This past March, I expressed the opinion that Europeans don't have such issues with race as the United States does. I can still express that opinion and it will have some truth to it. After all, and correct me if I'm wrong here, Europe didn't have laws in place barring black folks from education and voting that lasted well into the twentieth century. However, for a week now, there have been racially-charged protests in Paris. Apparently, two kids, one Tunisian and one from Mauritania, were accidentally electrocuted while hiding from police in a power station. The police of course denies having chased after them. This ignited night after night of violent protest at unemployment and perceived lack of opportunity for the community of color and the immigrant community, and one elderly white man, who was attacked by a hooded man last week and was in a coma, is the first confirmed dead as a result.
Anyway, I got a lot of crap from my parents for making the comment back in March, and it continued for months. You will remember of course my comment was in reaction to a racist, elitist article by a conservative asshole, and I couldn't help myself. However, let us keep in mind that I have not read any other article like that in any newspaper from any other country but the United States. Maybe I should just concede that Americans have more balls than most and are willing to admit they're full of shit in public.
My parents are in Argentina right now, and if they are watching the news about Paris, they will no doubt come at me and say "we told you so". So in anticipation of that moment which may or may not (if I'm lucky) come, I make the following statement:
"I apologize for having put forth an opinion that was proven wrong 7 months later. If I should ever again come up with an opinion that has even the tiniest chance of upsetting a conservative member of my family, I will keep it to myself. Now let it go."
lunes, noviembre 07, 2005
What about George?
After reading a couple of articles from BBC Worldwide news on this past weekend's trade talks in Argentina and a rebellion by many states who are adopting their own versions/parts of the Kyoto protocol that Bush rejected, I'm convinced that George Bush must have some pheromone that disgusts people and makes them rebel against him. Either that or the polar opposite of the Midas touch. Everything he touches or even thinks about turns to the smelliest of shit.
One example of this is the plan for free trade in the Americas. According to the BBC, the FTAA was an idea coming from Latin American states. Back in good old (comparatively speaking)Clinton-era 1994, there was a similar summit in Miami, and it was the developing nations who were the most fervent lobbyers for trade reforms, with Brazil wanting to negotiate with Washington on equal terms. At that summit, a timeline was agreed upon that would have ended FTAA talks by 1 January of this year. But somewhere in the course of 11 years, the same people who supported trade reforms have all but buried whatever bastardization of them that Bush put forth at this past weekend's summit in Mar del Plata, Argentina. The trade reforms have degenerated into just another part of the US' imperialist agenda, as they are, apparently, no longer what developing nations had bargained for. The "anti-Yankee" protests that my mother insists have been going on for years in Argentina have actually happened this past weekend. I think the degeneration of the FTAA talks is due to a host of other things that Bush has been doing with his time that other leaders sort of let get in the way. Since one "initiative", like Iraq, can pepper everything else that comes from the same head, Bush will never be able to do right, even if he actually tries. But fair is fair, and some of the blame for the result of the most recent trade talks can be attributed to changes in leadership, meaning changes in just how far Latin America is ready to let the US go. In any event, the talks fell through for now, and Bush and his army are looking forward to the WTO talks to make up for this past weekend's lost opportunity. But the Caribbean states are pissed off at the WTO already for regulations on bananas and sugar, and are gearing up for a fight. I smell revolt.
As for Argentina, those people seem to be a little too hot-headed about Bush. They are ready to blame Bush for every single thing that has or will go wrong in their country. An example is the devaluation of the Peso. That's not Bush's fault. That's what happens when you borrow money you have no hope of ever repaying, a condition which is worsened if the lender happens to be the IMF. In a very uncharacterisitic defense of Bush, I must say, one man can't stomp all over a country alone. Argentina has been in trouble for many years, and while a large part of the blame does have to go North, a lot of blame should be shouldered by Argentina for its corrupt, theiving governments. This is where I agree with my mom: Some countries are like my father. Very quick to deflect blame to other parties. For example, if daddy made a wrong turn somewhere, he would say it was my fault because I was sitting in the passenger's seat of the car and did not correct him. But really, the fault was his for not knowing his directions and/or for being a typical male and not asking directions. Similarly, if a country takes a wrong turn, a lot of the blame has to go to the country's leader and how he or she is handling, or stealing, things. The country's leader has to think seriously about what all he has done before he considers blaming Bush for not correcting him. To be clear, I am not at all disputing that the US and their foreign policy has a lot to do with the stymieing of the development of many countries around the world. In Argentina, the US supported the military dictatorship of the '70's and '80's, and the subsequent massacres that occurred to thin out the Communist troops (mostly idealistic young people and students) who, according to the dictatorship, were ready to stage a coup at any moment. The answer was obviously (to the dictatorship) to try and kill all of them, and the same happened in Chile and Paraguay. All of it US-backed. Coincidentally, Argentina's problems started there. This is historical fact, and it is also fact, my friends, that karma is a bitch.
In other news, 9 north-eastern US states, including New York, thanks very much, are ready to sign an agreement setting legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power stations. In California, Arnie is working on legislation that will presumably cut emissions from cars by 30% within a decade. What's more, 187 mayors from cities and towns across the US have pledged to adopt Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gasses. So much for Bush and his "it'll cost Americans jobs" waa waa waa schpiel. Yeah, it may cost some jobs but I think it's better for all of us in the long run if we STAY ALIVE.
One example of this is the plan for free trade in the Americas. According to the BBC, the FTAA was an idea coming from Latin American states. Back in good old (comparatively speaking)Clinton-era 1994, there was a similar summit in Miami, and it was the developing nations who were the most fervent lobbyers for trade reforms, with Brazil wanting to negotiate with Washington on equal terms. At that summit, a timeline was agreed upon that would have ended FTAA talks by 1 January of this year. But somewhere in the course of 11 years, the same people who supported trade reforms have all but buried whatever bastardization of them that Bush put forth at this past weekend's summit in Mar del Plata, Argentina. The trade reforms have degenerated into just another part of the US' imperialist agenda, as they are, apparently, no longer what developing nations had bargained for. The "anti-Yankee" protests that my mother insists have been going on for years in Argentina have actually happened this past weekend. I think the degeneration of the FTAA talks is due to a host of other things that Bush has been doing with his time that other leaders sort of let get in the way. Since one "initiative", like Iraq, can pepper everything else that comes from the same head, Bush will never be able to do right, even if he actually tries. But fair is fair, and some of the blame for the result of the most recent trade talks can be attributed to changes in leadership, meaning changes in just how far Latin America is ready to let the US go. In any event, the talks fell through for now, and Bush and his army are looking forward to the WTO talks to make up for this past weekend's lost opportunity. But the Caribbean states are pissed off at the WTO already for regulations on bananas and sugar, and are gearing up for a fight. I smell revolt.
As for Argentina, those people seem to be a little too hot-headed about Bush. They are ready to blame Bush for every single thing that has or will go wrong in their country. An example is the devaluation of the Peso. That's not Bush's fault. That's what happens when you borrow money you have no hope of ever repaying, a condition which is worsened if the lender happens to be the IMF. In a very uncharacterisitic defense of Bush, I must say, one man can't stomp all over a country alone. Argentina has been in trouble for many years, and while a large part of the blame does have to go North, a lot of blame should be shouldered by Argentina for its corrupt, theiving governments. This is where I agree with my mom: Some countries are like my father. Very quick to deflect blame to other parties. For example, if daddy made a wrong turn somewhere, he would say it was my fault because I was sitting in the passenger's seat of the car and did not correct him. But really, the fault was his for not knowing his directions and/or for being a typical male and not asking directions. Similarly, if a country takes a wrong turn, a lot of the blame has to go to the country's leader and how he or she is handling, or stealing, things. The country's leader has to think seriously about what all he has done before he considers blaming Bush for not correcting him. To be clear, I am not at all disputing that the US and their foreign policy has a lot to do with the stymieing of the development of many countries around the world. In Argentina, the US supported the military dictatorship of the '70's and '80's, and the subsequent massacres that occurred to thin out the Communist troops (mostly idealistic young people and students) who, according to the dictatorship, were ready to stage a coup at any moment. The answer was obviously (to the dictatorship) to try and kill all of them, and the same happened in Chile and Paraguay. All of it US-backed. Coincidentally, Argentina's problems started there. This is historical fact, and it is also fact, my friends, that karma is a bitch.
In other news, 9 north-eastern US states, including New York, thanks very much, are ready to sign an agreement setting legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power stations. In California, Arnie is working on legislation that will presumably cut emissions from cars by 30% within a decade. What's more, 187 mayors from cities and towns across the US have pledged to adopt Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gasses. So much for Bush and his "it'll cost Americans jobs" waa waa waa schpiel. Yeah, it may cost some jobs but I think it's better for all of us in the long run if we STAY ALIVE.
jueves, noviembre 03, 2005
Boys to Men?
Well, folks, the latest in my saga of the X: He is, uh, between housing, and has been staying at a friend's house (this friend is also his manager and once upon a time they were roommates, which is why his job situation sometimes sounds like a dream to me), and now he is staying with me. This is cool, because I have a live-in chef for the next week or two, someone to get up and get me soda or cheesy-poofs when I'm reclining on the couch, and someone to with whom to do dark deeds, although not the ones that immediately race to y'all's dirty-ass minds. Geez.
The fucking Star Wars stupid ass Episode Three Revenge of the Sith (what the fuck is a Sith any damn way and what significance would this have to my reality?) DVD came out this week, and every time the commercial comes on, which is twice every five seconds, old boy starts to panting, gasping, nudging me and pointing at the TV as if he DOESN't know I don't care. Not only this, but the man has a Playstation whichever-the-current-one-is-numbered and plays Grand Theft Auto as if it were going to self-destruct at any moment. Meanwhile, I have just bought a brand new Apple Powerbook G4 with printer and whatnot and am establishing my little home office thing, and I'm getting ready to sell my stupid Nintendo 64 with all its games on eBay because the time for that frivolity is gone. Yours truly is turning 30 in March, and I will need to act the part, seems to me, and get my assingear.
Which brings me to my theory. Boys may age as much as they have to, but they stay very boyish to a much larger extent than girls do. Girls invariably grow into women and start concerning themselves with women things (this goes for all of us except the butchest of lesbians - shouts to my senior year suitemate from college) almost immediately. In fact, a lot of us can't even wait until we're women to concern ourselves with women things. True, we do have the occasional giggle fest, but they become accompanied by martinis and shit instead of pillow-fights and hair-braiding. Although I will admit I have occasional yearnings to climb a tree and whatnot. But really, I think girls are FORCED to grow into women the minute we start to bleed every month, while boys are given the OPTION to do so, since the only notice they get is their willies getting bigger and hairier, which is a good thing of course. It almost seems like guys have a built-in ceiling to some parts of their internal development, and I'm waiting for the issue of Time magazine which will feature a story on the medical breakthrough that found some little extra flap or something in guys' brains that makes them part child for life.
I have to say it: sometimes I think men are adorable because of their occasional childlike behavior. I want to pat them on the head and smile and pinch their cheeks. But my X, sometimes I want to tie his hands together just to see him go through Playstation withdrawal. I want to know if he will foam at the mouth and start shaking and screaming and carrying on like recovering crack fiends do. Yes, I am sharing these ugly thoughts with you because, except for Sivilicious, y'all don't know me. So there!
The fucking Star Wars stupid ass Episode Three Revenge of the Sith (what the fuck is a Sith any damn way and what significance would this have to my reality?) DVD came out this week, and every time the commercial comes on, which is twice every five seconds, old boy starts to panting, gasping, nudging me and pointing at the TV as if he DOESN't know I don't care. Not only this, but the man has a Playstation whichever-the-current-one-is-numbered and plays Grand Theft Auto as if it were going to self-destruct at any moment. Meanwhile, I have just bought a brand new Apple Powerbook G4 with printer and whatnot and am establishing my little home office thing, and I'm getting ready to sell my stupid Nintendo 64 with all its games on eBay because the time for that frivolity is gone. Yours truly is turning 30 in March, and I will need to act the part, seems to me, and get my assingear.
Which brings me to my theory. Boys may age as much as they have to, but they stay very boyish to a much larger extent than girls do. Girls invariably grow into women and start concerning themselves with women things (this goes for all of us except the butchest of lesbians - shouts to my senior year suitemate from college) almost immediately. In fact, a lot of us can't even wait until we're women to concern ourselves with women things. True, we do have the occasional giggle fest, but they become accompanied by martinis and shit instead of pillow-fights and hair-braiding. Although I will admit I have occasional yearnings to climb a tree and whatnot. But really, I think girls are FORCED to grow into women the minute we start to bleed every month, while boys are given the OPTION to do so, since the only notice they get is their willies getting bigger and hairier, which is a good thing of course. It almost seems like guys have a built-in ceiling to some parts of their internal development, and I'm waiting for the issue of Time magazine which will feature a story on the medical breakthrough that found some little extra flap or something in guys' brains that makes them part child for life.
I have to say it: sometimes I think men are adorable because of their occasional childlike behavior. I want to pat them on the head and smile and pinch their cheeks. But my X, sometimes I want to tie his hands together just to see him go through Playstation withdrawal. I want to know if he will foam at the mouth and start shaking and screaming and carrying on like recovering crack fiends do. Yes, I am sharing these ugly thoughts with you because, except for Sivilicious, y'all don't know me. So there!
martes, noviembre 01, 2005
Bloomberg vs. Ferrer
These are probably the toughest words I've ever had to write.
Last week, I picked up a new book called "Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx is Burning", about New York City in the seventies. You know, the urban blight, the Blackout of '77, the riots and the Son of Sam killer who swore that the satanic dog made him do it. The quote is from Howard Cosell who said those words as he broadcasted game 6 (I believe) of the '77 World Series at Yankee Stadium. You could look over the tops of the Stadium and see apartment buildings burning in fires set by arsonists and slumlords trying to cut their losses and get insurance money, to the detriment of already destitute people with no place to go. There were all kinds of strikes, crime was out of hand, the subway was in horrible shape and people were advised to not use public transport or even walk the streets after a certain time of night. The City was a disaster and was threatening to get worse. Incidentally, the two mayors who presided over the City during that time were John Lindsay and Abe Beame, two Democrats, both disastrous. To be fair, both were traditional Democrats in that they championed social reforms as a way of tackling other areas, like the economy. Most everyone knows that to solve a problem, one must go to the root of it, and that's what these guys set out to do. But New York didn't work the way they thought it did, and critics, in retrospect, wonder whether Lindsay and Beame were TOO GOOD for the City. I don't disagree with that theory; quite honestly, a good lot of New Yorkers are not worth a shit. Then, like a wrinkly, balding, Jewish angel from the heavens came mayor Ed Koch in '79 to save the day, which he did, slowly but surely, and in the nineties, mayor Giuliani turned the City into a rich man's paradise and "Disney-fied" Times Square. But I digress, again. My point is that New York City LOVES Democratic presidential candidates, but they have trouble with a Democrat in City Hall. No one will ever know why that is. It will remain one of the City's many mysteries, and its the many mysteries that make this City so damn fascinating to me.
The elections are soon. Ferrer is far behind, Bloomberg is projected to win by a landslide. I hate to say it, but I think that between the two, Bloomberg will do better. Not that much better, though. Considering that Ferrer, of Puerto Rican descent, can't even rally his own people behind him even though Latinos rule the city in terms of population but are grossly underrepresented, I'm putting my money on Bloomie. Ferrer has lots of good ideas and I of course especially like the fact that he would speak for those people whose mouths have been taped shut over the past 12 years the Repubs have been in City Hall. But Ferrer has the Kerry syndrome. He is head and shoulders above Bloomberg in terms of experience and raw brainpower and a lot of people hate that, because knowledge and dignity offends those who don't have either. They resent it, and they can't look beyond that at the qualifications that Ferrer brings with him. He has tons more experience than Bloomie: he was Bronx borough president for a long time, for one thing, while Bloomberg is just a businessman with a cable channel who thinks that riding the subway will all of a sudden make him "one of us". True, with Bloomberg, I can expect more of Albany and Washington cheating the City while Bloomie acts like their lap dog, the subways will get invariably worse and worse while the fares go up and up, and everything will become more expensive while workers, like me, are denied basic cost of living increases in their pay and people are simply bought out of the City. I honestly can't think of one good thing Bloomberg can do for the City. But this I know, Bloomberg will not let the City go back to the '70's. I think I can be pretty confident that that won't happen again, and I'm going to have to vote for that (Ladies and gentlemen, there go my principles). Unfortunately, this City has been traditionally ruled by money and big business, and Bloomberg perpetuates that, which is why folks love him. When the going gets rough, Bloomie will throw his money at the problem, and around these parts, money makes problems all better. I think that Ferrer will just be a disastrous repeat of mayors Lindsay and Beame: too good for New Yorkers, but not quite good enough to fix their realities. The bottom line is that nowadays, people who are driven by a lust for cash look way down their noses at people who do not and call them head-in-the-clouds Commies or just very politely feel sorry for them. I've totally felt that myself, but as daddy says, money has way more potential to hurt than it does to help, and I'd rather be a well-adjusted person than a rich, snotty bitch.
Last week, I picked up a new book called "Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx is Burning", about New York City in the seventies. You know, the urban blight, the Blackout of '77, the riots and the Son of Sam killer who swore that the satanic dog made him do it. The quote is from Howard Cosell who said those words as he broadcasted game 6 (I believe) of the '77 World Series at Yankee Stadium. You could look over the tops of the Stadium and see apartment buildings burning in fires set by arsonists and slumlords trying to cut their losses and get insurance money, to the detriment of already destitute people with no place to go. There were all kinds of strikes, crime was out of hand, the subway was in horrible shape and people were advised to not use public transport or even walk the streets after a certain time of night. The City was a disaster and was threatening to get worse. Incidentally, the two mayors who presided over the City during that time were John Lindsay and Abe Beame, two Democrats, both disastrous. To be fair, both were traditional Democrats in that they championed social reforms as a way of tackling other areas, like the economy. Most everyone knows that to solve a problem, one must go to the root of it, and that's what these guys set out to do. But New York didn't work the way they thought it did, and critics, in retrospect, wonder whether Lindsay and Beame were TOO GOOD for the City. I don't disagree with that theory; quite honestly, a good lot of New Yorkers are not worth a shit. Then, like a wrinkly, balding, Jewish angel from the heavens came mayor Ed Koch in '79 to save the day, which he did, slowly but surely, and in the nineties, mayor Giuliani turned the City into a rich man's paradise and "Disney-fied" Times Square. But I digress, again. My point is that New York City LOVES Democratic presidential candidates, but they have trouble with a Democrat in City Hall. No one will ever know why that is. It will remain one of the City's many mysteries, and its the many mysteries that make this City so damn fascinating to me.
The elections are soon. Ferrer is far behind, Bloomberg is projected to win by a landslide. I hate to say it, but I think that between the two, Bloomberg will do better. Not that much better, though. Considering that Ferrer, of Puerto Rican descent, can't even rally his own people behind him even though Latinos rule the city in terms of population but are grossly underrepresented, I'm putting my money on Bloomie. Ferrer has lots of good ideas and I of course especially like the fact that he would speak for those people whose mouths have been taped shut over the past 12 years the Repubs have been in City Hall. But Ferrer has the Kerry syndrome. He is head and shoulders above Bloomberg in terms of experience and raw brainpower and a lot of people hate that, because knowledge and dignity offends those who don't have either. They resent it, and they can't look beyond that at the qualifications that Ferrer brings with him. He has tons more experience than Bloomie: he was Bronx borough president for a long time, for one thing, while Bloomberg is just a businessman with a cable channel who thinks that riding the subway will all of a sudden make him "one of us". True, with Bloomberg, I can expect more of Albany and Washington cheating the City while Bloomie acts like their lap dog, the subways will get invariably worse and worse while the fares go up and up, and everything will become more expensive while workers, like me, are denied basic cost of living increases in their pay and people are simply bought out of the City. I honestly can't think of one good thing Bloomberg can do for the City. But this I know, Bloomberg will not let the City go back to the '70's. I think I can be pretty confident that that won't happen again, and I'm going to have to vote for that (Ladies and gentlemen, there go my principles). Unfortunately, this City has been traditionally ruled by money and big business, and Bloomberg perpetuates that, which is why folks love him. When the going gets rough, Bloomie will throw his money at the problem, and around these parts, money makes problems all better. I think that Ferrer will just be a disastrous repeat of mayors Lindsay and Beame: too good for New Yorkers, but not quite good enough to fix their realities. The bottom line is that nowadays, people who are driven by a lust for cash look way down their noses at people who do not and call them head-in-the-clouds Commies or just very politely feel sorry for them. I've totally felt that myself, but as daddy says, money has way more potential to hurt than it does to help, and I'd rather be a well-adjusted person than a rich, snotty bitch.
The Search, part III
Searches of bags by New York City cops, which began on 21 July after the London Tube was bombed a second time, are being argued in a case brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (link to NYT article posted below). The NYCLU argues that the searches are a violation of the 4th amendment, and should the NYCLU lose the case, it will be the first time (that I have heard of, at least) a judgement goes directly against the Constitution of the United States and favors, as I see it, the tactics of intimidation and fear that the federal and New York City governments are trying to pass off as necessary evils. I was willing to go along with this farce for a while, as nothing pleases me more than letting cops know they are full of it and that they are nothing but losers someone picked up off the street to become cops. This is true because only a handful of New York City cops know what the hell they are on the force to do, and this is proven time and time again, whenever we hear of some hapless cop just shooting someone and saying that he saw the suspect draw a gun that was never there to begin with.
It turns out that the subway searches, just over three months old, have not revealed anything, not a dime bag or even a pen knife. Meanwhile, kids are getting shot in Brooklyn over basketballs and such and the guns continue to flow right on up I-95, the main thoroughfare for weapons imported from the dirty South, and over the George Washington bridge, and as far a i know, nobody has been that concerned with those things. Another thing that makes the subway searches a complete waste of time is the fact that the local government and the cops have been extremely half-assed about them, as I have said before. Funny, if I gave a half-assed performance on the job, I'd get fired (that is, if I worked in a normal place, which I don't, for better or for worse). I did a half-assed job in school for a while there, and I got the shit kicked out of me by my parents and teachers. Why is a half-assed response to terrorism of all things in any way acceptable? If the fuckers in Government are going to make stupid rules and say they are for the common good, then the rules should apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time, and due action should be taken ALL the time. Not just when law enforcement feels like doing their job.
In my opinion, the City better get its shit together before they go argue against the Constitution. But what do you guys think? Will there be a judgement against the Constitutional right of every American to privacy? Or will suspicion rule the day?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/nyregion/01search.html
It turns out that the subway searches, just over three months old, have not revealed anything, not a dime bag or even a pen knife. Meanwhile, kids are getting shot in Brooklyn over basketballs and such and the guns continue to flow right on up I-95, the main thoroughfare for weapons imported from the dirty South, and over the George Washington bridge, and as far a i know, nobody has been that concerned with those things. Another thing that makes the subway searches a complete waste of time is the fact that the local government and the cops have been extremely half-assed about them, as I have said before. Funny, if I gave a half-assed performance on the job, I'd get fired (that is, if I worked in a normal place, which I don't, for better or for worse). I did a half-assed job in school for a while there, and I got the shit kicked out of me by my parents and teachers. Why is a half-assed response to terrorism of all things in any way acceptable? If the fuckers in Government are going to make stupid rules and say they are for the common good, then the rules should apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time, and due action should be taken ALL the time. Not just when law enforcement feels like doing their job.
In my opinion, the City better get its shit together before they go argue against the Constitution. But what do you guys think? Will there be a judgement against the Constitutional right of every American to privacy? Or will suspicion rule the day?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/nyregion/01search.html
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)