toothpastefordinner.com
9 years ago
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Library Free Louisville
The Louisville Free Public Library recently was told by its patrons, the citizens of Louisville, that they did NOT want to support an increase in the occupational-tax to fund the library. It would have meant a "levy of two-tenths of 1 percent on the earnings of all workers in Jefferson County, and also on the net profits of all businesses in the county." That means that "a worker earning $38,000 a year would pay $76 a year to the library district." It would have "guaranteed that the library system an income stream and end its dependence on metro government for funding" (data from the Louisville Courier-Journal: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007710240814 ).
According to Joe Reagan, president of Greater Louisville Inc. (the metro chamber of commerce), Louisville spends only $24 a year per capita on the library system, compared with $66 in Cincinnati, $46 in Lexington and $42 in both Indianapolis and Nashville.
Well, on November 6, 2007, we Louisvillians apparently decided that we were just fine with stacking up sub-par with other cities of like size in our region. Once again, 66% of us voters decided for us all that we want Louisville to continue to uphold that lovely image of Kentucky as an illiterate, backwater, backwards, snake-holding, gun-toting, toothless, shoeless, tabacky-spitting, bourbon-guzzling, horse-gambling state. So now Director Craig Buthod and the rest of the Board of the Library Foundation have to decide what's "essential." So, like, does the library need all THREE volumes of Das Capital? Does your kid really need to read ALL the Nancy Drews? Come on, you know they're just gonna make the movie anyway...
More info here: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/NEWS01/711080413
Or, see how Jefferson County voted by precinct: http://datacenter.courier-journal.com/elections/2007/general/librarymap.png
Needless to say, my precinct voted NO at a rate of 65% - 75%. So WHY is the new library being built in our precinct????
Sucks ASS. And so does my precinct.
toothpastefordinner.com
According to Joe Reagan, president of Greater Louisville Inc. (the metro chamber of commerce), Louisville spends only $24 a year per capita on the library system, compared with $66 in Cincinnati, $46 in Lexington and $42 in both Indianapolis and Nashville.
Well, on November 6, 2007, we Louisvillians apparently decided that we were just fine with stacking up sub-par with other cities of like size in our region. Once again, 66% of us voters decided for us all that we want Louisville to continue to uphold that lovely image of Kentucky as an illiterate, backwater, backwards, snake-holding, gun-toting, toothless, shoeless, tabacky-spitting, bourbon-guzzling, horse-gambling state. So now Director Craig Buthod and the rest of the Board of the Library Foundation have to decide what's "essential." So, like, does the library need all THREE volumes of Das Capital? Does your kid really need to read ALL the Nancy Drews? Come on, you know they're just gonna make the movie anyway...
More info here: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/NEWS01/711080413
Or, see how Jefferson County voted by precinct: http://datacenter.courier-journal.com/elections/2007/general/librarymap.png
Needless to say, my precinct voted NO at a rate of 65% - 75%. So WHY is the new library being built in our precinct????
Sucks ASS. And so does my precinct.
toothpastefordinner.com
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Gil Scott Heron
One of the best songs ever.
So go on, switch off the tellie and go riot.
Those are MY holiday plans, anyway...
Saturday, December 15, 2007
King Dork
So, I just finished this excellent little book called King Dork. It was recommended and lent to me by my good friend Luke. It's sort of a spoof on-cum-paean to Catcher in the Rye. In a way, it's an updated version or interpretation of Catcher. It is, at the same time, an exploration of how Gen X- and Y-ers relate (or don't) to their Boomer hippie parents (something I can definitely get into). It also is--for me anyway--a fascinating peek into the brain of a 15 year old boy, as the 49.5% of the world with XY chromosomes tend to utterly baffle me much of the time. Furthermore, it is chock full of musical references, including a "Glossary of Terms" at the back of the book which includes many l.o.l. definitions of various bands and recording artists of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Finally, it is also the best ethnography of high school ever written. It is a quick read and highly recommended for anyone who (1) loves fiction
(2) was born between 1975 and 1990
(3) loves music
(4) feels they are a "nerd"
(5) knows and/or lives(lived) with hippies
(6) is or speaks Catholic
(7) has been or is a teenager
More info on the author, Frank Portman (who is also a member of the band The Mr. T Experience (MTX)), can be found here. Thanks for the recommendation, Luke!
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Family Ties
Even though my stepson totally would not get this joke, I really want to give him this t-shirt for Christmas:
You can find this inside joke from the 80s and so many more pop culture ways to waste your day here.
You can find this inside joke from the 80s and so many more pop culture ways to waste your day here.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
The Politics of Naming Genocide
I just turned in a final paper today for my Human Rights class. One of the essays in the paper answered (or at least attempted to address) the prompt, "Elaborate upon why the US declared events in Darfur a genocide and did not do so in Rwanda." Here is my response (aka tirade about how the United States has abandoned its moral mandate).
It seems fairly obvious to me that the reason the United States has so much invested in calling the current events in Darfur a genocide but not those of Rwanda in 1994 is for its own political reasons and not for any real concern about human rights violations or violence against innocents. What I mean is, Darfur is of such popular interest to the United States because it is seen through a “religious/cultural warfare” lens rather than an “African-on-African” lens. We, as Americans, and especially the United States government, finds it disturbingly simple and easy to ignore genocide or other human rights abuses in the continent of Africa (and other places where the “other” lives: where other brown, black, red, or yellow people are the majority) for the same reason it seems to ignore so many social problems here at home: namely, institutionalized racism. Part of the discourse of this racism includes such ideas as “blacks being blacks,” those violent savages that can’t help themselves slaughtering each other, et cetera. The general attitude that genocide or other human rights problems are things that happen to “the other”—which we discussed at length in class and which Makau Mutua discusses in his article “Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights”—is a form of Euro-ethnocentrism and racism, in the case of Rwanda.
Rwanda was a clear case of genocide, and, without getting into the problematic of ‘intent’ with regards to genocide, may I say that there was at least plenty of warning signs that a genocide could (and eventually did) occur. Yet the United States did not intervene. It continued to stay out of the genocide even after our then State Department spokesperson Mike McCurry himself described the events this way: “I think there was a strong disposition within the department here to view what has happened there [as a genocide]; certainly, constituting acts of genocide that have occurred....” Even though within 100 days some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were murdered, the United States continued to turn a blind eye. In short, although the United States clearly knew that the right thing to do was to intervene, it actually demanded the removal of United Nations troops and then sat on the sidelines, since there was no public outcry or political reason compelling them to do so.
It would seem to make sense, then, at first glance, for the Western, Eurocentric, tactically rather than morally inclined United States to dismissively group the Sudan (Bilad-al-sudan, literally “country of the blacks” ) with all the other poor, black, African savages. But the Sudan has an interesting exception which proves politically advantageous for the United States: Arabs! So we see the tactical, political reason to condemn the perpetrators of the genocide, the Janjaweed: it paints Arabs as criminals (which is actually true in the case of the Janjaweed) and further bolsters the solidity of the United States’ inflammatory and condemnatory discourse against the Arab world, which it keeps up in order to further strategic goals in the Middle East.
In further evidence that the American label “genocide” on the Darfur situation is purely political is the reality that we have nothing to lose by doing so. Unlike the case of Rwanda, naming Darfur’s reality a genocide does not commit us to any action, but it is, as I said, a useful and powerful rhetorical tool in our “war on terror” and our other discursive campaigns in our quest to maintain hegemony.
The same political reasons as well as implications for responsibility are evident in our linguistic pussy-footing around the issue of Iraq. As Mahmood Mamdani argues in his article, the similarities between Darfur and Iraq are striking, yet we (American mouthpieces: the media, the military) constantly refer to Iraq as an “insurgency” while we call Darfur a “genocide.” This is further evidence that the naming of conflicts by the United States is done so with purely political aims in mind, rather than the aims of truth and human rights. Well, not purely political, because if Iraq was called a genocide, it would carry implicit responsibility for the United States with it. In Darfur, there is no implication of responsibility. While we invaded Iraq and created its current problems, Darfur’s problems conveniently (for American strategists and politicians) have no direct causation with the United States, yet they relate perfectly to our discourse on terror and our implicit war on the Muslim world (I do not say Arab world, because we are also trying to attack Iran).
In conclusion, it is only for political and strategic reasons that the United States focuses its supposed moral compass on Darfur. Any real humanitarian concern is belied by the fact that the United States commits to nothing by slinging terms around, but does gain significant political currency for its appearance of humanitarian concern. In short, the United States is not only disingenuous, but negligent. And it is, as a significant state actor, not unique in this way, although our hegemony in terms of weaponry and veto power on the world stage is.
It seems fairly obvious to me that the reason the United States has so much invested in calling the current events in Darfur a genocide but not those of Rwanda in 1994 is for its own political reasons and not for any real concern about human rights violations or violence against innocents. What I mean is, Darfur is of such popular interest to the United States because it is seen through a “religious/cultural warfare” lens rather than an “African-on-African” lens. We, as Americans, and especially the United States government, finds it disturbingly simple and easy to ignore genocide or other human rights abuses in the continent of Africa (and other places where the “other” lives: where other brown, black, red, or yellow people are the majority) for the same reason it seems to ignore so many social problems here at home: namely, institutionalized racism. Part of the discourse of this racism includes such ideas as “blacks being blacks,” those violent savages that can’t help themselves slaughtering each other, et cetera. The general attitude that genocide or other human rights problems are things that happen to “the other”—which we discussed at length in class and which Makau Mutua discusses in his article “Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights”—is a form of Euro-ethnocentrism and racism, in the case of Rwanda.
Rwanda was a clear case of genocide, and, without getting into the problematic of ‘intent’ with regards to genocide, may I say that there was at least plenty of warning signs that a genocide could (and eventually did) occur. Yet the United States did not intervene. It continued to stay out of the genocide even after our then State Department spokesperson Mike McCurry himself described the events this way: “I think there was a strong disposition within the department here to view what has happened there [as a genocide]; certainly, constituting acts of genocide that have occurred....” Even though within 100 days some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were murdered, the United States continued to turn a blind eye. In short, although the United States clearly knew that the right thing to do was to intervene, it actually demanded the removal of United Nations troops and then sat on the sidelines, since there was no public outcry or political reason compelling them to do so.
It would seem to make sense, then, at first glance, for the Western, Eurocentric, tactically rather than morally inclined United States to dismissively group the Sudan (Bilad-al-sudan, literally “country of the blacks” ) with all the other poor, black, African savages. But the Sudan has an interesting exception which proves politically advantageous for the United States: Arabs! So we see the tactical, political reason to condemn the perpetrators of the genocide, the Janjaweed: it paints Arabs as criminals (which is actually true in the case of the Janjaweed) and further bolsters the solidity of the United States’ inflammatory and condemnatory discourse against the Arab world, which it keeps up in order to further strategic goals in the Middle East.
In further evidence that the American label “genocide” on the Darfur situation is purely political is the reality that we have nothing to lose by doing so. Unlike the case of Rwanda, naming Darfur’s reality a genocide does not commit us to any action, but it is, as I said, a useful and powerful rhetorical tool in our “war on terror” and our other discursive campaigns in our quest to maintain hegemony.
The same political reasons as well as implications for responsibility are evident in our linguistic pussy-footing around the issue of Iraq. As Mahmood Mamdani argues in his article, the similarities between Darfur and Iraq are striking, yet we (American mouthpieces: the media, the military) constantly refer to Iraq as an “insurgency” while we call Darfur a “genocide.” This is further evidence that the naming of conflicts by the United States is done so with purely political aims in mind, rather than the aims of truth and human rights. Well, not purely political, because if Iraq was called a genocide, it would carry implicit responsibility for the United States with it. In Darfur, there is no implication of responsibility. While we invaded Iraq and created its current problems, Darfur’s problems conveniently (for American strategists and politicians) have no direct causation with the United States, yet they relate perfectly to our discourse on terror and our implicit war on the Muslim world (I do not say Arab world, because we are also trying to attack Iran).
In conclusion, it is only for political and strategic reasons that the United States focuses its supposed moral compass on Darfur. Any real humanitarian concern is belied by the fact that the United States commits to nothing by slinging terms around, but does gain significant political currency for its appearance of humanitarian concern. In short, the United States is not only disingenuous, but negligent. And it is, as a significant state actor, not unique in this way, although our hegemony in terms of weaponry and veto power on the world stage is.
Fascism: Coming Soon to a Homeland Near You
I saw this t-shirt on Cafe Press and thought it was pretty awesome (except for the inevitable typo). You can order your own here.
14 Early Signs of Fascism
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
And if your country begins to look like this, you have the duty as a lover of freedom and liberty for ALL (not some), including yourself, to go out and put a stop to it! Think for yourself, be educated, be cosmopolitan, read, travel, protest, trust, love, share, include. These are tactics feared by fascists.
14 Early Signs of Fascism
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
And if your country begins to look like this, you have the duty as a lover of freedom and liberty for ALL (not some), including yourself, to go out and put a stop to it! Think for yourself, be educated, be cosmopolitan, read, travel, protest, trust, love, share, include. These are tactics feared by fascists.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
werd nerd
I am a sucker for word humour. Check this out if you also row this canoe:
The Washington Post has published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words. And the winners are:
Thanks for Dad for sending these to me.
The Washington Post has published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words. And the winners are:
1. coffee, n. the person upon whom one coughs.
2. flabbergasted, adj. appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
3. abdicate, v. to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. esplanade, v. to attempt an explanation while drunk.
5. willy-nilly, adj. impotent.
6. negligent, adj. absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
7. lymph, v. to walk with a lisp.
8. gargoyle, n. olive-flavored mouthwash.
9. flatulence, n. emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. balderdash, n. a rapidly receding hairline.
11. testicle, n. a humorous question on an exam.
12. rectitude, n. the formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. pokemon, n. a Rastafarian proctologist.
14. oyster, n. a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. the belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.
16. circumvent, n. an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.
Thanks for Dad for sending these to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
