Central City Against the Wars

Pastor Eric Gabourel opened the meeting.

Last night in the Tenderloin, a dozen or so of San Francisco's long time grassroots activists came together with a slightly larger number of neighborhood folks to talk about how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not only trash those unfortunate countries and people, but also make a hell of life in the central city.



The gathering was hosted by the Providence Christian Center aka the Hot Dog Church, which is a member of the Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship.




Organizer and poet James Tracy welcomed the assembled concerned citizens. "People in the Central City are already know struggling to get by on the streets -- so they just go right on to struggling against wars and empire...."


Lisa Grey Garcia, aka Tiny, of Poor Magazine reminded folks that they don't need a bunch of academics to tell them what to think, that they are all experts in the "scholarship of poverty."


Max Elbaum and Attieno Davis brought a stark message from War Times/Tiempo de Guerras:

If the U.S. can be forced to withdraw completely from Iraq, many positive changes become possible.

But if the U.S. continues its military occupation, every problem facing people here, in Iraq and across the globe will get worse.

Attieno tried to help people imagine what a "billion" -- 1,000,000,000 -- might mean. The cost of the U.S, war in Iraq is closing in on 500 billion dollars -- today it is roughly $496,700,000,000. The mind boggles. All that money is being stolen from the people of this country. For an accounting of what the war is costing you and me, check out the National Priorities Project.


When life is hard, art matters. This sister sang passionately to close the presentation part of the meeting.

And then, folks got down to business. After some discussion, the result is a new antiwar group in the neighborhood calling itself Central City Against the Wars -- wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on San Francisco's poor. So the peace movement grows.

Sometimes the mail scares me ...

Have we become a country in which torture is a fit subject for humorous advertising?


Well I hope it is final. Did I get this appeal because I once gave Lowell Weicker ten dollars? (He would have been better than Lieberman.)

Keep 'em honest for peace

A friend of mine doesn’t like war and militarism. Good for her. So when she was looking for fun clothes to give her granddaughter, she wasn't very happy to find theitem pictured above on sale at the website of one of the pioneers in marketing to athletic women.

The site had a complaint form. She used it. This is what she remembers writing.

I received your catalogue for the first time and was pleased to see another source of athletic clothes for women (I have a very athletic granddaughter). However, I was appalled to find you advertising "camo" items (a "cute' word for camouflage?).

As someone who has lost 2 family members in two wars I am very disturbed that you are featuring military "fashion." It is inconsistent to try to "save the grasslands" with socks and promote war at the same time.

Catherine Cusic

She actually got an answer.

Dear Catherine:

Georgena [Terry] forwarded your email to me and I've spoken to our apparel team about your reaction to our camo garments. We did not intend for these products to have any kind of military connection. Our goals in sourcing apparel products are always to seek out distinctive, fashionable garments for cycling and casual lifestyle use. Being a company primarily of women who are mothers, grandmothers and environmentally-minded activists, the last thing we want to promote is war or destruction of life. In fact, what we use as our #1 criteria for products around here is the concept of fun.

I picked this up off a women's wear website and feel this is more in keeping with the intent of both the manufacturer (prana) who makes these garments, and in our choice for selling the garments:

The origin of camouflage actually predates war—by about 20 million years, when certain cephalopods varied their pigmentation to match their background. Since then, it has been employed by various members of the animal kingdom. In the late 19th century, an American artist named Abbott Thayer observed that the coloring of many animals graduated from almost dark on their backs to white on their bellies. He concluded that this optic trick “often renders the animal invisible” by breaking up the surface of an object and making the three-dimensional appear flat....but how to explain its evolution into a fashion fad? One theory is that it can be seen as the logical extension of the trend towards faux snake, tiger, leopard, and zebra prints, all used in the wild as optical illusions to interfere with depth perception and adopted by the fashion world for their beauty.

I'm so sorry we have offended you and please be assured that we take this seriously.

Paula Dyba
VP Marketing
Terry, the first and last name in women's cycling

I can't say I entirely buy this. Seems to me, whenever the U.S. gets itself into a war, we get a run of cute, slightly titillating pseudo-military fashions. Somehow I doubt the folks who have wear the real thing in dangerous places think it is so cute.

What I like about this is the story of a consumer discovering something that offended her morals and taking action. The piece of this response I do believe is that marketing VPs take customer complaints seriously. Our democracy may seem on its last legs in part because too many of us have given up on active civic participation, but we are energetic consumers. We can let the companies we give our money to know what we care about. We can express ourselves as much as possible through our consumer choices.

Campaign coalitions

Every week, the friend who sent me the Obama letter joins me to check in on how we think this long running Democratic presidential primary is going. He's long believed Obama could win. For the first time, after the Potomac primaries, I was willing to say that his guy had evened the race, overcoming Clinton's potent structural advantages. Now, after Wisconsin, I am willing to believe that Obama could win the nomination.

So who makes up Obama's coalition, anyway? I've written before about the emerging electoral coalition that I think promises long term Democratic success. This is an identity-based coalition rooted in the communities of color that provide the nation's low wage workers and that also attracts a majority of white women, with relatively smaller participation from white men. It is not clear that this exists yet anywhere, but its potential can be glimpsed in California; our Democrats win behind this sort of base. Obama certainly didn't start out owning to this coalition-in-the-process-of-formation. But in each recent victory, he has come closer.

Today Digby riffed off a Wall Street Journal article that highlighted the racism and sexism of working class white male Democrats. Yes, the story does neatly purvey a stereotypically Wall Street Journal frame. But Digby's characterization of the contemporary relationship of the Democratic party to these white men rings true:

We've been told for nearly three decades that the Democrats lost this group because of taxes or being soft on crime or being "anti-military" and so the Democrats have moved right on every issue they could think of trying to recapture these guys. The only thing they couldn't quite successfully do was get rid of all the women and the blacks in the party. Until the Dems do that, these guys aren't coming back. (And they aren't going to vote for either Obama or Clinton ...)

Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers has been looking at who joined up as Obama's core activists. He concludes that Obama is riding an insurgent coalition of the neglected.

... the activist class war is not just about envelope stuffers growing tired of their efforts being wasted by an ineffective leadership. It is also an expression of frustration by both red state Democrats and grassroots progressives at being taken for granted by that ineffective leadership. ... It is only in the context of this alliance that the seemingly vacuous Obama campaign slogans of "Yes, We Can," and "Change You Can Believe In," begin to fill up with real meaning. More than any ideological or policy difference, I believe it is also what ultimately underlies Obama's coalition.

This rings true -- when campaigns consist of candidates hustling big donors for cash to run endless, focus group-inspired TV ads in battleground states, most everyone feels left out of their own democracy. Progressives are sick of being told they have nowhere else to go. People of color are sick of being patronized and ignored. Democrats in states where Republicans usually win want a piece of the action. Obama provides a vehicle for the pissed off.

One of Bowers' commenters offered a realistic appraisal in the midst of the Obama wave.

Whatever Obama's actual policies, or November election possibilities, or even whether he is left or right, Obama has keyed into the concept of being an Insurgent Candidate. That, and a general hatred of the Bush-Cheney regime is pulling people out of the woodwork. ... I have no illusions that Obama is not a politician. That means that the people need to lead him forward, as well as apply pressure to keep him going in the right direction.

My emphasis. It always does come back to us.

Listening

I didn't really want to "listen." Who does, when "listening" is a matter of duty?

But because of one of the projects I am doing for work these days, I felt I had to listen. You see, I am organizing within the Episcopal Church for the full inclusion of our gay members within the life of the community. Compared to most Christian outfits, we're not that bad on this, especially locally. Many parishes have gay members; there are gay, lesbian, even transsexual priests; heck, to the horror of the fundies and our own conservatives, this denomination even made a partnered gay man a bishop. But it would be great if we could move from "not bad" to good at this elementary facet of respect each others' dignity, so I'm working for the folks who are organizing to get us over the hump.

One of the steps along the way has been a thing called "the Listening Process." Gay people wanted to stop being talked about and start having real conversations with our more conventional brethren and sistren. We persuaded the official bodies of the church to say that such things should take place about 30 years ago, but mostly this "listening" has been a good idea that doesn't happen. And despite not always playing out the whole process, we, this particular church, have muddled toward putting up with and even loving each other.

However this season, the small, very gay, parish where I am a member, St. John the Evangelist in the San Francisco Mission, was invited to engage in some listening events with the people of a suburban church. Uh oh -- I knew I had to put my body where my mouth is and go to these things. It seemed an odd idea. I've been out so long in the world and in the church that I've almost forgotten the angst that too many LGBT folks still suffer in hetero-Christian-land. I'm a "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it!" kind of person. So I didn't know what to think.

Off a little bunch of us, gays and friends, trooped on Sunday to a very friendly suburban congregation. We shared worship followed by a very nice potluck lunch. One of our folks quite bravely told the story of how hurt he had been by being forced by another denomination's authorities to hide his relationship with his partner. Then we broke up into tables of about six people each to discuss further. Each table consisted of one or two of us visitors and the rest from the local congregation.

I found myself at a table with several mature parishioners from the suburban church and several of their quite elderly visiting parents. Now this was in a room with a low ceiling and some 40-50 people. That is, once we started talking, the din was cacophonous. Though we could barely hear each other, we gamely attempted to address the discussion questions.

After a few minutes, the elderly woman seated next to me reached out and gripped my arm. She was elegantly dressed and groomed, every hair in place, carefully made up. She seemed tiny to me, wispy. Her very white skin was almost transparent; I could see a bit of blue vein peaking through her scalp. She whispered with a slight accent I couldn’t place.

"I worked in fashion. They all worked there. There were so many of them. They were so creative. There was a young man, he used to ask me to go places with him, to be seen with him. We'd go places together. You know, so he'd be safe."

"When was that?" I asked.

"The Hitler times," she answered. "Then we came to this country and I worked in fashion. There were so many of them. They were so beautiful."

The din overcame us both. We stopped trying to talk, but she squeezed my arm. ***
This was the sort of thing that happened in "the Hitler times."

An account of a gay Holocaust survivor, Pierre Seel, details life for gay men during Nazi control. In his account he states that he participated in his local gay community in the town of Mulhouse. When the Nazis gained power over the town his name was on a list of local gay men ordered to the police station. He obeyed the directive to protect his family from any retaliation. Upon arriving at the police station he notes that he and other gay men were beaten. Some gay men who resisted the SS had their fingernails pulled out. Others were raped with broken rulers and had their bowels punctured, causing them to bleed profusely. After his arrest he was sent to the concentration camp at Schirmeck. There, Seel stated that during a morning roll-call, the Nazi commander announced a public execution. A man was brought out, and Seel recognized his face. It was the face of his eighteen-year-old lover from Mulhouse. Seel then claims that the Nazi guards stripped the clothes of his lover and placed a metal bucket over his head. Then the guards released trained German Shepherd dogs on him, which mauled him to death.

The pink triangle with the bar was used by the Nazis to tag repeat "offender" homosexuals.

Faces from the Episcopal Urban Caucus

Participants in the meeting of the Episcopal Urban Caucus in Oakland last week displayed a wide variety of emotions, ranging through earnest discussion, serious purpose, curiosity, laughter, delight in meeting with friends -- and, in one case, anxiety verging on fear. Take a look.


The group hunts through its packets, looking for the item described by the questioner.


Helene Davis' 16- year old son was murdered nineteen years ago by another 16-year old. She is the co-leads the Oakland group Family and Friends of Murder Victims. Seeking to transform their own pain into healing for others, they have reached out to youth jailed for violent crimes who have often not previously understood the hurt their acts have caused.


Ruth Morgan of Community Works described a program for "at risk" youth at Balboa High School in San Francisco which offers adult attention, encouragement of creativity, and support for getting an education.


United Methodist minister and long time East Bay justice activist Phil Lawson was on hand for a workshop by the Black Alliance for Immigration Justice.


Urban Caucus treasurer Diane Pollard delivered the budget news.


After her keynote speech, Eva Jefferson Paterson of the Equal Justice Society chatted with new friends.


Young members reported what they'd learned from visits to Oakland organizations.


Old friends -- the Rev. Anna Lange-Soto and Bishop Nedi Rivera -- mugged for the camera.


Meanwhile a reporter from the Institute on Religion & Democracy was on hand to record the activities of these dangerous peacemakers. Despite his evident distress, no one molested him. The IRD is a right wing funded initiative to stamp out interpretations of the Gospel in mainline churches that lead to justice activism and full inclusion of all Christians in the life of the church.

Walking the way toward peace

The Assembly of the Episcopal Urban Caucus is meeting in Oakland this year. The Urban Caucus are folks who affirm that loving our neighbors means struggling for justice and peace in the world -- and also, in their own words, hope to "hold the feet of the Episcopal Church to the fire of social justice." My kind of people; disturbers of the comfortable and complacent. It is a privilege to be part of this meeting this year.



Not surprisingly, this bunch has marched against U.S. wars til their feet ache and them some. Thursday night we assembled for worship at St. Paul's Church in Oakland and brought some of the boots from the American Friends Service Committee's exhibit Eyes Wide Open with us. Each pair of boots is tagged with the name of a U.S. serviceperson who died in Iraq.



Sergeant John E. Allen of Palmdale is not coming back.



Neither are over one million Iraqis. The number is so vast, the human suffering so incalculable, the mind and heart cannot absorb it.





After dark, we stood alongside the boots and prayed for all the victims of war.



How long will the people of the United States remain complicit in wars of choice, wars of conquest? How long must we walk and vigil and hold on to hope and love? How long?

Campaign snark And a little observed truth

Will the refreshments be this:



or this?



The question is prompted by this:

Solis Doyle [Hillary Clinton's deposed campaign manager] has developed a reputation for mucking around in the weeds, insisting upon signing off on even low-level decisions, such as where to hold a minor event and whether bagels or donuts should be served. (That's not a hypothetical.)

Michelle Cottle in TNR via Obsidian Wings

I've long had a theory about this.

If the campaign is run by labor and the volunteers are working class people, there will be donuts.

If the campaign is run by community advocates and recruits the employees of non-profit organizations, there will be bagels.

If the fare is something like this,



the campaign has foundation funding.

/snark off.

Why superdelegates might desert Clinton

Ron Fournier of the Associated Press has written a damning catalogue of why many superdelegates might be willing to turn away from Hillary Clinton's candidacy. The 796 superdelegates are the Democratic muckety-mucks -- elected officials and party stalwarts -- who have automatic seats at the Party convention. They are not bound by the primary process. Since the margin in elected delegate votes between Clinton and Obama is so small, if neither aces the few remaining primaries, their votes might decide the contest. Since many are old time Party hacks, it is easy to assume they'll back the known quantity, Hillary Clinton -- unless they decide not to.

Please note: not one of Fournier's list of why some Party leaders might want to migrate from Clinton to Obama arises from her being a woman. She's smart, she's qualified, she has an admirable command of the issues of state. It is easy to imagine her as President.

Her potential problems with the super delegates instead arise from her great asset: Bill. She can't get the boost she derives from appreciation for her husband's Presidency and not also carry the burden of some of his the unattractive residue of that era.

What follow are some of the reasons that Fournier puts forward for why superdelegates might abandon Clinton (bold text quotes Fournier) and my reflections on them. Indeed, I carry some animus against Bill Clinton myself, so I've added one of my own.

• Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda. Yes -- and NAFTA not only led to the loss of thousands of U.S. industrial jobs, it also killed off Mexican farming that could not compete with U.S. corporate agriculture. Thousands of desperate former peasants now wash our dishes and build our subdivisions. I don't blame these migrating workers for coming where the work is, but we in the U.S. find ourselves unable to formulate a sensible, humane immigration process. Meanwhile hate-filled nativists in the U.S. thrive. This situation is a byproduct of Clinton's "free trade" obsession.

• Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign. Yes -- "welfare reform" is a particularly noxious leaving from the previous Clinton era. In order to combat the charge that the government coddled bloodsucking free loaders (always pictured inaccurately as lazy Black women), Bill Clinton signed a punitive Republican measure that tore up the safety net for poor women with kids. Worked fine for Bill: welfare was not an issue in the 1996 campaign. As for the women, who knows? Part of the funding the "reform" cut off was money to research what happened to families in poverty. Those welfare women were simply disappeared with the assistance of a Democratic president.

• Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons ...The 1990s were the heyday of Democratic political candidates who ran campaigns without much need for or attention to the party organization. This was a product of the broadcast TV era; if you could raise enough money in big chunks to buy enough ads, who needed the messy, participatory clutter of committees and demanding cranks? Consultants made a killing and party organs -- the ongoing arena of grassroots, small "d" democracy -- atrophied. Democrats then fell into the Karl Rove/George W wilderness. I can well imagine that many up and coming Party leaders don't want to go back to those sad days.

• Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Think embarrassed squirming. The Republican impeachment was an attack on the democratic system, but Bill Clinton's self-indulgence undermined not only his marriage, but the hopes of millions who elected him. Nobody wants to remember any of that.

• Here's a reason for a superdelegate to walk that is mine: some superdelegates remember betrayals of LGBT Democrats. Bill Clinton cultivated gay leadership when running for office. His election felt like deliverance in communities ravaged by AIDS: finally there was a president who would talk about the epidemic. Yet within months he caved to the military on the "don't ask; don't tell" policy. Later, he signed on to the misnamed Defense of Marriage Act. Obama can be wishy-washy on gay concerns, but he represents a generation for whom these anti-gay relics of another time are simply not an issue.

• And some just want something new. They appreciate the fact that Clinton was a successful president and his wife was an able partner, but they never loved the couple as much as they feared them. Novelty isn't everything -- but even superdelegates can want to make a new beginning.

Electoral math -- delegates and states won -- should decide the Democratic contest. But all these human and issue factors will also creep into hundreds of individual superdelegate decisions in the days ahead if neither Obama nor Clinton pulls decisively ahead.

Peace breaking out? -- not quite

Baghdad Observer -- McClatchy journalist Leila Fadel -- reports that the Iraqi Presidency Council's website was hacked by someone who doesn't think much of the current authorities. The site has since been repaired.

But for some period, the main page (shown above), instead of offering government news, read "Defaced." The hacker protests the new flag and anthem imposed by the U.S.-supported rulers.

The hacker asks, "A question; what are you doing for the country besides theft, looting and killing the people? ...

"Mention one thing that you did and the people will say 'God have mercy on the government's parents.' Of course you know very well that Iraqis are dying by the thousands. If one person died from the parliament or the ministries wouldn't the world turn upside down? Wouldn't it?

"You left militias and the problems of the country and came to the symbol of Iraq, the Iraqi flag, and changed it. This is the flag that we raise everywhere and we are proud of it. This is the one we used to wrap our martyrs who sacrificed their souls for the sake of this country. ...

"... the ones who sabotaged the site are Iraqis and we belong to our country not to anyone else.

"We know very well that this will not change anything but we are expressing the feelings of all Iraqis...Hopefully consciences will awaken."

Not a happy camper there. Maybe the war will go on for Senator McCain's 100 years.

We've been warned ...

Graph derived from U.S. Census 2006 Economic Survey. Via Wikipedia.

All too often I get pieces of what I think of as "investment spam," email newsletters that promise me the secrets of easy wealth. Mostly they go straight to my spam folder and I never read them. But today one piqued my curiousity: "Republicans & Hillary On Track To Lose Election".

The Democratic primary season has brought out the partisan pseudo-pundit in this purveyor of get rich quick nostrums.

By around 9:00 this evening, Barack Obama should be the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination. ...

... Here's the way the next few months play out, in my opinion. On the Republican side, John McCain has two problems. One, he has to reach out to the conservative base, as he did last week, and try to make the case that he is a real conservative. But two, he has to somehow move to the center to keep his independent voters onboard at some point. I don't know how he does both. ...

Finally, Be Careful What You Wish For!
No doubt, many conservatives, and indeed a growing number of Democrats, would like nothing more than to see Obama take out Hillary, with no return of the Clintons to the White House. But those who are cheering Obama on had better realize just what they're in for if he becomes our next president.

... Obama has proposed eliminating the earnings cap on Social Security taxes - read raise taxes - now set at the first $102,000 of income. Those earning $102,000 or more would get an immediate tax increase, so the "wealthy" would become those earning just over $100,000 a year. ...

Obama's higher income taxes will come at a time when the US economy is very possibly in a recession. Have we not learned the lesson that you don't raise taxes in a time of recession; just the opposite, that the best medicine for a recession is tax cuts? I guess not if you are Barack Obama (or Hillary). Unfortunately, most American voters don't think these issues through, and Obama knows it.

Final emphasis added.

The deeply oligarchic inclinations of this writer, and his party, leak through the talking points. There is no evidence that giving more money to people who don't need it (cutting taxes) does anything for the overall health of an economy already hampered by inequality.

But apparently this guy is sure that the 83 percent of us who live in households bringing in less than $100,000 don't know what is good for us. Unfortunately for the Republicans, we do vote and after seven years of the Bush disaster, we know we want CHANGE.

Now whether the Dems can deliver change, there's a question -- but meanwhile we can enjoy watching plutocratic Republicans squirm.

UPDATE: For a clear witted summary of what economic inequality is doing to the well-being of all of us by a guy, Robert Reich, who really does know what he is talking about, see this. He even suggests remedies.

War will remain front and center

So it sucks that the Republican nominee will be McCain -- because the others were just transparent clowns, while this guy once survived some tough stuff and therefore can't be entirely laughed off.

A former Congressional staffer answers what has always been my most important question about Presidential hopefuls: could the aspirant hold on to a sense of proportion if we experience another 9/11 event?

... Hillary, like Obama, is a measured, cautious, deliberative and collegial person who does not dive into a swimming pool unless she is sure it is filled with water.

John McCain is considered by his colleagues to be the #1 hothead in Congress. Disagree with him and he rages at you. Piss him off and your life isn't worth living. He acts before he thinks. That is who he is.

The idea of John McCain making decisions in the wake of an attack on this country or even a threatened attack is terrifying.

Not encouraging testimony.

But for the peace movement, having McCain as the Republican nominee may not be the worst thing that could happen. Carrying on the Iraq war to "victory" (what on earth would that be?) is his only real talking point. So either Democrat and all the party base will keep on bashing him about the war. It simply won't be good politics for either Democrat to run away from the issue. And that keeps the problem of ending the war front and center with a public that wants this adventure over.

Do we have to fear that some Democrats will be chicken-hearted about taking the war issue to McCain? Sure. But even morally bankrupt arguments from the premise that the war was "fought incompetently" keep the issue on the front burner. Here's a specimen from the Democratic National Committee:



Meanwhile, serious war opponents will keep up a drum beat branding McCain as the nutcase warmonger he is. We have to. And we have a lot of creativity and energy. Here's an early example of that kind of attack on McCain.



The peace movement can be heard in a Presidential election containing McCain. Keep shouting.

Campaign tidbit: The whole world is watching, mostly

In front of a Tokyo electronics store, Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2008. (AP Photo/Katsumi Kasahara)

As I've discussed here, much of the world feels it has to watch this long spectacle. While listening to BBC radio, I hear interest, some bafflement, and occasional wild misunderstandings of our idiosyncratic process. The net provides lots of opportunities to see how others see us. Here are a few.

• Watching America tracks print media in English all over the world. As I write, the lead headline is from Ahram in Egypt: "Special Interests Determine U.S. Presidential Elections".

• If your preferred news fodder comes from blogs, Global Voices has teamed with Reuters to offer Voices without Votes. Just now, a South African blog is discussing a prediction by author Doris Lessing that Obama "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him". Article is here.

• Al Jazeera reprints a blog post by Raed Jarrar concluding the whole show is just a farce.

  ... all the "frontrunners" or "mainstream" and "electable" candidates from the two ruling parties have exactly the same interventionist foreign policy and different versions of horrible domestic policies.
  
  They fight over different tactics of the same strategy. Some of them want to stay in Iraq to "kill the bad guys", and others want to stay there to "save Iraqis from themselves".
  
  There is not even minor discussion about restoring the US's deteriorating individual freedoms."

• On the Al-Jazeera site itself, you can take part in their poll on U.S. presidential hopefuls. On the unreliable evidence of this self-selected sample, it looks like more Republican than Democratic supporters are tracking Al Jazeera. Curious.

***
As a corrective to all the obsessing here and elsewhere about the U.S. campaign, it was great to get an email this morning from a friend who has retreated somewhere that really does enable her to escape the big show.

I enjoy the fact that, here in Zanzibar, the US is so far off center stage that it only merits an occasional article or two in the local newspapers--mostly about Iraq plus some human interest stories of the "would you believe" variety.

We can be counted on to provide lots of that "would you believe" stuff.

What's the problem?

I have recently enjoyed Bill Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything, an effort to report the state of scientific knowledge as it existed in 2002 about -- well -- nearly everything. Here's a "once over lightly" tour from the Big Bang through the mysteries of life. The book combats our innumeracy and tells the delightful story of the eccentricities of men (mostly) of science. Not surprisingly, scientific experts have pointed to factual quibbles and even this scientifically illiterate reader knows that some of our understandings have changed in the half decade since (!). But perfect accuracy is not what this book is about -- this is about conveying the scope and wonder of what humans know about the universe, the planet, life and ourselves. At the scale of this project, a few wrong details detract hardly at all. It's a great read.

While listening to Bryson's book (I read this as an audiobook while trudging across the country), I couldn't help reflecting on the supposed "war" between religion and science. I just don't get it.

Why, from the scientific side, should advancing awareness of the improbable (to human animals) immensity and apparent randomness of the universe and its inmates preclude the existence of God? If God is, it is not likely that we understand God perfectly, any more than we understand the universe perfectly. But, as with our insights into the universe, we might get inklings of something greater and grander than what we understand.

Why, from the religious side, must our concept of God preclude the sheer wonder of what we humans are equipped to learn? Who are we to draw a tight little line around what God might do/be/make of the immensity and apparent randomness of the universe and its inmates?

Beats me.

Obama on immigration

Signs in San Francisco's Mission district.

Marisa Trevino at LatinaLista has up a guest post from Barack Obama on immigration issues. It is long and thoughtful. The candidate has also participated in the comments. Here's a bit from a follow up he made:

... I know that families should be at the core of the debate on immigration. We must realize that in order to fix our broken immigration policy, we must bring people from out of the shadows and provide a pathway to legalization. I also believe that any immigration reform bill that is proposed and does not focus on the reunification of families is missing the mark. It is for this reason that during the summer of 2007, I proposed an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that gave points to those who seek to immigrate and already have family in the United States. I continue to believe that comprehensive immigration reform is crucial and I have pledged to address this issue within my first year as President. It may not be politically convenient or easy, but we have to treat this problem with the urgency it demands. I stood with those calling for comprehensive reform when I marched on May 1, 2005 in Chicago, and I will stand with them as President.

Go read the whole thing.

For me, Obama's emphasis on families cuts to the heart of the discussion of what will become of the United States' huge undocumented low wage work force. Most of these folks are part of families, some of whom have papers, some of whom don't. Many have children who are citizens. Immigration is about families as much as about workers.

Primaries are different

Poll worker Albert Shaw applies a sticker on the coat of a voter on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

Primaries are different. I, for one, make voting choices during a primary on a very different basis than I use during the general election. In a primary, I let myself vote my hopes and my personal warm fuzzy feelings. In the general election, I practice pragmatic citizenship -- usually I hold my nose and revert to the choice of the "least worst" in the words of a friend's 6-year old.

San Francisco used to hold November elections that were really primaries -- unless someone got more that 50 percent there would be a run off. In those days, I got to vote for some wonderful choices for mayor: a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence and Jello Biafra, among others. Then in the next round, I'd dutifully vote for the responsible choice (unless it was Dianne Feinstein).

Now that the Democratic hopefuls have managed to arrive at pretty much a tie in the country at large, I'm afraid that the primary season is about to lose its pleasure. After the long Bush-NeoCon-KnowNothing regime we've been enduring, up to now the campaign has been fun -- as chance for disheartened voters to savor three and then two attractive candidates who offered different flavors of hope for a better country. What's not to like?

But now that we're down to the tied twosome, the season begins to demand more of a pragmatic response. We'll feel called upon to vote "responsibly". We'll have to ask ourselves which of these people will be most likely to stomp that odious panderer to the Right masquerading as a maverick that the Republicans have chosen to nominate?

A discussion of Clinton and Obama framed around our opinions concerning "electability" is not going to be pretty. It's guaranteed to undercover the underside of our national psyche, our racism and our sexism. Folks are going to say ugly stuff and think they are peddling political analysis. I'll probably do this myself.

Let's try to remember that we're all yearning to replace the monstrous people and profiteers who have been running the country. And we can only start doing that together.

Wisdom

I'm spending a few days at a New Organizing Institute training for folks who work for non-profits. We're getting exposure to lot of people who have explored various techy ways to get folks moving for peace, progress and other things people need.

Biko Baker of the League of Young Voters dropped one of the best pithy comments I've ever heard:

Non-profits don't know what winning looks like -- they just know what working looks like.

Yes. That fits too many non-profits I have known.

Baker photo is a couple of years old, grabbed from here.

Primary election day in the Mission

Been there -- done that. At 7:45 a.m., I was the only one there. Mysteriously, the lobby smelled strongly of marijuana.


Hope turnout goes up as the day goes on. This is supposed to be a record setting day.


The partisans had tacked up their last flyers 100 feet away.





Yes -- I voted for Obama. That became inevitable when Edwards dropped out. I've seen Clintons; I didn't like the first one (above all else because of his cave on welfare); I don't want another one.

But by voting for Obama, I don't say I'm supporting Obama. I'm supporting values of democracy, some equity, some decency and more rule of law through a blunt instrument that is available to me. Oh yes, Obama's a good one. But Presidents are what we, the people, make them. Should we be so fortunate as to get a President Obama, we'll have to stay on his case and push for a different, better country. Nothin' else to do.

Oil companies like to make friends

When Rudi Giuliani dropped out, big oil lost its #1, the Presidential candidate in which it had the largest investment.

Nonetheless some other candidates have done pretty well at raking in oil company cash for their campaigns.

More at Oil Watchdog. These figures are from the September 2007 disclosure filings. I imagine the totals are a good deal higher now.

Campaign tidbits: Impressions of the California Latino vote

According to many recent polls, by considerable margins, California Latinos prefer Hillary Clinton.

The New York senator leads Obama 3-to-1 among Hispanics, according to a recent survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

San Francisco Chronicle
January 25, 2008

I have no poll data, but I have some experience turning out Latino voters and I've been asking questions of people who are working on doing just that. Some observations:

• Clinton is clearly targeting the Latino segment of the electorate. She's making the right visits, leaning on surrogates like Dolores Huerta, Antonio Villaraigosa, and the United Farm Workers Union. People like to have attention paid to them, particularly if they are used to being ignored. She should do well among Latinos.

• Meanwhile, Obama has his own emissaries to Latino voters, notably Maria Elena Durazo, the leader of the Los Angeles Labor Council which has outstandingly prioritized organizing low wage immigrant, largely Latino, workers. His Kennedy family endorsements are also likely to carry some weight. Many immigrant households still display portraits of JFK as the iconic good American president. (I know, not my understanding of the guy, but I am just reporting what I have seen.)

• Clinton may also be hitting some notes that don't quite address California reality. She's running a TV ad that features Cesar L. Chavez talking about his grandfather. I suspect such appeals to the farm worker leader's legacy may not resonate as much as her people think. When the labor leader died, the buzz around the San Francisco Mission was: “Cesar Chavez? Oh, yeah, wasn't he a great boxer?” [Yes. Julio Cesar Chavez was a great boxer, at the time of the other Chavez's death, a world lightweight champion.] I routinely ask young Latinos whether they have heard of the United Farm Workers founder. Only the ones who have been taught about him in school seem to have a notion of his work. Many older folks, voters, may have less attachment to Chavez.

• In the past, polls have not been particularly good at capturing the sentiments of Latino voters. The most accurate polls employ interviewers who share culture with the interviewees -- in particular people who can distinguish polite agreement from real agreement. Because good polling requires skilled interviewers, it is expensive to carry out among minority segments of the electorate and frequently has not been done well. As a result, Latino voters surprised pollsters with the strength of their vote on some occasions in the 1990s. That said, I think the polling organizations are far better at conducting this difficult kind of opinion research today than they were ten years ago.

• I have an impression that many in the Latino electorate are "late deciders." Like a lot of people, they have other things to do besides think about politicians. Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) thinks this hurts Obama.

  “When you are washing dishes and waiting tables and are working these kinds of jobs, you don’t pick up Newsweek and find out the phenomenon about Barack Obama,” said Gutierrez, who says Latinos don’t know Obama.

  Politico

  Those of us who are political junkies have a hard time understanding how very many people, Latinos and non-Latinos, overworked and comfortably off, have paid no attention at all to this election we find so gripping. This inattention could actually work for Obama -- if a positive impression of him is coming into focus just as people vote, he could surpass expectations among late deciders.

• Obama has been solidly in favor of issuing drivers' licenses to the undocumented -- he has refused to be drawn into discussing this as anything more than a practical automotive safety measure. On this issue, Obama's stance is deeply in accord with California's Latino community where most every family has an uncle or niece who is out of status.

• Staff of some of the unions that actually organize low wage workers are busily working to raise turnout among their members, not for the presidential primary, but about several initiative measures. When I ask them who their members are leaning toward, they've confirmed the polling that Clinton is very strong. "The workers remember good times under Bill and they want that back," one told me.

• Columnist Ruben Navarette Jr, who is not someone I often find myself agreeing with, thinks a lot of the buzz about whether Latinos will vote for a Black man is actually white people playing out our racism. He points out that Latinos frequently have voted in great numbers for Black mayors of major cities -- how do we think David Dinkins or Harold Washington or Tom Bradley each won their city's top jobs? Voters who belong to any kind of minority are usually pretty pragmatic voters -- after all, being in a minority means discerning who that is not one of your own will be most likely to care for your interests. Navarette quips:

  Next thing you know, pundits are going to tell us that Latinos are too macho to elect a woman president.

Obligatory Super Bowl post

Germany and Italy about to bump heads in the 2006 World Cup.

I was amused to notice that Germans look at this near national holiday of ours and warn as follows:

Watching Football Is Hazardous to Your Health

Munich hospitals were fuller than usual during the 2006 World Cup. The reason? Passionate football fans were having an alarming number of heart attacks. A new study says it's all part of being a fan.

Have heart troubles? Then you might want to skip watching the Super Bowl this Sunday.

Der Spiegel

Well maybe. But I don't think they understand how often the ultimate game turns out to be an over-hyped yawner. Their "football" provides more suspense, usually.

This one may rise above that, but I am not expecting much. Still, rooting to see the perfect season - go Pats!

Ironic juxtapostion

This is a year when both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union address occur in the same week.

And, as it has been pointed out: "One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, while the other involves a groundhog."

The costs of the war

The two issues that people in the United States say worry them the most are the unending war in Iraq and the state of the economy. What if the peace movement could help people understand that both concerns are different sides of the same coin? We'd be a lot more ready to exert the pressure we must on our politicians.


US Labor Against the War is offering agitators an educational slideshow, downloadable or on DVD, called "The Real Price of the Iraq Occupation," It's a pretty good tool, though a little text heavy. See it here [flash link].


The American Friends Service Committee covers similar ground in "One Day = $720 Million," an attractive, less than two minute, presentation of what could be done with the money that goes into the Iraq war. Watch and weep.

Let's hammer these messages home during this election season.

Campaign tidbit: Local money

The primary season grinds on. We read reports that Clinton collected more cash than Obama in the 4th quarter of 2007 -- but Obama has pulled in $32 million in January. The mind reels.

I thought it would be fun to look at how the candidates are doing at raking in cash here in the San Francisco Mission district. There's a cool tool available online that let's you see who gave over $200 by street address and zip code. Close enough, though when I plug in 94110, I get most of Bernal Heights as well as the South Mission.

Here's what I learned: through the end of 2007, there had been 216 contributions to aspiring Presidents from the area. Only 18 went to Republicans, 14 of those to Ron Paul.

All the others, 198, went to Democrats in this distribution:

• Obama -- 87

• Clinton -- 65

• Edwards -- 35

• Other Democrats, mostly Kucinich with a few to Richardson -- 11

The tool doesn't easily let you pull totals, but impressionistically, it looks to me as if higher dollar amounts among Clinton's donors meant about equal takes from the area. She might even have brought in more, despite having less contributions.

Now I've lived here over 30 years and I know a lot of my neighbors, but the following impressions of who gave to whom could be just idle smoke blowing. Nonetheless I offer them.

• Folks active in the local Democratic party noticeably gave to Clinton. No surprise there; she's as close as we've got to an establishment candidate.

• Somebody swept through this area, and probably the whole city, organizing real estate agents to contribute to Clinton. They were quite generous.

• Senior nonprofit managers also put out for Clinton. Many of them are senior women who probably went through some struggles of their own to win their current prominence. Their support for this accomplished woman is not surprising.

• The most obvious group among the Obama supporters were public interest lawyers. Not really surprising, given his background.

It will be interesting to see how the area votes on Tuesday. I would expect Obama to take a majority, though early votes for Edwards will cut into his lead.

Go take a look at the Fundrace tool for your area and see who your more affluent neighbors are supporting.