Oh, yeah...Palestinan babies
Click on the picture to read this story from a couple weeks ago. One interesting thing about the article is that it says Israel was "seeking to plug a gap in the labour market during the first Palestinian uprising [so it] allowed in foreigners to work. But now it is trying to limit those numbers to create more jobs for Israelis." There is no mention, let alone questioning of the explicitly racist nature of this state. It is, truly, insane!
Beyond that, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine is destroying its *own* economy. Its unemployment and poverty rates are as high as they've ever been (perplexing that a state founded on the strength of socialist ideals has unemployment at all), precisely because all of its resources--and plenty of ours--are funneled into the occupation. The only question I have is: Does the u.s. instruct, or learn from, Israel?
read more | digg story
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Read David Zirin's column about Muhammad Aboutreika's bold act in the African Nation's Cup. In my view Zirin rightly compares this act with Muhammad Ali's Vietnam protest. Although Aboutreika is not risking jail time, he is siding with The People, against both his government (Egypt was the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel) and all other Arab regimes who cynically mouth support for Palestinians while profiting off of the continued subjugation of Palestinians.
Although neither Obama or Clinton will ever work to repeal NAFTA, the fact that the final nail in Hillary's coffin could be vague statements of support for the trade agreement, years ago, is a minor victory for us! Our true coalition of anarchists, labor, queers, commies etc has pushed the issue to the tipping point!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Well, I think the title is a little misleading. (To read the article that I'm responding to, click the "Day Politics Stopped" link after this post.) I mean, the machine didn't stop; it may have taken a smoke-break, but that was only to adapt and refine it's abilities to crush our collective will. We can't forget that The War, as it is now defined, hadn't yet begun. (Of course, this definition supposes that economic sanctions that only affect common people is not "war".) Our movements in the streets that day, all over the world (I was in NYC) would not affect that particular day. Nor would they stop or even slow this war. And although the author of this article rightfully criticizes us for not sustaining our movement (in the street), we have had some successes over the past years.
A number of local, state and national politicians have been voted out by, well, us based on their support for this slaughter. I won't run through them all here, but I will mention Joe Lieberman, who's own party has rejected him in the Connecticut state primaries. He ended up retaining his seat, but only because of Republican support. One can't help but to think that his days are numbered.
The Democrat presidential primaries, too, have come to be characterized by both Obama & Clinton's stance on Iraq. Clinton is slipping into irrelevance, as she just can't make up her mind about this war. We know she's made some money from it, though. Obama has learned from Kerry's moronic waffling, and is using organizing tactics similar to the ones "we" use for our own mobilizations. He's hitting the phones, the streets, the schools and the web and energizing the true base of the party.
Make no mistake, he and Clinton are fairly harmonious when it comes to policies, which is why Iraq is crucial in this primary (and will be even bigger against McCain if Obama wins the nomination).So, here in the u.s., our efforts have had some impact, though the war rages on. I fear however, that, like in Vietnam, the only thing that will end it is virulent resistance by the Iraqis.
Day Politics Stopped | digg story
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
In reading Valerie Kinloch's sort of biography of June Jordan, June Jordan: Her Life and Letters, I get stuck in two thickets. The first is Kinloch's failure of political imagination. She approaches Jordan's life and work from the un-real world of The Academy, as opposed to the lived-in and living world of actual people. Over and over again Kinloch refers to the "alleged violence" in Jordan's early life, calling into question Jordan's own documented experiences. Kinloch has a peevishly liberal, and literal, understanding of violence, evidently. And even so, I'm bewildered as to how a young black woman who sleeps with a knife under her pillow, just in case her father comes for her in the middle of the night, warrents the appellation "alleged" violence. Even the most conservative defintion can't ignore that. It's a weapon! In the hands of a teen aged girl!
Kinloch provides scant evidence to refute any of Jordan's autobiographical work on the matter, which leaves me to question Kincloch's motive and position. This spurious scholarship belies a hopelessly elementary understanding of her "subject," the life and writings of Ms. Jordan.
Maybe my biggest problem is that Kinloch treats June as a subject. A cadaver to be studied. Her wooden prose (to borrow a term from Edward Said) certainly attests to this point. Her writing is dead. There is no passion for June--her life or her letters. Just dull recitations of information that is readily available from June's own work. Kinloch doesn't really come to any meaningful insights or reveal anything of value, which leaves me feeling terribly deflated. June's life was about the connections that words create between truly different peoples. Prose and poetry are not simply words on pages. June always stressed that all words--written, said, thought--must be connected to purposeful action. Kinloch has missed this ethic. She may get it conceptually, but in practice her writing is dead weight.