Last Throes

On The Prop 8 Ruling ...

2012-02-07T15:35:00.002-05:00

In light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Proposition 8 (unconstitutional), it's worth considering the case's outlook if it finds its way to the Supreme Court. I wrote about this last November when the California Supreme Court ruled on the case. Here is the link to that entry, "Proposition 8 and Justice Kennedy's Legacy." Bottom line: Justice Kennedy will likely cast the deciding vote which, for Prop 8 opponents, isn't a bad thing.

The Deficit Of Truth And Collectivity In Our Democracy

2012-02-06T20:58:00.000-05:00

Many Americans believe that we are all entitled to our opinions, no matter how uninformed, incorrect, or immoral they may be. That's democracy, love it or leave it.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that isn't how democracy works. In a democratic system of government, citizens have a duty to be well-informed and make decisions that benefit not only themselves, but the public as a whole. Self-government does not mean selfish government. And when citizens act in their self-interest, they should consider their interests not only as individuals, but as members of a community.

Many believe that things will simply come out in the wash, that democracy is a self-correcting system, and popularity of ideas is somehow tied to their validity. Yet they adopt this perverted version of the "marketplace of ideas" and use it as a way to abscond their civic duties. When people or politicians make decisions based on ignorance, selfishness, laziness, or bias, they affect the entire community. It is this faulty correlation between popularity and validity that allowed some of the worst injustices in American history to transpire.

Elected officials have been able to pursue the policies of slavery, segregation, imperialism, internment, McCarthyism, and the “war on terror” only with the support of the citizenry. Despicable viewpoints continue to serve as valid sides of “debates,” and sometimes result in formal policy. Consider some of the issues that have taken center stage over the past few years: Whether waterboarding is torture; whether global warming is real; whether Barack Obama is an American citizen, and; whether the 14^th Amendment should be repealed. We should be alarmed that any significant percentage of the population takes these ideas seriously enough that they dominate our national dialogue. These are not issues upon which reasonable minds can differ. The fact that Americans have adopted such deficient opinions illustrates their inability, or indeed unwillingness, to consider the facts or other viewpoints, much less put them into a context that extends beyond their own existence.

In our world of moral relativism, the concepts of truth, justice, ethics, and morality carry little weight. Gays can be persecuted and marginalized because of "religious convictions" or "traditional sensibilities." Laissez-faire economic policies prevail because people cling to the beliefs of pseudo-intellectuals like Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan; that everyone acting in their unfettered self-interest somehow creates the best outcome for society. The concept of freedom, in fact, no longer relates to individual liberation, but economic activity. People think the right to choose which big box store they shop at, or the right to smoke in restaurants, or the right to bring their guns into Starbucks are liberties that merit defending. Advocating for universal notions of justice merely inhibit their childhood fantasies and hillbilly indulgences. Never mind that they think access to affordable health care is a luxury, but their right to use incandescent light bulbs is a freedom worth fighting for.

A growing number of uninformed, yet politically active, citizens are advocating positions and supporting candidates based on falsehoods, hatred, or no information at all. This poses a direct threat to our democracy. The “marketplace of ideas” isn't self-correcting, if it exists at all. The citizenry must acquire the information necessary to make informed decisions on matters that affect the community, and base their decisions with regard to the welfare of the community. A democracy is a collective undertaking, not simply a collection of people motivated by self-interest. If we fail to embrace the basic concepts of truth and collectivity, we will continue to bolster the anti-democratic elements of our society, and pave the way for demagogues and dictators.

In American Politics, Who Represents The Interests Of The Poor?

2012-01-27T18:03:00.002-05:00

As President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech, he made a rather obvious omission: confronting the issue of poverty in America. This is, in fact, one of the great tragedies of the day. As Democrats and Republicans vie for control of Washington, their failure to address the plight of the poor has created a deafening silence.

More than 49 million Americans, 16 percent of the population, lived in poverty last year. Nearly the same number of Americans received SNAP benefits (food stamps). One in four mortgages are expected to be foreclosed by the end of the housing crisis. These numbers illustrate the obvious: poverty should be a top priority for our elected officials, and a defining issue for the coming election. So why won't either party use the p-word?

Given the sad state of our country's affairs, politicians are focused more on deflecting responsibility for the mess than providing solutions that reflect the reality of the situation. They've chosen to devote their energy to maintaining power, rather than assisting the most vulnerable members of our communities. This is an unforgivable dereliction, given that, at this exact moment, fighting poverty is one of the only acts that is truly in the public interest.

The poor are pushed to the peripheries of society where they are left to be forgotten. They live in violent urban areas or neglected rural slums. Children attend schools segregated usually by race, but always by class. With their stories untold, the plight of the poor remains an abstraction to the vast majority of Americans. We take solace in our superficial participation in food and clothing drives, so long as we avoid actual contact with the recipients of our donations. Politicians offer the poverty class scraps. They virtually ensure the poor will remain dependent upon anemic social programs and socially immobile, while the underlying policies (or lack thereof) that created such extreme inequalities are left intact.

The presidential candidates from both major political parties, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, certainly hope to see benefits from their policies trickle down to the poor. Their platforms are, however, tailored for distinct classes, and essentially ignore the destitution that one in six Americans face. While President Obama alludes to the issue of poverty, he and his fellow Democrats devote their attention to the middle class. Both Obama and the Democratic Party's websites continually refer to "strengthening the middle class," and "middle-class security." The final paragraph on the Democrats' "Economy and Job Creation" page is especially telling:

Democrats stand for the values of hard work and responsibility, and we know that as a country we are most successful when we invest in our people—middle-class families and small business owners—who can grow our economy from the bottom up (emphasis added).

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, on the other hand. advocate on behalf of the wealthiest Americans. They are utterly indifferent to the poor, much less the middle class. Case in point: on his official website, Romney refers to workers as "human capital."

Thus, we are left with a party that advocates for the rich and a party that advocates for the middle class, yet no party that represents the interests of the poor. Instead of acting on the moral imperative to eliminate poverty, our elected officials have turned a blind eye. After all, in a political system where donations determine representation, what do the poor have to offer?

A Song for the Evening ...

2012-01-25T23:22:00.001-05:00

'MmmHmm,' by Flying Lotus.

Is The PIPA Battle Really A Lesson In Activism?

2012-01-21T12:54:00.000-05:00

Amid public backlash, the Senate and House have postponed votes on controversial anti-piracy legislation. The Senate was expected to hold a procedural vote on the Protect IP Act (PIPA), while the House was supposed to do the same with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). As opposition mounted, congressional members began to withdraw their support of the bills, and ultimately delayed any action on the legislation for the time being. Elected officials were inundated with calls and petitions in opposition to the acts, while dozens of prominent websites participated in an internet blackout to protest the bills.

Many credit Americans' activism with the shelving of the bills. The narrative has it that the little guys beat back media conglomerates and prevented the passage of legislation that would stifle free speech and expression, and alter the core functions of the web (which the acts would in fact do). Indeed, SOPA and PIPA are the products of massive lobbying efforts by the Motion Pictures Association of America and other traditional media outlets to protect their business interests. And the millions who voiced their opposition to the acts have likely influenced the debate to a certain degree. Let's not, however, forget the influence that major players from “new media” have had.

Google, Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, Twitter, AOL, Wikipedia, YouTube, and eBay were some of the most prominent organizations to voice their opposition to SOPA and PIPA. They collected petition signatures, disseminated information on the bills, persuaded Americans to call their elected officials, and generally helped bring the debate about the anti-piracy bills to the forefront. And they have every interest to do so. Their profits are in many ways dependent upon the defeat of these acts. They had to take action for the survival of their companies, much less the championing of free speech. This was a fight not only between traditional and new media, but for the survival of many tech giants.

The fact that numerous members of Congress withdrew their support for SOPA and PIPA may, in fact, not be due to the outcry of the American people, but the media conglomerates, juridical "people," who have money to contribute and influence to wield. Deep-pocketed companies like Google and Facebook, and politicians gearing up for re-election, may have found a shared purpose in defeating these bills: self-preservation.

In our post-Citizens United world, the individual takes a backseat to the corporation, especially when it comes to the functioning of our political system. While the outpouring of millions of Americans in the PIPA fight was certainly heartening, it may not be the testament to civic engagement that so many hoped it would be. Politics operates within a closed system. Influence is dictated by money. Legislation is written by industries. Agencies are controlled by the entities they are supposed to regulate. In modern American politics, the average citizen is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The fight over SOPA and PIPA is far from over. As the drama unfolds, the best way to get to the truth is simple: follow the money. The outcome will likely not be dictated by the body politic, but the industry that proves it is more important to the re-election bids of our politicians.

To Elaborate ...

2012-01-14T15:41:00.001-05:00

You can get with this...

Or you can get with that...

Technological Advancements Pose New Challenges For DJs

2012-01-13T17:54:00.002-05:00

DJing isn't what it used to be. Vinyl and CDs are nearly dead. They've been replaced by DJ controllers, DVS systems, and digital interfaces. These devices have improved significantly since their introduction, and made converts out of even the most stubborn of DJs. Such technological advancements, however, create serious questions about the future of DJing. From the death of tried and true mediums, de-skilling of the craft, changes in performance expectations, to rampant planned obsolescence of equipment, the DJ space is in flux. And that has left many DJs, including myself, pretty nervous.

I began DJing in 2001. I maxed out my credit card to buy my first equipment: a Stanton STR8-80, a Stanton SK-6 mixer, and a Boss drum machine. I stayed in my bedroom practicing for hours. I dug in the crates of local record shops, practiced routines from how-to vhs tapes (and eventually DVDs), tried to mimic scratches routines from my favorite songs, and scoured internet chat boards for tips. I upgraded my rig when Numark released the TTXs, and began beat juggling, mixing, and developing DJ sets.

I was heavily invested as a scratch DJ. I was on my decks for at least 40 hours a week for six straight years. I began DJing in a band, at weddings, and performing solo gigs as well. In the spring of 2007, I sprang for one the most amazing products: Rane Serato Scratch Live. I was making pretty good money and wanted to be able to access my digital music collection. It was a perfect fit. With the digital vinyl system (DVS), I could embrace technology while staying true to my roots.

Then came reality. I was able to continue DJing through my undergrad years without much interference. But I made the decision to go to grad school. I scaled back my setup and sold my DVS. I temporarily retired from DJing, save for the sporadic sessions that helped immensely with stress release during exam periods.

After graduating, I decided to get back in the game. I began surveying the DJ landscape, and found that Traktor Scratch Pro had become a formidable opponent to Serato. When I first observed Traktor, I felt completely lost. I didn't understand, nor particularly enjoy, the methods, sounds, and equipment that the DJs who were demoing the products were using. I was used to the old way of mixing, in which you had two physical decks, transitioned between songs by mixing them together, and added a few scratches and beat juggles throughout the set. That was essentially it. The DJs in the videos (extremely talented, to be sure) had external controllers, drum machines, instant cue points, effects, loops, and samples, all running through a single interface. They hardly needed their decks. I was very confused.

But I kept reading. Eventually, after about a month, I got it. In fact, I loved it. I figured that I would just use the software in concert with my traditional techniques, and all would be fine.

My plan failed. For the record, I bought Traktor Scratch Pro 2. One "optional" feature of Traktor, and a controversial one at that, is the sync button. This button has caused much debate among the DJ community. Some say it allows DJs to push boundaries now that they don't have to beat match by ear. Others say it allows anyone to become a DJ with the press of a button. And still others say that it is merely a feature that DJs don't have to use if they don't want to. The problem with that last argument is that the sync button is located next to the software's primary visual cue: the sound wave. It is nearly impossible to ignore. And I've begun to use it. In fact, I've hardly beat matched by ear since I bought Traktor. And, frankly, I'm ashamed of that. Yes, I use cue points, loops, effects, and push the boundaries of my song selections. But the sync button serves as a safety net that allows me to do so. I'm definitely not doing the old A to B routine. But I'm still torn over my use of sync.

With my Numarks getting a little long in the tooth, I decided to look into replacing my turntables. I was shocked to find out that Technics had stopped making its infamous 1200's. And now I've been pondering whether turntables, and scratching, are going the way of the dinosaurs. I've also found virtually no blogs or dedicated sites for turntablism. Could the art that I've invested countless hours into eventually be replaced by (gasp!) dinky controllers with jog wheels and buttons?

Perhaps the transformation of DJing is just a sign of the times. The world moves at a faster pace than it did when I began, and people are under constant sensory overload by media, television, and the like. Thus, they naturally demand more from a DJ than simple mixes. We also live in a culture of instant gratification. People want everything to be accessible, and to become proficient at tasks without much effort. The sync button, then, seems an inevitable development. Moreover, in an era where corporate power is at its peak, and the drive to push down prices is of utmost importance, is it any wonder that the unbreakable 1200's are being replaced by flimsy plastic controllers and software that requires continuous (and expensive) upgrades?

None of this is, of course, news to DJs who have been around for the last decade. Yes, we can "vote" with our purchases and provide feedback to the hardware and software producers. We can also continue to support the old mediums of vinyl and even CDs. Yet odds are, whether we like it or not, we'll be beholden to the new technology, or left behind.

Interesting Statistics From The Iowa Caucuses

2012-01-04T22:03:00.000-05:00

Here are some numbers that should help to put last night's caucuses into perspective. Three quick observations: First, not many people participated. Second, Mitt Romney made virtually no progress with voters in four years. Finally, the only people who truly scored victories were Ron Paul, who more than doubled his votes from 2008, and Rick Santorum, who nearly won despite being a deplorable human being. Even then, they had strong showings in a fairly unrepresentative event. See for yourself:

Population of Iowa: 3,046,355
Number of eligible voters in Iowa: 2,250,423
Number of 2008 Republican caucus voters: 118,696
Number of 2008 Democratic caucus voters: 236,000
Number of 2012 Republican caucus voters: 122,255
Number of 2012 Democratic caucus voters: 25,000
Number and percentage of votes received by Mitt Romney in 2008: 30,021; 25%
Number and percentage of votes received by Mitt Romney in 2012: 30,015; 25%
Number and percentage of votes received by Ron Paul in 2008: 11,481; 10%
Number and percentage of votes received by Ron Paul in 2012: 26,219; 21%
Number and percentage of eligible voters who voted in caucuses in 2008: 354,355; 16.1%
Number and percentage of eligible voters who voted in caucuses in 2012: 147,255; 6.5%

A Song for the Evening ...

2012-01-04T20:56:00.001-05:00

Darondo's 'Didn't I.'

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself ...

2012-01-04T19:25:00.003-05:00

Via the Star Tribune, San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich on T-Wolves' Ricky Rubio and other international players adjusting to life in America:

"These guys, they travel around the world. They're more cultured than we are. Everyone acts like Americans are the ones. We have sort of an arrogance about us. Like we're the cultured ones? Are you serious? Have you watched TV lately? Have you seen what Americans do? How many languages do you speak? And you wonder how they're going to adjust to our culture? I hope they avoid it and keep their own!"

Sign The Petition In Support Of Sen. Sanders' Efforts To Overturn Citizens United

2012-01-04T16:24:00.000-05:00

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a constitutional amendment that will overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and prevent corporate money from flowing freely and anonymously into our elections. Below is the link to the petition, a link to the PDF version of the amendment, and video of a speech by Senator Sanders explaining the amendment.

Link to the Petition

PDF of the Resolution

Republican Nomination Process A Triumph Of Collective Amnesia

2012-01-03T20:46:00.000-05:00

Today Iowa Republicans will choose the winner of the state's presidential caucuses. They, as well as voters in the upcoming Republican primaries, will cast their votes in support of not only their preferred candidate, but a counter-narrative of recent American history that seeks to conceal the injustices that have been carried out against millions of Americans. The nomination process is a triumph of collective amnesia, whereby voters ignore self-evident truths in an attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility that they have for the country's downward spiral.

Republican voters will go to the polls and disregard their complicity in the American-led wars that have raged over the last decade. They will, in fact, likely vote for a candidate who advocates a new war with Iran. They will ignore their support for the Bush Administration, and the "war on terror" that projected unbridled state power inward and against American citizens. They will disregard the causes of the financial crisis, and beg for more of the same. Most importantly, they will ignore the plight of millions of Americans who fell victim to these policies.

Republican voters have adopted a collective identity of disremembrance. They will cast their ballots steadfastly, yet irrespective of history, and vote to solidify the denial of justice that has come to symbolize America. They will choose the candidate best-suited to promote their counter-narrative, enable them to dispose of all guilt and, above all else, forget.

Great Conversation With Chris Hedges

2012-01-02T13:38:00.002-05:00

C-SPAN goes in depth with Chris Hedges, covering his body of work, the failure of American liberalism, and the decline of the U.S. empire. Click on the link below to watch the full interview.

C-SPAN In Depth with Author and Journalist Chris Hedges

A Song To Bring In The New Year ...

2011-12-31T16:45:00.001-05:00

Colin Stetson, performing his song 'Judges.' Simply amazing.

President Obama Signs NDAA, Includes Signing Statement In Opposition To Indefinite Detention Of American Citizens

2011-12-31T16:14:00.001-05:00

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act this afternoon. He included a signing statement that specifically addresses one of the bill's most controversial provisions, which authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial. Below is the the full text of the President's statement, with the relevant excerpts highlighted.

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

Where Republicans and Democrats Unite: Stifling Dissident Voices Within Their Own Parties

2011-12-31T01:31:00.001-05:00

As GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul surges in the Iowa polls, his rivals have undertaken a concerted attack to ensure his defeat. Paul is certainly being targeted because he has a legitimate chance of winning the Iowa caucus. Yet his opponents aren't simply drawing policy distinctions between themselves and Paul. His opponents have deemed him unelectable. They've denounced his policies as dangerous. Newt Gingrich even questioned whether he would vote for Paul if he in fact won the GOP nomination. Their attacks have become increasingly vicious, and convey the seriousness of the threat that Paul poses to the GOP establishment.

Paul espouses ideas that are firmly rooted in the libertarian philosophy. He doesn't pick and choose his ideology like most of the GOP candidates who favor a mix of laissez-faire economics, broad government intervention into personal matters (marriage, abortion), and unfettered state power for matters involving national security and foreign policy. And that is why Paul poses such a threat to the Republican establishment. He is the only candidate to speak out against imperialism, monopolistic capitalism, and the assault on civil liberties stemming from the 'war on terror.' In other words, he has been fighting against his own party's platform, and the pet issues of its primary supporters.

Thus, Paul's opponents are attempting to marginalize him. The attacks on Paul are actually quite similar to those that the Democratic Party has mounted against liberal voices. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has frequently taken stances in opposition to his party, has been attacked by fellow Democrats, stifled as a presidential candidate, and had many of his legislative efforts (like the impeachment of President Bush) tabled by party leaders. As a general matter, voices on the Left have no place in the Democratic party, nor do their ideas receive any recognition from its leaders. Much of the same goes for libertarians within the GOP. Democrats and Republicans in fact operate in a similar manner when it comes to dissident voices within their respective parties. They don't even bother paying lip service to their views for fear of upsetting the real core of influence within the parties: corporate money.

And that is the real reason that Paul is being bombarded by his own party. He is indeed dangerous. He poses a threat to the traditional power structure of the GOP and the status of its most influential supporters. Paul, like Kucinich, refuses to play by party rules. That is why he is so popular, and also why he will ultimately lose.

New York Times on Ron Paul ...

2011-12-26T11:06:00.001-05:00

News outlets have begun to take a closer look at some of Ron Paul's more controversial views, as well as his associations with, and support from, far-right extremist groups. The New York Times has a nice writeup on Paul. You can read the article here.

American Exceptionalism In An Era Of Human Liberation

2011-12-24T15:10:00.000-05:00

There is a democratic revolution sweeping the globe. People from Russia, Syria, and other countries have taken to the streets to protest the authoritarian regimes that rule their respective countries. Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are transitioning to democracy after successfully ousting their ruling dictators. This wave of uprisings promises to liberate millions of people.

The opposite is true in the United States. Americans are once again flirting with electing an openly anti-democratic President. They were fatigued after eight years of authoritarian rule under the Bush administration. They sought, albeit momentarily, to re-establish rule of law and democratic principles that once defined their nation.

The American people's illiberal tendencies quickly resurfaced, however, after electing Barack Obama in 2008. In 2010, voters ushered in one of the most reactionary Congresses in the nation's history. While apparently suffering from collective amnesia, they elected representatives who ran on platforms that promised to gut the very social policies and legal principles that are necessary to maintain a democracy. And polls show an increasingly tight race between President Obama and one of several frightening Republican presidential candidates. This isn't surprising. These are, after all, the same people who embraced an ideology of fear and re-elected George W. Bush despite his administration's war on civil liberties, human rights, and rule of law, i.e., the "War on Terror."

This is, in fact, the true nature of American Exceptionalism. The term is generally used to describe the U.S. as being fundamentally different, and ultimately superior, to other nations. Its recent political developments have shown the dark side to this idea. While people from other nations are demanding freedom, respect for human rights, democracy, equal distribution of resources, and social programs to ameliorate poverty, Americans are running in the opposite direction. In an era of human liberation, they buck the trend and clamor for oppression.

$469 Billion: How Much Americans Will Spend Shopping During This Holiday Season (and what else you could buy with that much money)

2011-12-22T21:03:00.001-05:00

Americans are expected to spend $469 billion shopping this holiday season. This is an astounding figure. For everyone out there who wants to "keep the Christ in Christmas," perhaps it's time for you to channel your outrage toward consumers, and away from people who opt for the phrase 'happy holidays." Are we really worshiping the Lord, who said "[i]f you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven," (Matthew 19:21), or simply worshiping consumption?

In honor of our annual shopping ritual, let's take a look at some other things that we could buy instead:

$30 billion: Add this to what the world already spends on water safety, and every single person would have access to safe drinking water. Eighty percent of diseases in developing countries are caused by contaminated water. Over 2 million people are killed each year due to the use of contaminated water, most being children under the age of five.
$600 million: This would pay for the surgeries of the estimated 2 million women in the developing world who are living with fistulas, an injury that occurs during childbirth in which a hole is created "between the birth passage and an internal organ such as the bladder or rectum." The UNFPA provides a description of the effects of fistulas: "The smell of leaking urine or faeces, or both, is constant and humiliating, often driving loved ones away. Left untreated, fistula can lead to chronic medical problems, including ulcerations, kidney disease, and nerve damage in the legs." If Americans donated one-tenth of 1% of what they spent on holiday shopping this year, we would be able to alleviate much of the suffering these women face.
$175 billion per year, for 20 years: In his book "The End of Poverty," economist Jeffrey Sachs estimated that with this amount, we could end extreme poverty in the world. In other words, if Americans spent only $294 billion during the holiday season over the next two decades, nearly one billion people suffering from hunger would have adequate food sources; the estimated 600 million people who survive on less than $1 would see a dramatic improvement in their standards of living.
$496 billion: This figure is admittedly a little more than Americans spend on holiday shopping, but not by much. With this amount, we could pay for every one of the U.S.' safety net programs, such as food stamps, heating assistance, free and reduced price school meals, childcare assistance, low-income housing assistance, earned income tax credits, cash assistance, and unemployment insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that these programs "kept approximately 15 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 29 million people." And that was before the recession hit.

In other words, it's safe to say that our money could be better spent, and spent in a manner that honors the spirit of Christmas.

Syrian Massacre: With Violence Increasing, Security Council Must Act

2011-12-21T23:41:00.000-05:00

More than 200 people have been killed in Syria over the last two days, many of them reportedly army defectors. The UN estimates that at least 5,000 people have been killed since protests against the Assad regime began. Arab League observers are expected to arrive in the country shortly to monitor the situation. Protesters are, however, skeptical that their presence will have much of an effect.

The Assad government has responded to popular uprisings by engaging in violent and systematic attacks against its population, and using state sovereignty to shield itself from accountability. It is time for the UN Security Council to take action. The council has a duty to maintain peace and security. It can no longer stand by idly as the Syrian people are killed. If strong and unified action isn't taken immediately, the violence while continue to escalate.

A potential solution is for the Security Council to deploy a peacekeeping force to quell the violence. The Syrian government (and presumably the opposition) would have to consent to the peacekeepers' presence. This wouldn't be unprecedented, as a peacekeeping force, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), has been in Syria since 1974 to maintain the peace and supervise the disengagement between Syria and Israel in the Golan Heights.

At bottom, peacekeepers are used to protect and promote human rights. These are the very rights that the Syrian protesters are trying to exercise, and the Assad regime is trying to suppress. If the Security Council does indeed take action, it should strongly consider deploying a peacekeeping operation to prevent the situation in Syria from deteriorating further.

A Song for the Evening ...

2011-12-21T20:19:00.000-05:00

'Harlem Streets,' by Immortal Technique. The late Roc Raida on the cut.

And Now He's Dead ...

2011-12-19T01:37:00.001-05:00

Kim Jong-il, North Korea's "Dear Leader," has died of a massive heart attack. He is said to have been 69 years old, though there's some debate as to his actual age.

Kim has been the country's leader since 1994. He assumed the position upon his father Kim Il-sung's death, who led the country since its founding in 1948. Kim Il-sung remains North Korea's "Eternal President."

Kim oversaw one of the world's most oppressive governments. He, like his father, devoted most of the state's resources to military spending (North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world, one of the worst human rights records. The two are inextricably linked). The country's military-first policy continued even as famine spread throughout the country during the 90's. An estimated two million people died as a result.

Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are locked up in prisons. Tens of thousands are held in concentration camps. They are subjected to continuous propaganda from state-run media, and live amidst a climate of fear. These elements aid in perpetuating the cult of personality cultivated by Kim Il-sung and continued by Kim Jong-il.

North Korea is a fascinating country, both because of its isolation to the rest of the world and the oppressive conditions its people endure. I am hopeful, but not optimistic, that Kim's death will afford the people of North Korea an opportunity to bring an end to their suffering.

Below is a video of the country's odd, yet awe-inspiring, Arirang Festival.

Film the Police ...

2011-12-18T16:28:00.000-05:00

In light of militarized police forces' crackdowns on the Occupy movement, Sage Francis and company present a timely rendition of NWA's "Fuck tha Police."

A Song for the Evening ...

2011-12-15T22:20:00.000-05:00

Bjork, performing 'Unison' at the Royal Opera House in London.

OWS and the Class Divide

2011-12-14T20:22:00.002-05:00

Occupy protesters gather to disrupt Port of Oakland (LA Times)

If you're a victim of the "Great Recession," you've likely received many words of encouragement from family, friends, and acquaintances. Their words are both sincere and well-intentioned. You can't help but notice, however, the disconnect between yourself and those with relatively good fortune who offer encouragement. If you've been participating in Occupy events as a means to redress your grievances, you may have sensed a similar disconnect between yourself and the more affluent (and perhaps relatively unengaged) supporters of the movement. Your suffering, as well as your actions in protest of such suffering, seems little more than an abstraction to most.

The Occupy protests are not theater, nor are the general assemblies mere academic exercises. If you're a part of this collective, you understand that. You have the benefit, if you can even call it that, of being on the ground. Occupy movements are emerging throughout the country in response to the grim reality that more and more people are facing. The Occupation is, at this particular moment, a movement of solidarity to which very few can relate. Yet as the transformation of the economy nears completion, that will begin to change. The class of persons affected by the economic injustice inherent in American capitalism will expand. The misery will spread.

For the victims, hardship infects every aspect of life. Relationships are poisoned. Sustenance overshadows all else. Millions are arrested by the tyranny of the moment. Words of encouragement are of no particular use. They can even invoke hostility. Telling someone who has exhausted every option to improve his or her situation to "hang in there" isn't very comforting. Yet now, because of OWS and its progeny, people have an outlet to demand justice with others who share a common experience.

The concept of solidarity within mass movements presents difficulties. People who are engaging in a struggle need others to recognize and support them. At the same time, people co-opt movements for reasons unrelated to the original core principles. This was common during the anti-war movement of the 1960's, where some used the protests as an outlet for self-expression (a theater of the self) while ignoring the underlying purposes of the demonstrations. A similar phenomenon is happening with Occupy Wall Street.

Let's face it: class shapes our experiences and affects our understanding and perceptions of others. For those who are unemployed or have lost their homes - some of your fellow protesters don't really know what you're going through, but their support is both sincere and vital to the movement's success. And for those who go to an Occupy event every now and then, but can go home at night and have a job waiting for you in the morning - understand that however much you support your fellow protesters, you are not necessarily in the same boat.

We must empathize with each other and work to bridge the class divides that exist within the Occupy Movement. Our different life experiences can strengthen the movement, but only if we understand and appreciate that diversity.