marvin Gaye for the current state of male R&B. Yeah I said it. I blame Marvin Gaye for the current state of R&B in the same way that I blame Michael Jordan for the isolation-revolution that took over the NBA in the mid to late 1990's. It's not their fault personally. Because he had the best combination of skill, intelligence, and savvy, Michael Jordan increased his teams chances of winning by being isolated at times (although he also worked in the triangle offense). It was not isolation in and of itself that was key, it was the man doing it. But coaches thought that putting your best player at the top of the key to go one-on-one was a great strategy. It wasn't and it's extremely boring for players under MJ's stature.
Marvin Gaye with "Let's Get It On" showed how being candid could be a selling point in a more open and permissive age. Not that there weren't other artists who were candid before (blues artists, both men and women had always been upfront about sex in their songs), but because Marvin Gaye was so popular it became acceptable. But Marvin Gaye was also a great great song interpreter, made one of the best (concept) albums in music history, was an accomplished drummer and lyricist (even if he didn't always show it), and was both critically and commercially acclaimed. My point is, that in the hands of an all-time legend like Marvin, the candidness (which is positively tame now) works well. It was one of the tools in his ever evolving arsenal, one that he leaned on very heavily in his later years, but one, because of his extraordinary gifts, he wielded quite capably. Too often for today's R&B artists, it just comes off as arrogant and nasty- and unfortunately that's the only tool in the box for them. Just because it worked for Marvin and some other artists (of the newer R&B artists, Usher's Confessions comes to mind) doesn't mean it works for you. A&R's, please tell your artists to get some different tools, you don't need a sledgehammer for everything.
What Happens When You Waste Time
So, I haven't written in a couple days. I've had a few ideas written on paper, but just wasn't in the mood to write something coherent.
In the wake of Lieberman keeping his chairmanship, I wanted to write a post about the different ways the Republicans and the Democrats treat their respective bases. But then, while perusing The Daily Dish I stumbled across another website which wrote about the exact same thing, only better. So if you want some excellent analysis on the subject go here. I'll just add what I was going to say:
Republicans treat their base with reverence, or at least they make the appearance of treating their base with reverence. If they pursue policies that hurt the white rural Christian working-class (and oh lord do they do they ever), they will 1) spin their actions to make it seem like they're acting in the bases interest, 2) talk about how God-fearing and patriotic their rural base is. Republicans, for better or worse, are unashamed to be married to their base, will walk proudly down the street holding their rural, hard-working hands. They will defend them against all comers, and make no excuses for the actions of the worst of them. When it comes time to dole out the goodies after an election is won, they throw them not just a bone, but the big piece of chicken reserved for the head of the household.
Democrats, particularly the spineless ones representing the party are utterly ashamed of the people who ultimately get them elected. They are more than willing to not only ignore the interests of their base, but Dems actually will brag about the ways in which they scorn them. Even with resounding wins in the last two election cycles, Democratic leaders still do not think Americans actually like their policies. They subscribe to the right-wing talking point that this is, essentially, a center-right country. They act like the geeky, slightly overweight guy who used his good personality and keen sense of humor to land the girl of his dreams. Even though they're married and she professes that she loves him everyday, he still cannot believe that she is actually with him. He thinks he needs to act like someone else in order to keep her- but in the end, no one likes a phony. To me at least, it makes the Dems seem ungrateful. They had people giving up days, months, years, of their lives in order to help get them elected (I know, I was one of them, although I'm not sure where I categorize myself at this point). Many of those people were the "far-left" part of the party, the very hippies that they deride in the papers. The ones Rahm Emanuel wants to upset because it appears "bipartisan", the ones Nancy Pelosi is so dismissive of. I bet that in the halls of Congress, Repubs talk derisively about their "Bubbas and Rapturists" just as much as the Dems talk bad about their "Hippies and Darkies." When they walk outside though, that's a different story.
Politically speaking, it is actually much more efficient to treat your base as if they were your loyal battered wife. The Democratic base, particularly because they are so politically inclined, will always come back to the fold, even if you persue policy after policy that is the antithesis of what they want. Better to focus your time, money, and legislative power on those crucial "swing voters," or as the hilarious Daily Show put it (and I'm paraphrasing), those fucks who can't seem to make up their mind. The Republican concentration on their base is a foolish move in the end, because they are wasting precious resources on 1's, those people most likely to come vote for them anyway. You have to continue to make overtures to your foundation of course; you want them to come out and vote and knock on doors. But you don't always have to kow-tow to them, and you don't always have to flatter them, because it means that their worst aspects will paint the entire party the same shade of racist/sexist/leftist/etc.
Obama may be heading down that road as well. Apparently, it was ultimately up to him that Lieberman stayed as chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs. His entire Cabinet is old-time Clintonistas and a bunch of people from his Chicago political machine. I got no problem with that per se (except for wanting to appoint John Brennan, the torture and extraordinary rendition apologist, as CIA Director, that is deplorable and completely unacceptable). Most Presidential adminstrations are filled with people who have served under previous Presidents or were a part of the Presidential-elects machine back in his home state. I just think that the so-called "most liberal" senator will disassociate himself from not only the worst of the "far-left" but also the best. His people will tell him that it doesn't play with certain segments of our society. Obama is his own man, nobody on his team will be able to pull the puppet strings on him the way that Cheney did Bush. He is pragmatic, and thoughtful, a damn good politician, and I'll hold back any kind of judgment until he actually starts. But even Pat Buchanan said that he needed to give his foundation a Cabinet seat. I just hope he doesn't forget about the base that worked their asses off for him to be in the position he is in.
In the wake of Lieberman keeping his chairmanship, I wanted to write a post about the different ways the Republicans and the Democrats treat their respective bases. But then, while perusing The Daily Dish I stumbled across another website which wrote about the exact same thing, only better. So if you want some excellent analysis on the subject go here. I'll just add what I was going to say:
Republicans treat their base with reverence, or at least they make the appearance of treating their base with reverence. If they pursue policies that hurt the white rural Christian working-class (and oh lord do they do they ever), they will 1) spin their actions to make it seem like they're acting in the bases interest, 2) talk about how God-fearing and patriotic their rural base is. Republicans, for better or worse, are unashamed to be married to their base, will walk proudly down the street holding their rural, hard-working hands. They will defend them against all comers, and make no excuses for the actions of the worst of them. When it comes time to dole out the goodies after an election is won, they throw them not just a bone, but the big piece of chicken reserved for the head of the household.
Democrats, particularly the spineless ones representing the party are utterly ashamed of the people who ultimately get them elected. They are more than willing to not only ignore the interests of their base, but Dems actually will brag about the ways in which they scorn them. Even with resounding wins in the last two election cycles, Democratic leaders still do not think Americans actually like their policies. They subscribe to the right-wing talking point that this is, essentially, a center-right country. They act like the geeky, slightly overweight guy who used his good personality and keen sense of humor to land the girl of his dreams. Even though they're married and she professes that she loves him everyday, he still cannot believe that she is actually with him. He thinks he needs to act like someone else in order to keep her- but in the end, no one likes a phony. To me at least, it makes the Dems seem ungrateful. They had people giving up days, months, years, of their lives in order to help get them elected (I know, I was one of them, although I'm not sure where I categorize myself at this point). Many of those people were the "far-left" part of the party, the very hippies that they deride in the papers. The ones Rahm Emanuel wants to upset because it appears "bipartisan", the ones Nancy Pelosi is so dismissive of. I bet that in the halls of Congress, Repubs talk derisively about their "Bubbas and Rapturists" just as much as the Dems talk bad about their "Hippies and Darkies." When they walk outside though, that's a different story.
Politically speaking, it is actually much more efficient to treat your base as if they were your loyal battered wife. The Democratic base, particularly because they are so politically inclined, will always come back to the fold, even if you persue policy after policy that is the antithesis of what they want. Better to focus your time, money, and legislative power on those crucial "swing voters," or as the hilarious Daily Show put it (and I'm paraphrasing), those fucks who can't seem to make up their mind. The Republican concentration on their base is a foolish move in the end, because they are wasting precious resources on 1's, those people most likely to come vote for them anyway. You have to continue to make overtures to your foundation of course; you want them to come out and vote and knock on doors. But you don't always have to kow-tow to them, and you don't always have to flatter them, because it means that their worst aspects will paint the entire party the same shade of racist/sexist/leftist/etc.
Obama may be heading down that road as well. Apparently, it was ultimately up to him that Lieberman stayed as chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs. His entire Cabinet is old-time Clintonistas and a bunch of people from his Chicago political machine. I got no problem with that per se (except for wanting to appoint John Brennan, the torture and extraordinary rendition apologist, as CIA Director, that is deplorable and completely unacceptable). Most Presidential adminstrations are filled with people who have served under previous Presidents or were a part of the Presidential-elects machine back in his home state. I just think that the so-called "most liberal" senator will disassociate himself from not only the worst of the "far-left" but also the best. His people will tell him that it doesn't play with certain segments of our society. Obama is his own man, nobody on his team will be able to pull the puppet strings on him the way that Cheney did Bush. He is pragmatic, and thoughtful, a damn good politician, and I'll hold back any kind of judgment until he actually starts. But even Pat Buchanan said that he needed to give his foundation a Cabinet seat. I just hope he doesn't forget about the base that worked their asses off for him to be in the position he is in.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Everything Made of Marble/A Moment of Pleasure
While at work on Thursday I got an email from a man that works in my office inviting me to come to a function put on by Jobs with Justice. I'm on one of the committees for the organization, but since I hadn't been around for a month, (and let me tell you that month felt like forever) I felt like an intruder rather than a committee member. I decided to go, mostly because I did want to see my fellow JWJ committee people, and because a few of my coworkers were going. I like my job, but I actually get to work on projects with a small group of people and I thought it would be nice to get to know some other people in the office better.
What I didn't know was that the ceremony was being held in the infamous 32BJ building on Canal Street. I'm reading this book right now "Solidarity for Sale" which talks about the corruption of unions and how it has undermined the labor movement; 32BJ, one of the most mobbed-up unions in American history has a prominent place in it. I'd heard stories about the penthouse at the top of the union office, the elevator that only had two stops- the garage and the penthouse floor. The Vegas casino style security cameras The presidents office (now used for accounting) that had floors of marble, 360 degree panoramic view of the city, all the furniture plush leather. I couldn't go up to the penthouse of course, but even on the bottom floor, all of the walls were made of beautiful black and white marble. It was something out of a corrupted dream. Calling it ostentatious would be far too kind. I can imagine a gaudy mob boss telling the architect that he wanted EVERYTHING to be made with marble, no matter the cost, it'd just come out of the workers pension fund or something.
I work in the labor movement, it's tough sometimes to come to grips with the legacy that it's steeped in, even when you are close to not being a part of it. It's some good mixed with a whole lot of bad. Fitch's thesis in "Solidarity for Sale" is that the entire set-up of the American labor movement is flawed. He says that the local union set-up naturally devolves into nothing more than a Middle Age era fiefdom, given time. Union bosses play the role of lord/patron doling out jobs and access, while the members are the serfs/clients, their union dues analogous to the crops given up by the serfs of old. Fitch does a good job of explaining why, once the client/patron system had solidified, the labor movement in the United States developed the way that it did; the corruption, the clientelism, the gradual takeover of the Mafia, the dwindling density, and the inability to pass any meaningful pro-worker legislation. What he does not do a good job of explaining is why American unions did not go through the metamorphosis that European unions did- from trade unions based on jurisdiction, to more centralized labor unions with a diverse occupational mix. Fitch dismisses the cultural claim for why American unions are more corrupt (Americans are more violent, Americans have less communal connections) stating that countries like Italy and Japan have flourishing criminal organizations that do not infiltrate the labor unions.
And yet, Fitch implies that cultural reasons play a part in the differences through describing the distinctions between the two types of unionism. European unions are centralized and bureaucratic- in American unions "the individual exchanges loyalty for protection," a more individualistic mindset. Our country's predisposition to federalism and local control definitely played a part in how our unions developed, with unintended consequences. Local control certainly has its strong points, particularly greater knowledge of occurrences on the ground, and the speediness with which the organization can act absent a large bureaucracy. What local control lacks is the ability to foster best practices and higher operating costs because of the inability to take advantage of economies of scale. Add that to the fact that the unions are based on territory and territorial jurisdictions need to be protected from encroachment. Without clear territorial legislation (like there is for cable television) who is going to provide that protection? Think about what our business environment would look like without the government setting up clear protection of property rights. It's no wonder that the thugs quickly got involved in the labor movement, who best to provide some much needed muscle.
I haven't come up with a coherent plan of action for labor unions yet (don't worry I'm working on it). I think the key, however, is to focus on helping out all workers. Organizing and getting members is important as it helps to pay for our efforts, but regardless of whether or not someone wants to join a union, we still want to do what's best for them. Having greater union density would help, but having a clear legislative and economic plan would be even better. And the plan can't be scattershot- we can't preach global solidarity while at the same time championing protectionism for certain domestic industries. It has to have an education plank that examines the viability of all options and that emphasizes integration and the equalization of opportunities. If it means revamping the set-up of teachers unions in order to better our education then we should do it. All institutions look out for their best interests, but the difference is that as unions we say that we aspire to something higher, and we should. If we want to play by the rules that apply to corporations, then we're in the wrong game.
Our thoughts have to be global; I actually break with many union members when it comes to things like free trade. If we truly care about justice and the plight of all working people we have to come to some kind of consensus on how to best incorporate people in the developing world, and in the short-term that may mean higher prices and more job losses, but if we do it right we can pick up the pieces. It's not easy, but it's most certainly worth it.
________________________________________________________
The actual event was pleasant, a few people gave really good speeches, some people were endearing but long-winded. The food was good, the open bar was even better. I stayed the entire time because a coworker needed to talk to one of the award recipients, I sat in the shadows or chatted with some of my JWJ buddies while he did. This blond-haired woman who came by herself sat next to me, smiling as she nibbled on one of those cheese squares, I think it was cheddar. She was a little wrinkled, maybe an inch past 35, and she was reading this Tarot card book which kept smacking against this monstrosity of a clear bracelet that she wore on her right wrist. It looked like a clear hard-plastic hoola-hoop, she could have worn it around her waist for God's sake. I know how it feels to be alone at an event so when she smiled at me I gave her a little smile back.
"So what brings you out here," I said.
She put her book down on the table.
"I got an email, thought I'd come by," her Lower Eastside accent was strong enough to pull a train, it almost hurt my ears.
"Yeah, me too. So where do you work?" I asked politely.
"1199, right on 42nd Street. I'm usually on the 7th floor but I work out of Brooklyn too," she said.
"I'm right in that building too, work on the 9th floor. Maybe we'll pass ways some time." My voice was full of pseudo-excitement. She too a loooong sip of merlot.
"Yeah, maybe. I just got back from Michigan, though. They sent us all out for the election."
"Yeah, same here. I was in Milwaukee for a month, working on logistics. Didn't get to knock on a single door," I said between bites of my sandwich.
And then she got this look, of very mild disgust- and she laughed, but it was more like a snort-laugh, a snlaugh. The kind of snlaugh that escapes the nasal cavity of sophisticated Lower Eastsiders who wear a gray t-shirt and jeans to a classy event when they so much as hear about some podunk town in the Mid-West.
"Ugh... I went there for the primaries.. let me tell ya," she said with another one of those exruciating snlaughs. "That's one place I'll never go back to you know."
Now, I could have played this a few ways. Naturally, I couldn't agree with her because that would be a betrayal of my mother's home and of a city that I use to live in and like. I could just say that I liked Milwaukee and that I had a fun time. I could have said nothing, taken a sip of my wine, and changed the subject. I mean, I'd only lived there for three years, my dad was in the Navy, and I wasn't REALLY from anywhere....
"Well, I'm from Milwaukee and..." I didn't have to finish, I just loved the transformation of her face, the sheepish grin, the eyes looking downward, such sweet revenge.
"There goes my foot right in my mouth," she said, her lips still smashed like silly putty into the shape of that same goofy grin.
Serves you right you cocky ass New Yorker!
Playing Politics
Just a few things-
So it seems like Joe Lieberman might keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee so long as he apologizes on the floor of the Senate. Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd have been two of the main senators speaking on Lieberman's behalf while Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders have been two prominent senators who want him ousted. Lieberman has said that if he does not retain his chairmanship, he'll caucus with the Republicans. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader has reciprocated, offering Lieberman an invitation to caucus with the Repubs if he leaves the Dem caucus.
My take on it? You have to let Lieberman go. The Dems will not have the 60 votes necessary to stop filibusters with or without him, so that's off the table. More importantly, he SLAMMED your nominee for President. If he did not want to support Barack Obama, that's fine and that's his coice. He could have sat out the campaign. He could have been like Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska and endorsed the oppositions nominee but stayed out of day-to-day campaigning activities. But no, Lieberman was actively campaigning against his party's nominee for President; he SPOKE at the Republican National Convention. He tried to scare Jewish people into voting for McCain by saying an Obama victory was dangerous for Israel. There is NO WAY he should be allowed to keep a major chairmanship in the Democratic Party.
Look, I think it's fine that Lieberman had a conviction that he thought McCain was the better man for President. People should stand on their convictions. But you have to know there are consequences for your actions. When it comes to legislation, I think that playing politics should be kept to a minimum, particularly on legislation that is of utmost importance to the American people. Vote your conscience, vote for the policy that you think will help the American people, regardless of your party line. When it comes to the inner workings of the party apparatus, I'm all for playing politics, and you crack the whip on those who cross the line. You mean to tell me that the Dems can play politics when it comes to something like the bailout or stimulus package, but they're suddenly "above it all" when it comes to ousting a turncoat from a major chairmanship? Perhaps they're just really concerned about that one vote- but Lieberman will still be who he is even if he caucuses with the Repubs, a socially liberal hawk who because he believes in abortion rights, won't have much of a place in the Republican party. He might have to do a few more favors for some social conservatives but he won't be nearly as dangerous outside the party as he is made out to be.
Keeping him in however, would undermine party leadership and cohesiveness. It would show other senators that they have an enormous amount of leeway in their actions against the party. As an added bonus- Lieberman lost his last Dem primary but won as an independent probably because there were more than a few Dems who probably thought that he'd still caucus with the party. He'd lose a lot of those votes if he started caucusing with the Repubs. So remove his chairmanship and call his bluff- now is the perfect time to play politics.
So it seems like Joe Lieberman might keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee so long as he apologizes on the floor of the Senate. Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd have been two of the main senators speaking on Lieberman's behalf while Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders have been two prominent senators who want him ousted. Lieberman has said that if he does not retain his chairmanship, he'll caucus with the Republicans. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader has reciprocated, offering Lieberman an invitation to caucus with the Repubs if he leaves the Dem caucus.
My take on it? You have to let Lieberman go. The Dems will not have the 60 votes necessary to stop filibusters with or without him, so that's off the table. More importantly, he SLAMMED your nominee for President. If he did not want to support Barack Obama, that's fine and that's his coice. He could have sat out the campaign. He could have been like Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska and endorsed the oppositions nominee but stayed out of day-to-day campaigning activities. But no, Lieberman was actively campaigning against his party's nominee for President; he SPOKE at the Republican National Convention. He tried to scare Jewish people into voting for McCain by saying an Obama victory was dangerous for Israel. There is NO WAY he should be allowed to keep a major chairmanship in the Democratic Party.
Look, I think it's fine that Lieberman had a conviction that he thought McCain was the better man for President. People should stand on their convictions. But you have to know there are consequences for your actions. When it comes to legislation, I think that playing politics should be kept to a minimum, particularly on legislation that is of utmost importance to the American people. Vote your conscience, vote for the policy that you think will help the American people, regardless of your party line. When it comes to the inner workings of the party apparatus, I'm all for playing politics, and you crack the whip on those who cross the line. You mean to tell me that the Dems can play politics when it comes to something like the bailout or stimulus package, but they're suddenly "above it all" when it comes to ousting a turncoat from a major chairmanship? Perhaps they're just really concerned about that one vote- but Lieberman will still be who he is even if he caucuses with the Repubs, a socially liberal hawk who because he believes in abortion rights, won't have much of a place in the Republican party. He might have to do a few more favors for some social conservatives but he won't be nearly as dangerous outside the party as he is made out to be.
Keeping him in however, would undermine party leadership and cohesiveness. It would show other senators that they have an enormous amount of leeway in their actions against the party. As an added bonus- Lieberman lost his last Dem primary but won as an independent probably because there were more than a few Dems who probably thought that he'd still caucus with the party. He'd lose a lot of those votes if he started caucusing with the Repubs. So remove his chairmanship and call his bluff- now is the perfect time to play politics.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Republicans Art of Relativism
One of the most interesting aspects of Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" is his discussion of Albert Einstein. It's pretty amazing how a scientist (admittedly of the once in a few generations variety) could amass such a stature in popular culture- tot he point where everyone knew not only who he was but could recite and (in many cases) explain his most famous equation. As Hawking explained it, the reason behind Einstein's mainstream fame was that the theories of relativity were applicable not only to the physics and cosmological world from which they came, but also to almost every other facet of life. Relativity and relativism literally chanted the way people thought about the world around them; suddenly there was a coherent argument stating that there was no universal center, no universal truth which applied to everyone. Truth, centrality, and objective authority all depended on where you were situated, on your point of view.
I don't know the extent to which scientific relativity informed the social science concept of relativism- it's been a few years since I last read Universe- but I recall it being substantial. For instance, relativism complicates any notion of a universal morality taught by religion. It's harder to teach supposedly objective accounts of historical events as facts without presenting other points of view. Relativism as a concept brought many benefits to academia and the world, particularly by making possible different cultural studies programs as different points of view were given the same value as more dominant ones. Old sources of authority were questioned and forced to justify their positions. Anything that allows for more critical questioning, I think, is always a welcome development.
I am a big believer in self-reinforcement and relativism, which started out by saying that there are multiple valid opinions, reinforced that position to the point where it became ALL opinions are valid and further more, ALL opinions are equally valid. I'm definitely exagerrating the extent to which this sentiment was broadly expressed, but certainly many people had grown weary of the endless march into a sea of relative murkiness. There had to be some things that were certain, right?
This is just my mildly (mis)informed opinion, completely unresearched, but the rise of conservatism and the appeal of people like Ronald Reagan may had had something to do with achieving a degree of balance with the liberal relativism from the academic elite that said we should not judge but try to understand that hood nigga who mugged us after our delightful dinner date downtown.
But Pandora's Box cannot be unopened, and relativism of a different strain has entered the Republican party/conservative movement and is threatening to break it apart. The first thing that has made this infilitration possible is the relativism of the news media. After years of being accused of having a barely concealed liberal bias, the media has gone out of their way to be deferential to both sides, to the point where they will no longer call out blantantly wrongheaded drivel when they see it, but instead just present both sides of the story without passing judgement. Kind of like just laying out two sandwiches without telling you which one has the poison in it, even when they know. This has allowed the right wing to put out blatantly false statements without fear of retribution- because it could/can/is true from their point of view. This has made the use of testimony and evidence based in fact unnecessary.
The second thing is the new populism to which the Republican party has hitched their wagon. I was reading an article in the Wall Street Jorunal entitled "The Perils of Poopulist Chic." The article quoted NYT columnist David Brooks as saying that the base of the GOP started out attacking elite liberals but that attack has transformed into an attack on ALL elites even conservative ones. It's what makes the base believe that "Joe the Plumber"'s statements on economics and foreign policy deserve the same amount of attention as an economic policy professor's at Princeton. It's what makes Sarah Palin a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination and not a colossal embarrasement to her party.
The problem is that it's just not true- the TRUTH is that Joe the Plumber's opinion is NOT as valid as someone learned in foreign policy and Sarah Palin is NOT even remotely qualified to be a head of state. When relativism goes too far it creates these kinds of false equivalencies that must be stopped on both sides, but mostly on the Republican side. Just because someone's opinion IS valid does not make their opinion AS valid as someone else's. The problem with eleites is that they are often times... well.. elitist and they can become guilty of not believing the first part of my statement. Just because they can become elitist though does not mean that we do not need elites to temper the base instincts of the base though. There has to be some kind of balance between taking into account all opinions without making them all equivalent- a balance between securing a place for the common man in the decisions of our country and discounting for the fact that common people are not as versed in all of the relevant subjects. That's the prevailing conondrum of democracy, but as long as the Republicans place all their chips on the opinions of their lowest base, I have a feeling they won't have to worry about being in power anytime soon.
I don't know the extent to which scientific relativity informed the social science concept of relativism- it's been a few years since I last read Universe- but I recall it being substantial. For instance, relativism complicates any notion of a universal morality taught by religion. It's harder to teach supposedly objective accounts of historical events as facts without presenting other points of view. Relativism as a concept brought many benefits to academia and the world, particularly by making possible different cultural studies programs as different points of view were given the same value as more dominant ones. Old sources of authority were questioned and forced to justify their positions. Anything that allows for more critical questioning, I think, is always a welcome development.
I am a big believer in self-reinforcement and relativism, which started out by saying that there are multiple valid opinions, reinforced that position to the point where it became ALL opinions are valid and further more, ALL opinions are equally valid. I'm definitely exagerrating the extent to which this sentiment was broadly expressed, but certainly many people had grown weary of the endless march into a sea of relative murkiness. There had to be some things that were certain, right?
This is just my mildly (mis)informed opinion, completely unresearched, but the rise of conservatism and the appeal of people like Ronald Reagan may had had something to do with achieving a degree of balance with the liberal relativism from the academic elite that said we should not judge but try to understand that hood nigga who mugged us after our delightful dinner date downtown.
But Pandora's Box cannot be unopened, and relativism of a different strain has entered the Republican party/conservative movement and is threatening to break it apart. The first thing that has made this infilitration possible is the relativism of the news media. After years of being accused of having a barely concealed liberal bias, the media has gone out of their way to be deferential to both sides, to the point where they will no longer call out blantantly wrongheaded drivel when they see it, but instead just present both sides of the story without passing judgement. Kind of like just laying out two sandwiches without telling you which one has the poison in it, even when they know. This has allowed the right wing to put out blatantly false statements without fear of retribution- because it could/can/is true from their point of view. This has made the use of testimony and evidence based in fact unnecessary.
The second thing is the new populism to which the Republican party has hitched their wagon. I was reading an article in the Wall Street Jorunal entitled "The Perils of Poopulist Chic." The article quoted NYT columnist David Brooks as saying that the base of the GOP started out attacking elite liberals but that attack has transformed into an attack on ALL elites even conservative ones. It's what makes the base believe that "Joe the Plumber"'s statements on economics and foreign policy deserve the same amount of attention as an economic policy professor's at Princeton. It's what makes Sarah Palin a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination and not a colossal embarrasement to her party.
The problem is that it's just not true- the TRUTH is that Joe the Plumber's opinion is NOT as valid as someone learned in foreign policy and Sarah Palin is NOT even remotely qualified to be a head of state. When relativism goes too far it creates these kinds of false equivalencies that must be stopped on both sides, but mostly on the Republican side. Just because someone's opinion IS valid does not make their opinion AS valid as someone else's. The problem with eleites is that they are often times... well.. elitist and they can become guilty of not believing the first part of my statement. Just because they can become elitist though does not mean that we do not need elites to temper the base instincts of the base though. There has to be some kind of balance between taking into account all opinions without making them all equivalent- a balance between securing a place for the common man in the decisions of our country and discounting for the fact that common people are not as versed in all of the relevant subjects. That's the prevailing conondrum of democracy, but as long as the Republicans place all their chips on the opinions of their lowest base, I have a feeling they won't have to worry about being in power anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)