Rachel Corrie Play @ Out ch'YondA

Mikaela reposts:

MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE
Sat. & Sun. FEBRUARY 16-17, 2008, 2 p.m. only
Out ch'YondA in Barelas
929 Fourth St. SW
Tickets $20
Reservations and info: www.RachelABQ.com or call 505-350-1276.

Denver-based political theatre collective, Countdown to Zero, in partnership
with Justice First!, announces the premier New Mexico production of My Name Is
Rachel Corrie, the highly controversial play, in a limited run at the Out
ch'YondA Art Space.

The play was created from the personal journal entries, emails, and writings of the young activist Rachel
Corrie after her death in 2003 while trying to stop an Israeli bulldozer in a
Palestinian residential area in Gaza. An idealistic, curious, and passionate
young woman is presented as she explores her personal world as well as that of
the complex world of Middle Eastern politics.

After a critically-acclaimed run in Denver, Countdown to Zero's production will
run for two performances only, Saturday, February 16, 2:00PM, and Sunday,
February 17, at 2:00 PM.

This play was chosen as an artistic vehicle for community conversation. After both performances, post-show discussions will be
offered in order to address the issues raised in the play and to encourage fair
and honest conversation and reflection.

• Out ch’YondA Live Arts exists in the margins for folks who need and want to do art “by any means necessary.” It is a nurturing and creative environment for those who dwell on the edges of our society.

• Countdown to Zero is a political theatre collective dedicated to theatrical based political dialogue. It aims to expand community exchange locally and nationally in a time of charged political extremes.

• Justice First! advocates diplomacy based on international and humanitarian law as the best hope for peace.

Prejudice for the Holidays

Mikaela says:
Turns out Thanksgiving was not the day to be armed with response to family prejudice. I should have been prepared for Christmas.

My grandfather, much as I love him, is a racist, prejudiced, elitist old coot. Old style.

He ambushed us with talk of an article that he's promised to send all of us about how "illegal aliens" are taking over our country. Using resources they have no right to. Blah blah blah.

Nevermind that a recent study found they actually do NOT use healthcare more than anyone else, and do NOT constitute the burden for tax payers that hysterics claim to justify their positions. Nevermind that they're here because big companies want and need them to be here. Nevermind that they'd HAVE healthcare and other services if they were provided them by the companies who profit from their all-but slave labor. Nevermind that our whole system supports them being here, rests on them being here, necessitates them being here.

I figured it wasn't worth getting into it with a 90+ year old man, but what I really wanted to say is ... do you blame the people who set up the system, or do you blame the victims of that system for "taking advantage" of the system you create for them? What good does it do to blame the victim?

Oh, right. That old narrative about vilifying an easily identified population for your own wrath about the way things are. Hmmm... Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

A friend gave me the recently published book, Death of Sigmund Freud, which lays out the parallel lives of Freud and Hitler starting with the time they were both in Vienna. Hitler was a frustrated art student, begging in the streets. Freud was at the height of his analytical powers. Then Hitler goes to war, becomes a decorated soldier, and comes home a hero. He starts his rise to power and institutes his backlash against Jews. Freud barely escapes with his life and his family to England. It's a great book, actually.

What I didn't know about Freud is that toward the end of his life, he tried to figure out why people gravitate toward totalitarian leaders and/or fanatical faith. He tied it to patriarchy and said we were all looking for the ultimate father-figure -- omnipotent, all-knowing, and infallible. The Germans found that in Hitler. He argues others find it in God -- whether the invisible God of the Jews, the intimate friend in Jesus, or the righteous God of Islam. He conceded that this drive toward power greater than ourselves was stronger than all the dynamics he'd started his career fixated on as the central drives in our lives -- sex and intoxication to escape the daily anxieties we all face. He figured our need to elevate powers outside ourselves beyond our own petty lives was the biggest intoxication of all.

In the persecution of the Jews, Freud saw an excuse to let the id and the superego run rampant over the ego. There was an ecstacy to the anti-semitism that took over the world (and it was the world -- Jewish refugees were refused in almost every country they sought asylum). It was condoned by the moral righteousness people worked up beyond rational arguments about the Jews.

Freud's answer -- although not his hope, since he didn't believe we could really overcome that intense desire -- was to pull back to balance the three parts of ourselves. We must work to rein in the id & superego and reinforce our egos -- our rational selves, the ones that can see pain, feel empathy, and understand our relationship to others because we have a healthy perspective about our place in the world. We belong here, with certain rights -- but so do others.

Much of Freud's work examined the dynamics of groups, how we become mobs, how charismatic leaders take over, how much of ourselves and our rationality we lose in the process.

I heard echoes of the hysteria of anti-semitism in my grandfather's speech. I saw it in the debates among frothing of Republican presidential candidates falling all over themselves to talk about how miserable they would make the lives of "illegal aliens."

In my mind, it's a bigger danger than all our talk of Islamic fundamentalism. As Freud warned, fantatism anywhere -- in Christians, Muslims, Minute Men, or otherwise -- is the same danger.

At the same time, we cannot escape the basic human instinct toward gravitating to leadership. This is why we need Democratic candidates to pick a position and stand in it -- using reason, if we're lucky -- to argue for change.

What's at stake is history. The strength of our country is our belief in reason -- trusting individuals to use reason, trust reason, protect reason. That's the basis of progressive belief, in my mind. It's the freedom to choose. It's equal protection under the law because we are all human, endowed with inalienable rights. We are creatures of free will.

We do not have to embrace hate -- in the form of strong leaders who point to scapegoats who look different from us or believe differently than we do.

My grandfather said the article claimed all democracies in the world have only lasted two centuries -- can only last two centuries before mob mentality or totalitarianism take over.

It is time to remind revisionists that not only is that a false assertion about the past -- we can choose a different future. We can start now.

Gender & Political Leadership

Mikaela says:
Oh, thank you, Slate.

Love, love, love this article.

A recent study of villages in India, who have instituted a quota of women elected officials on a council, has found:

the villages headed by women invested in more services that benefited the entire community than did those with gender-neutral elections, nearly all of which were won by men.

[from later in the article]... The greatest improvement was in drinking water, the public amenity found to be most valued by women in earlier research (PDF)—with 30 percent more taps and hand pumps. So while the female pradhans were working for the general good, they were working particularly hard to provide the services valued by their fellow women. They were also less corrupt—villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.

But as the opinion polls showed, for all their effectiveness, the women's governance was literally a thankless effort, with the new leaders getting lower approval ratings than their male counterparts.

[from later in the article] Despite the objective upgrades in village amenities, both men and women living in villages headed by women expressed lower satisfaction with public services [emphasis added] . This was true even for water—the level of dissatisfaction was 13 percent higher in women-led communities. In fact, there was even greater dissatisfaction about health facilities, a public service not even controlled by the local village council!
...
Countries that come closest to gender parity in government, like Sweden and Finland, are economically advanced democracies with universal health care, child care, and generous maternity and paternity leave policies. Contrast this with the list of nations with zero women in national legislatures—Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, for example—and the pattern becomes clear: Women in government are associated with lots of good things (PDF). But the obvious problem with this sort of exercise is that Scandinavians are different from Saudis in lots of ways. Their progressive attitudes—not to mention all that free child care—may be what allows women to get elected, not the other way around.

The article suggests the disparity between effective women leaders and their unsuccessful perception is illuminated by the Harvard Business School case study of Heidi Roizen, a hard-charging Silicon Valley venture capitalist. Students described her as "overly aggressive" and undesirable to work with when presented with her article on business networking when her original name was attached as author, but not when presented the same article written by "Howard."

In repeated polls, potential voters similarly find Hillary Clinton extremely competent yet not particularly likable. ... If the experiences of India's female pradhans are any indication, even if Americans are better off after another Clinton administration, they won't line up to thank Hillary. And she may still find herself looking for a new job in 2012. When the women pradhans that came to power under the 1991 law had to compete with male candidates after their first terms in office, almost none were voted in for a second term.

As I mentioned to Marjorie this weekend, I am not looking forward to the overt, over-the-top free-for-all of women bashing that will be unleashed if Hillary wins the primary. If Obama wins, of course there will be a racist, irrational response unleashed, too. But it won't be overt. It won't be on the table. It will be in the dark shadows and hard to discuss, hard to quantify, hard to fight. For sure. But it won't be everywhere in the same way that I think the discussion of women and leadership and PMS and the red nuclear missile button will be. I'm trying to prepare myself, just in case, but ... ugh.

My main problem with Hillary, despite everything, is illustrated by the fact that I continue to call her "Hillary" when I call the other candidates by their last names. Who would ever say "John" to refer to Edwards?? No one. He doesn't even look like a John anymore. Hillary, however, can't just be Clinton because Clinton is ... I can't even think of Bill's first name anymore, he's so Clinton. She's Hillary first and Clinton second. Should we start calling her 44, just to avoid the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton debacle? I hate that she's put herself first, and us women second, in this incredibly awkward position of not even being able to offer parity in our discussion of her candidacy among others with her fucking name.

It's. Annoying. And goes back to pushing all my buttons about legacy and the elite and the oligarchy - yes, I said it, oligarchy - of political families in this country. Bleck. As Marjorie said, at least Obama will bring in a whole cadre of new political blood to the fray. To be attacked by sharks for sure, but at least they're in the water!

It certainly doesn't help me to respect her as a politician or a woman to know that her whole marriage and relationship was calculated to sling-shot "the Clintons" to the heights of the political elite. Just as it doesn't help me respect the Bush's, even knowing that Jeb is a likely contender for President in 2012. Dear lord, help us.

Who chooses among family members in this way, and how is that American on any level? In England? Sure. Here? Wasn't there some narrative about merit and bootstraps and the primacy of the individual? Didn't I read that somewhere, or hear it in some American history class during my indoctrination as a youngster?

Even if that myth is full of crap from "In the beginning" to "They all lived happily ever after," it's still a morality tale I want to vote for above, "Once upon a time in college, my future-husband and I hatched an idea, and we never looked back (oh, we had to OVERlook a lot -- all the time, in fact, but no, we never looked BACK)."

And now, even if she wins and does great things, it won't even matter. He'll still be Clinton, and the most she'll ever be is Hillary Clinton. The vilified or at least underappreciated, no matter what she does to help America. The only difference it will make is the incremental shift to making it just that much easier for the next woman president. Good lord, social evolution is painfully slow.

Mountain Time brain dump

Maggie says:
Blogging energy has been nil lately, but there's lots and lots that I've been reading and discussing and doing, so I promise I haven't been brain-dead. Before jumping on a plane, here it is, rapid-fire style:

• I wish this was me. This NYT profile of Catherine Orenstein gets me fired up in all the ways that dangerously prompt me to re-envision myself and my career. This project is brilliant, and the piece perfectly captures why Orenstein is the perfect woman to convince other women to write. Love those smart gals tearing down structural oppression.

• Movie love. I was just floored by Black Snake Moan, and I'm seriously enchanted with Craig Brewer. Actually, it's gone from blushing crush to full-on infatuation. This movie takes everything Hustle & Flow started and kicks it up about a thousand notches. I dare say Brewer's our most lyrical and honest U.S. filmmaker right now, and if you don't get it, fine. His challenge to see past stereotypes for the truth and humanity embedded there is one not suited for everybody. And besides, Gene and I will have fun sneering at you behind your back if you don't get him. :-) (And PS while we're on movies: the Alexander Payne event at the Kimo last week was great!)

• Who knew? (Probably every local but me, since I'm not really local...) But Teresa Tapia rocks. Really. This woman is tough, and I admire the hell out of her no-bullshit approach to her husband.

• A raid is a raid is a raid. Last Sunday, the Ms trekked up to Santa Fe to hear Barbara Ehrenreich speak, and the event was fabulous. Lots of chatter there about the recent immigration raids in Santa Fe, and some impressive responses from Mayor Coss and the progressive community about the networks they're establishing to help warn families in advance of future raids and to assure them of their rights. A day after the talk, I couldn't help but recall what's happening in the City Different as I read the latest from New Orleans, where FEMA is raiding mobile home parks and giving disaster-weary residents just 48 hours to leave. The parallels make my head spin, not to mention my heart hurt. Aren't we better than this?

• Dad knows best. I was chastised by my father for not being on top of the Walter Reed series as soon as it was published in the Post weeks ago, and as usual, he was right. Days after he was disappointed to hear I hadn't read the Post that weekend and predicted that people were about to be hearing a lot more about it, the outcry heated up nationwide. I think good 'ol Dad has always been my personal political barometer. Maybe he should be everyone's, too. His instincts are always right-on; someone should pay him for that.
  

• "You, sir, are no Michael Dukakis." This Salon piece that draws parallels between Bill Richardson and Michael Dukakis has been amusing me all week. Now, I'm biased as hell, because I was privileged enough to get to know Dukakis very well through the years in Boston, and I don't think there's a better man around. But, if the paraphrase fits...

• Plame has my vote. What political theater. Politics have been very, very fun to watch lately. Go Valerie! Go Patrick! Go David!

• Juniper sucks. This City sounds like a wheezing, sneezing, hellhole right now. And we look awful, too - at the Chama taproom the other night Jessie and I must've appeared to be crying our eyes out to each other. But no, just dealing with a constant stream of allergy tears running out of our eyes. Too bad I love gin and tonics so much. But still, I need to leave soon for juniper-free environs, at least for a weekend. Oh wait, I am! Happy trails, everyone.
  

Reminder: TONIGHT! Women in Action @ the NHCC

Mikaela reminds:
TODAY,March 6 at 6 pm, the NHCC is hosting Women in Action, a panel discussion of local women activists, artists, and entrepreneurs, also as part of Women & Creativity. This one's near and dear to my little political heart. The panel includes:

• Dory Wegryzn, who was instrumental in forming the Sawmill Community Land Trust,
• Sandra Montes, who's fought tirelessly for the rights of Pajarito Mesa residents in Albuquerque's South Valley,
  
• Joann Bejar, who's done everything from being a filmaker, labor organizer, to mom,
  
• Naomi Natale, who created the Cradle Project -- an art project that calls attention to and raises funds for children orphaned by disease and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa,
• Myra Murphy-Jacob of Sustainable Global Leadership Alliance, which trains and sends leaders to other countries, where they help train others as leaders in sustainable, eco- and community-friendly business practices, and
  
• Margo Ganster of Green It!, a local company that helps other companies to incorporate ways to be "green," adding to the sustainability of our economy & our environment

The fish tacos won't tell

Maggie says:
Sometimes I'd love a transcript of M-time to post on the blog. Tonight at the Gold Street Caffé, over yummy food and wine (always wine!), M³ had its first official Election '08 discussion.

What's continually surprising to me about the three of us - and I think it's fairly evident here on m-pyre - is that although we agree about so much, we tend get to the same bottom lines for entirely different reasons and in entirely different ways. I love that about us, and it's absolutely apparent in our first talk about the crop of Democratic candidates for 2008. What strikes us all about this election is that it's going to be extremely interesting to watch, it's going to be a lot of fun to write about, and most importantly, it's still very far away. That said, I'm not naming names now - there's plenty of time for that. Instead (and since I'm in a playful mood, thanks mostly to the fabulous women's poetry performed tonight at Firestorm), I offer the following tantalizing teasers*:

• Which candidate do we all have gut reactions against, but for verrrry different reasons?
• Which candidate is bound to have some Slick Willie-style scandals saunter out of the shadows?
• Which candidate is peaking too soon?
• Which candidate is our gut reaction first choice?
• Which candidate do we feel compelled to applaud theoretically, but won't vote for?
• Which candidate would we like better if his/her house was smaller?
• Which candidate's résumé might offer the most compelling community experience?
• Which candidate is a bozo racist?
• Which candidate talks trade and poverty and actually gets it?

*As an extra tease, some of these just might be the same candidates. And some candidates aren't mentioned at all.

So what do we disagree on? All the twists on the path toward those answers, really. But in particular:

• The meaning and significance of family dynasties
• The significance of gender
• The value of hard-nosed critique from the left
• How much a happy marriage matters
  
• Whether we should road-trip to Durango or White Sands first
  

As for prizes for guessing the right answers (I'm looking at you, Rhys)... isn't the march toward '08 with the three of us prize enough?! (I said I was feeling playful, remember?)

PS: And introducing... Ta Da! The "Election '08" label! It's here to stay, folks. Guess we'd all better get used to it.

"Democratic" Iraq

Mikaela says:

Today from Democracy Now, we have this news:

Iraq to Expel Thousands, Spy on Iraqis in Baghdad Crackdown
The Iraqi government has announced a series of controversial new measures in its crackdown on Baghdad. Tens of thousands of displaced Iraqis have been told to leave homes Iraq says are being occupying illegally. The Iraqi government also says it will eavesdrop on phone calls and open mail at will. Military forces will be authorized to break into any homes and cars judged to be dangerous. Iraq also says it will close its borders with Iran and Syria, increase military checkpoints, and extend Baghdad’s military curfew.

I bet the Iraqis are more grateful than ever to have had Democracy thrust upon them. Makes you teary to see a fledgling Democracy in action, doesn't it? To see liberty take root?

Ah, we Liberators feel our hearts swell to overflowing at the terrible beauty we spread to the world. You're welcome!

Happy Valentine's Day, Iraq.

Yours truly, forever,

America

Surfing the wave of spontaneous thought

marjorie says...

In his commentary on Counterpunch, jazz pianist George Duke laments what he calls the Europeanization of jazz music, claiming that as an art form contemporary musicians are moving jazz away from it African American roots. He makes the point that jazz is not about perfect execution, like a classical piece should be, but rather all about improvisation and attempting new ideas during performance. Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Now this is important, because many young jazz pianists sound like they have rehearsed everything down to the last sixteenth note. And even if they haven't, it feels that way. Most of the playing I've heard is virtually mistake free.

“But something is missing! I have to look hard to find that free expression of emotion, living on a tight rope, experimenting, trying difficult passages and maybe not totally executing it correctly but making the attempt.

“I've always felt that Miles Davis' blown notes were part of his musical canvas. If he played all the notes spot on, would his music have felt the same--I doubt it!

“And if that's true, then perfection must be overrated, at least as far as jazz is concerned.

“Yeah I know, I can hear it now--"the pursuit of perfection is a noble quest for any artist." That's true --but when technique becomes more important than telling a musical story or surfing the wave of spontaneous thought, then I believe it is a misguided quest.”

I love that last sentence. As I was reading this, I couldn’t help but think that perfection is overrated in terms of many things. In this sense, for instance, the classical music of political philosophy would be ideology. And to play it perfectly would lead to a bit of rigidity in ones thinking. I guess my preference is to think of political philosophy as being more akin to jazz…found everywhere, from our base communities all the way to up on high. I can think of more analogies as well. Something tells me this is going to be the theme of my Tuesday...

Abusive parents and their so-called rights

marjorie says...

Imagine my surprise that my homestate of Texas, firmly controlled by Republicans, is the first to mandate that all young girls get innoculated with Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine. Republican Governor Rick Perry's executive order has ignited a fierce protest by Republicans in the state legislature who insist he doesn't have the authority to mandate the vaccination. The row is actually quite instructive for the schism in the Republican party...between those who pander to the evangelicals that want to boil every single decision down to the possibility that someone will have pre-marital sex, or simply fornicate, and those who form their decisions regarding public policy through a more broad based process that seriously considers public health and safety.

The argument against making the drug a requirement for young girls remains two fold: the right of parents to make all decisions for their children, and the charge that vaccinating young girls against cancer will lead them to have pre-marital sex. That last bit is so completely ridiculous not to mention asinine, not to mention grossly sexist, that I won't even address it. What I do want to address is the parental rights argument. Here is Governor Perry's response to his Republican naysayers:

"Never before have we had an opportunity to prevent cancer with a simple vaccine. While I understand the concerns expressed by some, I stand firmly on the side of protecting life. The HPV vaccine does not promote sex, it protects women's health. In the past, young women who have abstained from sex until marriage have contracted HPV from their husbands and faced the difficult task of defeating cervical cancer. This vaccine prevents that from happening.

"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity anymore than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use. If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?
Finally, parents need to know that they have the final decision about whether or not their daughter is vaccinated. I am a strong believer in protecting parental rights, which is why this executive order allows them to opt out."


I must say, I am very pleased to see a Republican take a principled stand on such matters, as I always am. And I'm also amused to watch him have to answer the completely ridiculous charges about premarital sex. The issue I have, though, is the opt-out provisions for parents. Why penalize some young girls for life just because they have ridiculous parents?

While I agree that parental rights are very important, the fact is that too many parents make wrong-headed and at times abusive decisions for their children...decisions that adversely affect their children's futures. I'd like to know why the rights of adults regarding their children are valued so highly at the expense of the future adult lives of their children. Human beings are subject to their parents for 16-17 years, then have another 3-4 times that many years to live as adults. As a society we already take some measures to protect children from their parents and other adults. For instance, child pornography, child labor, sexual acts with children...are all against the law. But I would suggest we don't go nearly far enough. As a society we provide very few safe havens for children who need to escape abusive parents. Many children grow up in abject fear of their parents but have no other place to go, other than the street of course. Why do we think this is ok?

Personally, given the capacity of our society to make sure all young girls are vaccinated with this drug that prevents cancer I would consider it abusive to not do so. If I were an eleven year old girl I would want society to trump my parents on this issue. And as an adult not too many years later I would be incredibly angry if I were one of those few who did not get the vaccination because of ridiculous parents and a society that didn't value my long life over my abusive parents so-called rights.

Weekend reading

Maggie says:
I find myself fairly uninterested in the Superbowl this weekend (despite the compelling coaching storyline), and am instead puttering around in typical un-American fashion. Such puttering affords me lots of time to read, go shoe-shopping, have the strongest margaritas on the planet with Marjorie's fam, and go hiking. So before I meet Mikaela to head over to the foothills, here's what's peaking my interest word-wise this weekend:

• More than good food and friendliness. Facing South, a fantastic blog produced by one of my fave organizations, compiled a list of its top-five books on Southern populist history. I have a couple of these, and the comments remind me that I'm still hanging on to a Loomis loaner that I need to return. This list is a great place to start diving into the rich promise that those who love the South know it very much holds. After you're primed with good 'ol Southern history, give this important Nation cover story a try before you start trash-talking about how we'll be safe ignoring the South in '08. Who knows... it just might influence your pick for the party.
  

• Biden: not just inarticulate. Joe Biden's recent gaffe is, as this Times article points out, not a gaffe at all, but the latest proof that most Americans are still surprised when non-whites sound smart. The word of attack here is "articulate," and with good insight this article points out the so-called compliments we're compelled to offer up for non-whites who sound... white. '"Al Sharpton is incredibly articulate,” said Tricia Rose, professor of Africana Studies at Brown University. “But because he speaks with a cadence and style that is firmly rooted in black rhetorical tradition you will rarely hear white people refer to him as articulate.”'

• Off to La-La Land. I'm heading to Los Angeles next week for a conference, and nothing has been amusing me in advance of the trip more than Curbed LA, a deliciously acerbic blog on planning and real estate in LA. More East Coast-oriented readers might enjoy the original NYC-based Curbed a little more. Same snarky real estate banter, only denser. Where else can I be pointed to the coolest Google image search result ever (for "urban planner") and news like this: "In order to make sure that Chinatown is catching up to the rest of downtown yuppie invasion, the City Council fast-tracked the approval of a new mixed-use development at 900 N. Broadway." Hee hee hee... Oh and!, see the sister blogs of Curbed for foodie talk: Eater and Eater LA. How much would I love to see a Curbed ABQ one day... Any takers?
  

• Local poets at it again. Yesterday I was lucky enough to get a preview of The Wellesley Poems, the forthcoming tome from local poet Adam Rubinstein. Adam's lastest poems are ruminations on growing up in the suburbs, the dangers of inventing - or ignoring - collective identity, and what "home" really means. Not to get ahead of myself, but I think this work is going to be my favorite of anything he's ever done. So while Adam's finishing this fantastic collection, go and peruse his other stuff to satiate your need for good words.

• Still loving 'Little Children'. I can't tell you how much I loved this movie, far and away my favorite of the year. I'll be cheering heartily for it to win Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. Kate Winslet is her typical brilliantly glorious self, Jackie Earle Haley is a revelation, and the writing is the best I've seen on film in forever. I wish the downtown theater would bring it back in time for the Oscars, but this is ABQ, so I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, Google "Little Children" for a wealth of goodies, including interviews (don't miss anything featuring director Todd Fields), long think pieces on suburbia and infidelity, and more. Yum yum yum.
  

Civility is Over Rated

Marjorie says…

I enjoyed our classic approach to the State of the Union tonight…Mikaela gave her angry shout-outs, Lisa shook her head in appalled disbelief, and I just rolled my eyes and snickered. Leading off with an acknowledgement of the first female speaker of the house, Bush appealed to a thing that strikes most of us deeply…our desire for equality regardless of our gender, race, or class. It would be remiss to not point out that the real path to power in terms of political office in this country, as limited as it continues to be, clearly lies with the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat, and the 2008 Democratic contenders include an African American, a Latino, a Woman, and a liberal Anglo man. I like this evolvement of the Democrats, even though I find them hopeless much of the time, and even though their path to power continues to be an entrenched individual one rather than an attack on the seemingly unsolvable problem of poverty and its profound intersection with race and gender. If it were solvable, wouldn’t we have done it already? Yes, sometimes even I have these resigned, fatalistic attitudes. Tonight I am particularly feeling that way for some reason. Perhaps I should just call it the Bush effect. Please…DEMOCRATS! I want to shout…stand up and give this guy the boot! Boo him! But I know that isn’t going to happen...our parties simply aren’t that far apart. What is required in this country lies outside of the party system. As ever, let me remind my dear m-pyre readers of one of my favorite maxims: electoral politics are only one aspect of our political lives. On that note, if you’re in Albuquerque I encourage you all to join the anti-war march this Saturday. George W. doesn’t think public opinion matters, but it’s important to show the world that there are many American people who disagree with his policies.

Anti-War March Saturday, January 27th in Albuquerque

NO MORE WAR!

Albuquerque March and Rally
Saturday, January 27th 2007

11:00: Meet at 2nd and Copper (Galleria) for a march to three congressional offices
12:30: Rally at Robinson Park with the Raging Grannies (8th and Central)

State of the Union: Led by a Sick Man

Tom Toles

Southern Methodist University to Bush: Not so fast!

Mikaela says:
Two theology professors at SMU have caused a groundswell of discontent among faculty and students at the idea of offering the university as home to Bush's Library.

Here's what Bill McElvaney and Susanne Johnson said in their editorial for the University newspaper:

"Do we want SMU to benefit financially from a legacy of massive violence, destruction, and death brought about by the Bush presidency in dismissal of broad international opinion?

"What moral justification supports SMU's providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights, and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?

"Given the secrecy of the Bush administration and its virtual refusal to engage with those holding contrary opinions, what confidence could be had in the selection of presidential papers made available to the library? Unless the Bush library philosophy is radically different from the already proven track record of insulation, the library will be little more than a center for the preservation and protection of privileged presidential papers. What would that mean for academic integrity based on open inquiry?"

---

NY Times :

"Many professors, including some who want the library on campus, are concerned about the relationship between a proposed Bush policy institute and the library and the effects the institute might have on the university's academic independence."

Ralph Blumenthal wrote in the New York Times last week:

"Intimates of President Bush have singled out Southern Methodist University as the likely site of his presidential library, but faculty members, complaining of being bypassed, are raising sharp questions about the school's identification with his presidency."

Connect the Dots

[I just had to post this in response to Marjorie’s excellent post about MLK, Jr.]

Mikaela says in 2003:

Connect the dots

Injustice

to

Injustice

Cultivate the will

the fortitude

the stomach

to call shit as you see it

name it

change it

arrange it

Complicit in the world-as-it-is

is our silence

We trade “solace” for “privacy”

“community” for “solitude”

hide our gifts

not to feel powerless

close our eyes

not to feel blind

believe stories

not to feel lied to

Our ears wither

with disuse

Our fears grow

with exercise

Our hands

severed with knives of our own creation

search by themselves

for the necks of our oppressors

And we

all of us children

learn what it is

we don’t want to know.

The Bush Balloon

marjorie says...

I asked a friend over email yesterday if he ever watched things like presidential addresses with his two young children. Here is how he replied:

“No I never watch things with them like that. I prefer them think there is no such thing as war for now.....Santa Claus is real, Jerry Springer is not.......the tooth fairy gives you money when your tooth falls out, not ...’hey! you need a root canal!’........inflation is what happens when you blow up a balloon, not something that happens and all of a sudden your allowance doesn't go as far as it used to.........they will get enough of reality to deal with in their lives. It doesn't have to start at three and five....”

How can I argue with that? It brought to mind the icebreaker we had in our recent staff retreat. In pairs we were asked to articulate the things we would do in the first 100 days if we were president. The resulting butcher paper covering the wall listed a smorgasbord of pragmatic initiatives to make the world a better place mixed in with utopian visions of what our world would look like. Indeed, inflation in our world would be what happens when you blow up a balloon.

Over the years I’ve noticed a few phrases that are identical coming out of the mouths of people, regardless of age, race, gender, class, or religion. One of these is “It’s the best we can do…there is nothing better” when the question of capitalism surfaces. I often wonder when I hear this…so we can go to the moon but we can’t come up with a political economy better than what we have now? One that would actually ensure equity, that inflation only happens when you blow up a balloon?

Where is the imagination?

The next part of that particular conversation about capitalism has often been the moment in which I am challenged to articulate my own plan to replace capitalism. As if one person could do that. Before there can ever be a plan, there has to be a shift in public consciousness about capitalism, thereby creating the necessary space within which to change it.

I think this will happen, is happening, but it’s so large and complex that we each in our own relatively small lives can’t really see it. Unlike the shift in public consciousness about our self-created Iraq problem which became profoundly evident by the Democrat ascension to the Congressional throne this month.

No one should question for one second that the sweep of the Democrats last November was a reflection of widespread and profound disagreement in this country with the Iraq war. It was a remarkable example of the public making their voice heard. And Bush, in his presidential address last night, embodied what I think Wall Street would be like in the face of a shift in public consciousness about capitalism. He flipped us all off.

The problem with Bush is that he is happy to remain in an ideological box created for him by others. He has no imagination. He doesn’t stop for one minute and ask himself what it would be like to embrace what the public is telling him, to open up his world to outsiders, to acknowledge that there is a different way. But in fact, there is always a different way.

In his speech, he carefully constructed a couple of boxes. The first box was Failure. Failure, in Bush speak, is government in Iraq being constructed in a way different from that imposed by American architects. The second box was Consequences. Consequences, in Bush speak, are that Islamic extremists grow in strength and Iran is emboldened. In sum, he suggested that the American way of life would be in peril. As long as these versions of reality are embraced, our hands are tied.

And he challenged Democrats to come up with a better plan.

No, George, you come up with a better plan. You are, after all, the Commander in Chief. The public along with your very own Iraq Study Group has told you to not escalate the war in Iraq. There is another way to inflate this balloon.

There is another way that we can find, in which American youth are not sacrificed to the geo-political and economic ambitions of certain people. A way that immediately lifts the burden of reality off of the countless children in Iraq who are beset with the stress and anxiety of war-making.

Ultimately, we want to live in a world in which the question of having to shelter our children during a presidential address never comes up. That’s another world…but I believe it is possible.

Ready for Change

Mikaela says:
While I'm feeling more and more like a career professional these days, complete with no internet surfing and little interest in being on the computer at night, rest assured that I'm still managing to be outraged by several recent news stories.

• The ongoing abuse of the constitutional balance of powers by our President through signing statements ... the latest one claiming the right to open YOUR MAIL anytime they want. Uh-oh. This one affects everyone.

• The death of the first elected Black mayor of Louisiana days before his swearing in. Coroners have ruled it a suicide, but it sure doesn't feel like that to me!

• The rushed hanging of Saddam Hussein for minor crimes before he could be put on trial for the larger crimes he perpetrated with support and knowledge of the U.S. government. Convenient, no? And now our government won't even condemn the taunting of this man moments before he was put to death. We're one of the only "civilized" countries that still puts people to death, despite the fact that each method of capital punishment eventually is ruled "cruel and unusual punishment" when it's discovered to torment the dying. Maybe it's just me, but the evidence pointing to a lack of "painless" executions may lead to the conclusion that execution itself is cruel and unusual... and not really a punishment at all.

Despite the bellweather news out of D.C. today with Democrats taking over Congress, I'm still left with a dreadful sense of foreboding and simmering rage. If Bush submits a "balanced budget" cutting federal programs like Social Security and medicare without even mentioning the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I just don't know what I will do.

There's just so much to do, where do you even start? Congress has got to come out swinging and take these first weeks to change the ballgame. Forget the past issues. Claim new ground. Name new rules. Remind this country what's at stake and why things like social programs, environmental protections, and efficient use of goverment benefit us all.

I am so ready for signs of change.

You Go, NY Times!!!

Mikaela says:
Such a great feeling to read about bravery at the beginning of this season of peace.

Read here for the most compassionate, reasonable, and open response to bigotry and fear-mongering I've ever seen. The newly-elected muslim House Representative confronts the ignorance of Virginia Representative with a wall of acceptance. It's fantastic. I've never felt more patriotic.

(From a spiritual side, I've never seen a Christian with more to learn about Christian values than Rep. Goode [all of a sudden, this is a Hawthorne morality tale]. Christians who don't listen to Jesus really exasperate me. It's about loving your neighbor, people.)

Mr. Ellison: Well, what I’d tell [Representative Virgil Goode] is that, you know, there might be a few things about Muslims that he might want to know. He might want to know that Muslims, there are about five million in the country, that they’re here to support and strengthen America, that they are nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids who just want to live and prosper in the American way, and that there’s really nothing to fear, and that all of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he’s opposed to, which is the terrorists.

And so there’s nothing for him to be afraid of, and that what we should do is to tell our constituents that we should reach to each other, not be against each other, and we should find ways for common ground.

I would urge Congressman Goode to have his congregation reach out to a synagogue or a mosque and start some interfaith dialogue so that we can increase understanding among each other, as Americans of different faiths. That’s what I’d tell him.

Mr. Blitzer: Do you think he’s a bigot?

Banner Day for U.S. News

Mikaela says:
What are they thinking? The Bush Administration in its death throes reminds me of all the low-budget horror movies in which the tentacled monster clasps the hero or heroine or whoever he can reach as he falls backward over the cliff or pitches into the sea.

Having been repudiated at the polls, having the Pentagon reject "Stay the Course" or anything like it, having a special panel of experts hand us an alternative way out of the Iraq quagmire, Bush in all his wrong-headed glory is pushing for one last gasp -- send a surge of troops to die in Iraq. Soldiers aren't working... what's should we do? Send more. Sounds logical to me.

There have been certain points in my life, albeit Generation X amnesia-soaked, where I have felt poised on the fulcrum of history, wobbling in the political winds blowing from the north and the south, east and the west.

Today, it feels drafty again. This in a week in which KUNM is reporting that UNM President Harris met with the group Stop the War Machine, and when asked what UNM researchers contribute to when paid by Sandia Labs and Lockheed Martin and others known for weapons development, President Harris said he didn't know, but that the science skills and knowledge gained by students was good enough. In my mind, he may as well have said, So what if they work on bombs?

So what.

There are rare moments when public opinion can tip the balance of government policy. We saw it all the polls -- maybe. We saw it during Vietnam. Polls are showing fewer and fewer Americans find Iraq palatable. The next question is: will we act? Our politicians are still paralyzed with indecision, not quite knowing which choice history will bear out as the right one.

Today and tomorrow and into the early new year, there's a small opportunity for a few voices to tip the balance toward peace, away from empire. Who will speak? I am listening. What I hear is a circling of wind through Christmas bells.

May we choose peace. May our world become whole. May we be well.

From Democracy Now:

Joint Chiefs of Staff Oppose Sending More Troops to Iraq
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are unanimously opposing a White House plan to send up to 30,000 more troops to Iraq. According to the Washington Post, top Pentagon officials have warned President Bush that a short-term troop increase could give a boost to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq, without strengthening the position of the US military or Iraq's security forces in the long term.

Pentagon: Violent Attacks in Iraq At An All-Time High
As Robert Gates was being sworn in, a new Pentagon report revealed that attacks against American and Iraqi targets are at their highest level ever. ...The Iraq Study Group report concluded that the government is significantly underreporting violence in Iraq.

Robert Gates: Failure in Iraq Would Haunt Our Nation For Decades

• Robert Gates: "All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again. But, as the President has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come."

Sen. Reid Supports Temporarily Sending More Troops to Iraq
The top Democrat in the Senate has said he would support President Bush's call for sending thousands of more troops to Iraq. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He spoke on ABC's This Week.

• Harry Reid: "If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it."

Colin Powell: U.S. is Losing War in Iraq
Meanwhile former Secretary of State General Colin Powell has said he opposes the idea of sending any more troops to Iraq. He also admitted the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq.

• Colin Powell: "So, it's grave and deteriorating, and we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost, and this is the time now to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."

White House Tries to Silence Ex-Official from Criticizing Iran Policy
A former Bush administration official is accusing the White House of trying to silence him from criticizing the president's policy on Iran. Former National Security Council official Flynt Leverett recently drafted an op-ed intended for the New York Times on Iran. The CIA cleared the article but then the White House blocked its publication. According to Leverett, the White House is demanding that he removes entire paragraphs that detail publicly known information about how Iran cooperated with the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and how Iran offered to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States three years ago. Leverett accused White House officials of using fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard. Leverett said "Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term." Leverett is the former Senior Director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council and a former senior analyst at the CIA.

U.S. Army Considers Breaking Goodyear Strike
The Financial Times is reporting that the U.S. Army is considering measures to force striking workers back to their jobs at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Kansas. 17,000 members of the United Steelworkers have been on strike at 16 Goodyear plants since October 5th. They are seeking greater job security and continued healthcare after they retire. The military relies on a plant in Kansas to make tires for Humvee trucks and other equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Duncan Hunter, outgoing chair of the House armed services committee, the strike has cut output of Humvee tires by about 35 percent. On Saturday, solidarity actions were held in support of the striking workers in over 100 cities around the country and in Canada.

Report: Blair Knew Iraq Had No WMDs
The Independent of London is reporting the British government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Britain's key negotiator at the UN testified privately that Blair knew Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. The official – Carne Ross told an official inquiry that at no time did the British government believe that Iraq's WMD capability actually pose a threat to British interests and that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained." The British Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the testimony of Ross from being made public.

U.S. Accused of Bribing UN Security Council Nations
Researchers at Harvard University are accusing the United States of using its foreign aid budget to bribe countries which have a vote in the United Nations security council. A detailed analysis of 50 years of data has revealed that the U.S. gives nations nearly 60 percent more cash in years when they have a seat. Much of the money is channeled through the UN's children's fund UNICEF which the U.S. has traditionally controlled. The current head of UNICEF is Ann Veneman – President Bush's former agricultural secretary.

Did Bush try to suspend the election?

Mikaela ponders:
Is it just me, or does this point to the fact that Bush contemplated -- or at least asked about -- not allowing the election, since we're "at war"?

Mikaela reposts courtesy Democracy Now:

Bush: Nation Should Be Proud Elections Were Held in Time of War
Over the weekend President Bush gave his first weekly radio address since the mid-term elections. He said the country should be proud that the elections were held even though the county is in a war.

• President Bush: "One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war."

Saturday morning goodness

Maggie reposts, courtesy of The Nation:

It's Over for Bush

The year 2006 will long be remembered as the Great Retribution--or perhaps the Deliverance Election. George W. Bush's presidency is toast. Bush's potential to further harm the Republic has been greatly reduced. Most Americans stopped believing anything he said a good while back. This was their opportunity to tell him to his face. And they did, with such force and breadth that maybe even he and his cronies heard them.

Much credit goes to the voters and the Democratic Party. Not many off-year elections move history in a fundamental way, but this one did. Americans have elected an opposition that can now check the Administration's destructive policies and investigate its actions at home and abroad, while at the same time putting forth policies that begin to reverse the damage of the past six years.

Read the rest here.