Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of October and November.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Filed under Politics

i have needs

maybe i'll take a slightly less nasty crack at that times editorial big storm requires big government. now really i picture the times editorial board flailing about as manhattan is submerged, gurgling with their last breath, 'big government!" in a kind of combined despair and ecstasy. every issue takes the same shape and every problem the same solution. i'll tell you this: they and you do not want more and more and more state power because you want to accomplish various goals. you love it, you want it, for itself. you want to abandon yourself to it in a masochist ecstasy, and you have. hey that's legit; we all have needs. now, y'all super-smart peops got your ivy league degrees and stuff, and came out of that process with exactly one idea, and that unworthy of human dignity. however, it could be worse. one idea is one more than none.

Categories: Politics
Tagged with:

big newspaper requires big government

'big storm requires big government": ok that's more plausible than most. however, it is a bit undercut by the fact that, if you're the new york times editorial board, every single thing requires big government. seriously the new york times editorial board can't take a dump without big government. every problem requires the same solution; all stimuli are greeted with the same response, which might could possibly reflect a lack of imagination. it would be amazing if they had two ideas, but we should admit that it could be worse: one idea is one more than none. like the democratic party, the new york times editorial board yearns toward big government, loves it for its own sake, not for any instrumental purpose. i am not insulting the new york times editorial board but merely diagnosing the new york times editorial board - or at least i am pretending that there is a difference between these two procedures - when i point out that really it is about sexual masochism: the new york times editorial board just wants to be dominated by someone; it hardly matters whom, so their basic priority is just to make sure someone somewhere is powerful enough to tell them what to do. now really, i don't begrudge anyone their sexuality, and the new york times editorial board, ultimately, is no more in control of their bizarre sexual dysfunction than anyone else is of theirs. the new york times editorial board, or at least its younger members, are the products of the standardized testing regime that the new york times editorial board associates with 'sustainable innovation,' but which more closely resembles the extremely detailed yet entirely capricious instructions of a veteran dominatrix. so really you shouldn't blame the new york times editorial board, just force-feed the new york times editorial board pharmaceuticals, which surely is just the sort of thing the new york times editorial board wants you to do. personally, i find say a big foot fetish or something less disturbing and more comprehensible, but that's just me. either way, if you really want to get stomped, you are very likely to get stomped. so it's going to be ok! sometimes, though, i worry we have become a society of bottoms with too few tops; that would be a tragedy for the bottom 99%. but what the new york times editorial board secretly knows is that you can't have a top 1% without big government either.

Categories: Politics
Tagged with:

View images tagged “Missing the Point” …

Here's a photograph of a campaign yard sign. The top half reads: "Occupy the Vote." The bottom half, in red, white and blue, reads: "Re-Elect OBAMA."

(Via @notjessewalker, who actually is Jesse Walker.)

Also.

back in black

i did vote for barack obama, partly because he's black. i wanted that emblem of my own and my nation's transcendence of racism. it's been a slow, disillusioning process to realize that barack obama is #stillnotblackenough. he's always compromising with white people. it's as though we elected colin powell or michael jackson! i mean what if you elected a woman and after awhile it wasn't at all clear that she was woman enough to run the country. maybe she didn't shave her armpits or something, and then you'd be left wondering whether you really elected a woman at all. you'd be all like: where can i find me a paradigmatic woman to president me? who will replace my high school principal in my consciousness? but really, i'm not sure anyone is black enough to be president. you need to be able to absorb 100% of the light. and mitt romey isn't gay enough; well, maybe just enough.



look i think it is a worthy goal to write something that the pc police will find offensive without quite being able to say why. just throwing around race and gender words in this careless happy reactionary way would no doubt be enough. but maybe i am being sarcastic or ironic or incomprehensible? or maybe i'm just a bully. anyway, i think you need to work out carefully why it is offensive before you report it to the authorities. no doubt you want to ban loretta lynn too. actually i think the best part about all these social distinctions is that they give you little baubles to play with. the solemnity with which the pc police treats them is part of what gives these categories a sorta-supernatural power; they are hedged around with wacky taboos, like the true names of secret gods, in academia more than anywhere else. indeed, academia is the center of sheer voodoo and superstition in contemporary culture: the idea that just saying words can beam destruction at people. talk about these matters more the way you do at home, unless you police yourself the same way there. loosen up!

though kansas is not, academia is what thomas frank says kansas is. people believe what they believe because of social pressures, like the community surrounding an evangelical church. they have precisely the same degree of unity, precisely the same degree of irrationality, precisely the same degree of certainty, precisely the same degree of intolerance of difference. both institutions drive all data into an interpretive machine that none of the participants created; when they are done, all data mean the same or take same form. but unlike academia, the evangelical church will encourage some degree also of humility. lord knows what the people embedded in the institution believe deep inside, if anything, but they all say the same words in the same order. this is the effect of the constant pc move: it enforces a gap between what you think and what you say, like some archaic, rigid ritual the meaning of which is lost to time. give them control of the legislature or enough guns (these are equivalent), and they will force everyone to mumble along as though what they were saying meant something.
Categories: Politics

What is open access?

An animated introduction courtesy of PhD Comics.

Change You Can Believe In: Mass Deportation Edition

(Via k. gallagher.)

I should mention that even if the Obama administration’s mass deportations had really been mass deportations of criminals or gang bangers that could not possibly have made his horrible record on immigration any more O.K. by me. Most of the crimes that immigrants (documented or undocumented) get deported over are bullshit beefs and things that should not have been crimes in the first place — victimless social offenses, drug possession and the like. The only appropriate punishment for such crimes is no punishment at all and people who are caught doing it should be left free to go on their way, regardless of immigration status. But, moreover, even if someone is caught doing a harm that invades the rights of some other person in the community — if someone is stealing, or beating people up, or threatening people, and the person doing it happens to be an immigrant — then there are already ways of dealing with that that also have nothing to do with immigration status. A crime against person or property doesn’t somehow become worse because the person doing it was born on the other side of an arbitrary political border. And the fact that they were born on the other side of an arbitrary political border doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate to, say, punish petty theft or extortion by forcibly exiling the person who did it from the country. That’s not how a criminal or a gang-banger born in Laredo ought to be treated, and to treat a criminal or a gang-banger born in Nuevo Laredo that way, just because of her birth nationality, is both discriminatory and wildly disproportionate. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, on this issue, what the Obama administration has been saying about its border-segregation policies is, once again, a smiling promise stretched over a massive lie. In fact the Obama administration has massively escalated aggression against immigrants, and its dragnets have become broader, not narrower, than those under his Democratic and Republican predecessors. Emphasis added.

President Obama used a new word during the presidential debate on Tuesday night to describe the masses of immigrants he’s deported during his tenure. He called them “gangbangers,” as in:

What I’ve also said is if we’re going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers, people who are hurting the community, not after students, not after folks who are here just because they’re trying to figure out how to feed their families. And that’s what we’ve done.

The line was a curious one, given the reality of Obama’s deportation record, which has been marked by mass deportations to the tune of nearly 400,000 every year carried out at a clip unseen by any prior president. The Obama administration has defended its “smart” enforcement tactics by, as Obama did on Tuesday night, pointing out that it makes a point to deport those who have committed serious crimes and are a threat to their communities and national security. And yet, data collected over Obama’s tenure show that among the close to 400,000 people who are deported annually, far from being “gangbangers,” the vast majority have no criminal record whatsoever.

In preliminary data for the January-March 2012 quarter collected by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, for example, just 14 percent of those deported had any criminal record. (Immigration violations are typically considered civil violations, and do not constitute a criminal offense.) But, a closer look at the data shows that just 4 percent of those deported had a so-called “aggravated felony” on their record, an immigration court-specific designation of crimes that can include crimes as serious as rape and murder, but has also been expanded to include violations like theft or non-violent drug offenses.

And as the Obama administration struggles to keep up with it do-they-or-don-they-have-it deportation quota, immigration officials seem to be tapping out the numbers of deportable immigrants with criminal records. In the last four years, the percent of those deported with any kind of criminal history has dropped from 17.5 to 14 percent, while those with “aggravated felonies” made up 5.2 percent of those deported in 2008. This year they’re 3.6 percent. That is, while the Obama administration continues to deport roughly the same record-breaking number of people annually, it’s grabbing up everyday people whose deportations the Obama administration has said it has protections in place to prevent, including those who would otherwise be eligible for the federal DREAM Act,[1] parents with U.S. citizen kids in the country who have lived quiet lives, students and fathers who have communities and dreams in the U.S.—people who are hardly the “gangbangers” Obama wants you to think he’s kicking out of the country.

— Julianne Hing, Who Are Those Gangbangers Obama’s So Proud of Deporting? ColorLines.

I had a joke I used to run in these features that played off our Progressive Peace President’s 2008 campaign slogan, which was to close off these posts with some variation on The more things Change…. It was funny to me at the time. It’s not as funny to me anymore. Because in fact things have not stayed the same, at least not on this front. While campaigning as an alleged supporter of immigrant rights, and making grandstanding lies one after another, Obama’s government has actively made the situation far worse for immigrants than it was when he entered office. By any standard of individual liberty, social equality, or plain old humanitarian compassion, his record in office has been appalling.

Also.

  1. [1] [See for example this story. Obama promised that he would unilaterally halt deportation proceedings against DREAM-eligible immigrants, in the last few months before the election, in a particularly cynical And Now They Bring Up You move. But the promise was a lie, and was broken within weeks of when he made it. —Ed.]

Collective Soul

This is a news item I’m more or less happy about, as far as public opinion polls go. But what really grabs me is the headline, which was … not so well chosen. Here’s the news:

12:03PM EDT October 18. 2012 - Latinos are changing their attitudes about same-sex marriage, joining growing support in the rest of the country to allow gay couples to marry.

More than half, or 52%, of Latinos say they support gay marriage in a new poll by the Pew Research Center. The general public supports gay marriage, 48%-44%.

The finding for Latinos is opposite of attitudes in 2006: Pew says 56% of Latinos opposed same-sex marriage six years ago, while 31% supported it.

— Catalina Camia, USA Today (May 18, 2012)

And here’s the headline:

Latinos reversing course, support gay marriage

12:03PM EDT October 18. 2012 - Latinos are changing their attitudes about same-sex marriage, joining growing support in the rest of the country to allow gay couples to marry . . . .

— Catalina Camia, USA Today (May 18, 2012)

So I guess there must have been a pretty intense debate about all that at the last big meeting? But now gay marriage can rest assured that the they’ll be reversing course, now that the resolution for collective support from the community hive mind of all Latinos has passed by a slim majority?

you got served

watching joe scarborough just kick the ass of david remnick, editor of that politically, aesthetically, and intellectually banal magazine, emblem of the pseudo-intelligentsia and their bland bourgeois crypto-bohemia. maybe i'll try to find a video later on.

Categories: Politics
Tagged with:

insult charisma

insults are the best form of political inspiration; or at least, they're not as stupid and dangerous as 'charisma.' but obviously, only an extraordinarily mediocre person in every respect would vote for barack obama or mitt romney. only a dull person in every sense. a person whose every aspiration is a cliche. keep on doin what you did and you'll keep on gettin what you got. it should all have come down to last night's third-party debate. what do these parties have to do to discredit themselves in your eyes? or they're discredited, but it doesn't matter because no one can manage to think beyond the talking points they develop. song of the american voter: please manipulate me in that hyper-primitive way that social science recommends. i love your billion dollars in ads and your whole incoherent, hyper-repetitive schtick, and now i will reward you with infinite power. 

 

gp

lp

Categories: Politics

deredistribution

this seems basically right to me; the basic commitment is to redistribution. however, i might also remark that redistribution the other way round sort of lurks at the heart of the actual republican agenda. i know this will cause you to sob uncontrollably, but i won't be blogging tonight's debate. my prediction is that each man will so thoroughly and devastatingly refute the other that no rational person will be left with any alternative but anarchy.

Categories: Politics
Tagged with: