my personal crusade is quite amusing. I might have hoped that my rallying cry of 'fuck the old people' - might have been condemned rather than cheered.
example 1:
"Government needs to get out of all of it! Veterans health care, medicare, its all a sham. if seniors weren't smart enough to save for retirement, why should i have to subsidize it? even if the insurance companies don't offer cheap enough plans for most people to have access to a doctor, well that's life. much prefer that than a government takeover. " woohoo!
my new strategy is disguising criticism within praise. It amuses me.
"kudos to the WT! not many people have the courage to stand against people from their own party. republican johnny isakson of georgia wrote the death panel bill. thanks again washington times. evil must be fought against no matter which party came up with the idea."
is the american psyche really that easily wiped of suspicion of expansive power that is fucking them in the ass at the very same moment they are spewing their support? don't they feel it? i don't get it. i don't trust uncle sam anymore than the next fellow. partly because they prop up mr. ceo. government in and of itself is not evil if it is a democracy. our government is being gutted as we speak. less social services, while expanding measures for to be 'the enforcer'. more police, more weapons, more prisons, more military, more surveilance, more... holy shit... they are out to get me. but not to take me to the hospital for my diabetes.
What kind of society do we want? create the ideals, live out the process that exemplifies the ideals - because a lived process creates and affirms the end result. you can't win a race if you don't practice running. you can't end up with a utopia if you don't live your ideals in your daily life.
lunes, 17 de agosto de 2009
lunes, 10 de agosto de 2009
Mainstream loses another one
For the longest time I have justified myself with the idea of being a bridge. a link - between the ideas I believe in and those that don't. I wanted to convince them. But as long as i try to maintain these links, it is undermining my own growth. Instead of spending more time living out my beliefs, and practicing them, I am wasting time getting to know those who wish to ruin the utopia.
I have had enough. The more saturated I become with my own existence, the more difficult it is to venture forth into the hypo-reality. People protest, and they don't even know what they are protesting. ..yeah.. i would love to have medicare for all.. but i hate that socialized medicine stuff single payer... And how much were they paid?
Mainstream press is more censored than porn on a disney channel. Certainly, not everything is censored good sir. Everything? yes my child. I can see their mind at work. It's like fountainhead, but it doesn't take a Toohey do manipulate the outcome. Pretend you are the Washington Times, and facts are irrelevant. It is actually quite clever of them to insert the "union connection" about healthcare. Indeed, Sweeney has unleashed his union thugs to counter the real grassroots protests that have erupted. And, like clockwork, it plants the idea. damn those unions! Healthcare: its a thug thing.
I have had enough. The more saturated I become with my own existence, the more difficult it is to venture forth into the hypo-reality. People protest, and they don't even know what they are protesting. ..yeah.. i would love to have medicare for all.. but i hate that socialized medicine stuff single payer... And how much were they paid?
Mainstream press is more censored than porn on a disney channel. Certainly, not everything is censored good sir. Everything? yes my child. I can see their mind at work. It's like fountainhead, but it doesn't take a Toohey do manipulate the outcome. Pretend you are the Washington Times, and facts are irrelevant. It is actually quite clever of them to insert the "union connection" about healthcare. Indeed, Sweeney has unleashed his union thugs to counter the real grassroots protests that have erupted. And, like clockwork, it plants the idea. damn those unions! Healthcare: its a thug thing.
lunes, 20 de julio de 2009
sailing!
certification course in sailing, then I can rent out their boats! Preparing the groundwork for a summer solo trip... my childhood dream. probably a few years down the road though.
thoughts on persuasive arguement. I have come to realize that ideas and beliefs are intensly personal. Even the most logical arguement will do no good, even with the most 'rational' person. But if you trust someone, you are more likely to believe them. Hence the idea behind making personal connections to relate to their point of view and life story. But is this saying that logic has limited reality in social change? But how much logic? Which facts? if you believe it is fact, it can become fact, and previous reality becomes irrelevant. Or having a different premise which leads to different conclusions, regardless of the philosophical methods one applies.
Speaking of lack of facts, how bout that pat buchanan? When i watch these people, I can't distinguish between whether people are actually that unintelligent to think that facts don't matter - (they get paid to lie) or if they actually believe what they say. Probably a little of both, more so I believe getting paid to lie. which is why Rachel didn't directly challenge him on any of his mistatements (eg sotomayor benefited from AA programs the whole way through, or, no black people died in the civil war..) Heard a compelling arguement that Rush limbaugh and Bill O'riely have been bought out as well. Bigots don't draw party lines so easily. If you dislike government policy due to ideology - than it would be impossible to critize only one party to such a high proportion of the time. it is not ideology. If pat buchanan really believed that stuff what he was saying, he would fit right in with most the elite democrats as well, who believe the same things. They are after all, rich white and male as well. bought and paid for.
just my two cents. First, I will need two cents. I can see how getting paid is appealing to many. Paid? ha!
Shall I go into work tomorrow? probably. do I feel like it? no. Is it easy? yes. and you don't want to go in? no. not really.
would rather be sailing.
or reading
drinking coffee
eating
mmmm..eating
thoughts on persuasive arguement. I have come to realize that ideas and beliefs are intensly personal. Even the most logical arguement will do no good, even with the most 'rational' person. But if you trust someone, you are more likely to believe them. Hence the idea behind making personal connections to relate to their point of view and life story. But is this saying that logic has limited reality in social change? But how much logic? Which facts? if you believe it is fact, it can become fact, and previous reality becomes irrelevant. Or having a different premise which leads to different conclusions, regardless of the philosophical methods one applies.
Speaking of lack of facts, how bout that pat buchanan? When i watch these people, I can't distinguish between whether people are actually that unintelligent to think that facts don't matter - (they get paid to lie) or if they actually believe what they say. Probably a little of both, more so I believe getting paid to lie. which is why Rachel didn't directly challenge him on any of his mistatements (eg sotomayor benefited from AA programs the whole way through, or, no black people died in the civil war..) Heard a compelling arguement that Rush limbaugh and Bill O'riely have been bought out as well. Bigots don't draw party lines so easily. If you dislike government policy due to ideology - than it would be impossible to critize only one party to such a high proportion of the time. it is not ideology. If pat buchanan really believed that stuff what he was saying, he would fit right in with most the elite democrats as well, who believe the same things. They are after all, rich white and male as well. bought and paid for.
just my two cents. First, I will need two cents. I can see how getting paid is appealing to many. Paid? ha!
Shall I go into work tomorrow? probably. do I feel like it? no. Is it easy? yes. and you don't want to go in? no. not really.
would rather be sailing.
or reading
drinking coffee
eating
mmmm..eating
martes, 30 de junio de 2009
i'm sorry rant
the ever important phrase "i'm sorry" should be weilded carefully. Not only does it imply you have done something wrong that you are apologizing for, but that you genuinely feel bad for what you have done. These two requirements cannot be easily met, and it is best not to lie than utter falsehoods. People often get around this simplistic formula by stating 'i'm sorry i made you feel bad'. which translates to, i don't give a shit about what i did, i just wish you didn't take offense to it. This pathetic excuse for an apology should not pass. Am I just being stubborn? probably. but would someone really want me to apologize for something i didn't regret? if people wan't to be soothed by words without significance, i'm all for it. just like telling your two week old crush you love them. But apologizing at its root - if you recognize what you did was wrong, then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. Maybe the apologizer should look to themselves and just not do it... far more productive than offering a sugary apology without action.
just my two cents.
just my two cents.
domingo, 21 de junio de 2009
immigration and labor unions
while immigration reform is in my thoughts, it doesn't often come to the forefront. AFter hiking over the weekend with a women's group (mostly progressive independent women who like the outdoors).. it surprised me to hear about 'the illegals in california ruining the economy'. especially the part about the schools losing so much money to teach the 'Illegals'. I tried to counter this with logic, pointing out the immigrants pay social security and sales tax, are exploited at work, and don't really use any of the services anyways... I always feel uncomfortable with these confrontations. since i am somewhat of a confrontational person anyways, i think i need to be a nicer, more bubbly personality to discuss harmful stereotypes. Maybe i just make people angry and they don't listen anyways.
So...semi-book review of "disposable domestics" (grace chang) which helped me understand immigration as a labor issue, and why the hate speech is simply false.
rough draft for internship:
Anti-immigrant sentiment changes on who it is directed against and when it is deployed. Economic crisis' are one of those times that predictably drum up anti-immigrant fears. The usual charges vary from overwhelmed social services, taking Americans jobs - or for the ambitious immigrant, taking down the economy. Not only are these statements ingenious, they are simply false.
It has been long recognized that immigrants provide cheap labor at little. They use a relatively small proportion of social services, pay sales tax and even social security tax, of which they will see none of. However, even as countless studies show that the net 'economic benefits' of immigrants outweighs the 'costs' this misses the point. Economic refugees do not come to sweatshops for the English.
Grace Chang's book, Disposable Domestics, is as relevant today as it was ten years ago. She notes that one of the reasons immigration is so cost effective for the United States is that their home country has borne the costs of raising them. Many people come to the United States as a young and employable workforce. immigration patterns do not correlate only with the poverty, but rather with US influence and interference in a country. Chang notes that "the extraction of resources by the United States and other First World nations forces many people in the Third World to migrate and follow their countries' wealth." We can see this playing out before our very eyes with the multinational corporations operating in Mexico. They save money through lax environmental laws, and abuse labor laws they know will not be enforced. These corporations put small stores out of business and destroys the places where they operate, syphoning the profits back into the United States. Companies such as Dole own unused large swathes of land, rendering a significant part of a country, such as Guatemala, unproductive.
Upon coming to American, the questions remains, - are illegal immigrants taking American jobs? As Chang points out about immigration raids, - "Creating job vacancies is not the same as creating jobs" - factory raids do not provide decent jobs to Americans. Many of these jobs would not exist in the first place were it not for a super exploitive labor force. This is because if the company employed Americans, the working conditions would be illegal. Under the threat of deportation, undocumented workers face extreme obstacles to organize to confront employer abuses. Even after forced to work long hours, in poor conditions for low pay, employers often do not give a paycheck. The fact that even legalized workers in the United States face harassment, intimidation or fired for trying to organize gives us insight to what companies will resort to to wreck havoc on their workers - without these laws for minimal protection. Companies have even called the INS on themselves during an organizing drive to thwart unionization. American workers have a vested interst in ensuring labor rights to all documented and undocumented workers. It is impossible to compete with a labor force without rights. Power in number ensures that companies cannot use technicalities to justify inhumane conditions.
Part 2. more musinggs: morality of selective law.
Even if people do not agree on many things, being against sweatshops or child labor shouldn't depend on one's nationality or having the right papers. Many of our laws exist because it is simply wrong. If an immigrant commits murder this is wrong. Are they subject to punishment under the law? yes. Why? it is wrong. Is it wrong to have people working in conditions that would be illegal if they company had hired Americans? Yes. But yet these distinctions remain in our legal system and our psyche. Laws should not be something to pick and choose which ones I should abide by, yet this is the system that operates. If the act is immoral, why should it matter who does it? Chang notes that many people believe that "people [low wage laborers] should be grateful for the work they get under any conditions, that it is a privilege, that they are better of with it than without.... At the core, the struggle that all of these workers share is to disabuse the American public and US employers of the belief that employing them in service work resembling servitude in an act of justice or charity."
So...semi-book review of "disposable domestics" (grace chang) which helped me understand immigration as a labor issue, and why the hate speech is simply false.
rough draft for internship:
Anti-immigrant sentiment changes on who it is directed against and when it is deployed. Economic crisis' are one of those times that predictably drum up anti-immigrant fears. The usual charges vary from overwhelmed social services, taking Americans jobs - or for the ambitious immigrant, taking down the economy. Not only are these statements ingenious, they are simply false.
It has been long recognized that immigrants provide cheap labor at little. They use a relatively small proportion of social services, pay sales tax and even social security tax, of which they will see none of. However, even as countless studies show that the net 'economic benefits' of immigrants outweighs the 'costs' this misses the point. Economic refugees do not come to sweatshops for the English.
Grace Chang's book, Disposable Domestics, is as relevant today as it was ten years ago. She notes that one of the reasons immigration is so cost effective for the United States is that their home country has borne the costs of raising them. Many people come to the United States as a young and employable workforce. immigration patterns do not correlate only with the poverty, but rather with US influence and interference in a country. Chang notes that "the extraction of resources by the United States and other First World nations forces many people in the Third World to migrate and follow their countries' wealth." We can see this playing out before our very eyes with the multinational corporations operating in Mexico. They save money through lax environmental laws, and abuse labor laws they know will not be enforced. These corporations put small stores out of business and destroys the places where they operate, syphoning the profits back into the United States. Companies such as Dole own unused large swathes of land, rendering a significant part of a country, such as Guatemala, unproductive.
Upon coming to American, the questions remains, - are illegal immigrants taking American jobs? As Chang points out about immigration raids, - "Creating job vacancies is not the same as creating jobs" - factory raids do not provide decent jobs to Americans. Many of these jobs would not exist in the first place were it not for a super exploitive labor force. This is because if the company employed Americans, the working conditions would be illegal. Under the threat of deportation, undocumented workers face extreme obstacles to organize to confront employer abuses. Even after forced to work long hours, in poor conditions for low pay, employers often do not give a paycheck. The fact that even legalized workers in the United States face harassment, intimidation or fired for trying to organize gives us insight to what companies will resort to to wreck havoc on their workers - without these laws for minimal protection. Companies have even called the INS on themselves during an organizing drive to thwart unionization. American workers have a vested interst in ensuring labor rights to all documented and undocumented workers. It is impossible to compete with a labor force without rights. Power in number ensures that companies cannot use technicalities to justify inhumane conditions.
Part 2. more musinggs: morality of selective law.
Even if people do not agree on many things, being against sweatshops or child labor shouldn't depend on one's nationality or having the right papers. Many of our laws exist because it is simply wrong. If an immigrant commits murder this is wrong. Are they subject to punishment under the law? yes. Why? it is wrong. Is it wrong to have people working in conditions that would be illegal if they company had hired Americans? Yes. But yet these distinctions remain in our legal system and our psyche. Laws should not be something to pick and choose which ones I should abide by, yet this is the system that operates. If the act is immoral, why should it matter who does it? Chang notes that many people believe that "people [low wage laborers] should be grateful for the work they get under any conditions, that it is a privilege, that they are better of with it than without.... At the core, the struggle that all of these workers share is to disabuse the American public and US employers of the belief that employing them in service work resembling servitude in an act of justice or charity."
sábado, 13 de junio de 2009
Peru
President Garcia: "We have to understand" he said, that "when there are resources like oil, gas and timber, they don't belong only to the people who had the fortune to be born there because that would mean more than half of Peru's territory belongs to a few thousand people."
Oil and gas are finite resources and the land the rest under cannot be simultaneiously lived on as well as exploited. Who owns this oil? Using his same logic the oil doesn't really belong to Peru either - just because that country happens to posses oil within its borders. They belong to the people of the world!
Since the use of these resources requires ownership, he is saying not only that they don't belong to the indigenous groups, but that they "Belong" the ruling elite. Its not like cleaning up the river so we all benefit - so the corporation has no right to pollute. No, this is the taking of land, to be given to someone else, at the expense of uprooting and potentially murdering an entire people.
This statement implicitely shows who is 'worthy' and 'unworthy' in Garcia's mind, and exposes his racism.
Protests like the ones in Peru and around the world such as for water rights or what have you, it is often said that the motivation is purely political. I fail to see how this denigrates the objective. Of course it is political! Government policies and international policies are political decisions. How can it NOT be political? I think what they are insinuating is 'political gain' in that people care more about raw power than about the issues. This is precisely the point. Their use of 'political gain' is almost absurd because if this were true, the elites would be quite excited. If the indigenous leaders actually renounced their movements, for 'reconciliation' this would be 'politically motivated'. If Obama pledged to renounce torture unequivocally, and doesn't, it is for 'political' reasons. If Max Baucus doesn't support a government sponsored health care plan against the wishes of Montanan's... THIS is politically motivated at its finest. But when people risk their lives for a cause and refuse to renounce and reject everything they stand for... is this politically motivated? I think not.
Oil and gas are finite resources and the land the rest under cannot be simultaneiously lived on as well as exploited. Who owns this oil? Using his same logic the oil doesn't really belong to Peru either - just because that country happens to posses oil within its borders. They belong to the people of the world!
Since the use of these resources requires ownership, he is saying not only that they don't belong to the indigenous groups, but that they "Belong" the ruling elite. Its not like cleaning up the river so we all benefit - so the corporation has no right to pollute. No, this is the taking of land, to be given to someone else, at the expense of uprooting and potentially murdering an entire people.
This statement implicitely shows who is 'worthy' and 'unworthy' in Garcia's mind, and exposes his racism.
Protests like the ones in Peru and around the world such as for water rights or what have you, it is often said that the motivation is purely political. I fail to see how this denigrates the objective. Of course it is political! Government policies and international policies are political decisions. How can it NOT be political? I think what they are insinuating is 'political gain' in that people care more about raw power than about the issues. This is precisely the point. Their use of 'political gain' is almost absurd because if this were true, the elites would be quite excited. If the indigenous leaders actually renounced their movements, for 'reconciliation' this would be 'politically motivated'. If Obama pledged to renounce torture unequivocally, and doesn't, it is for 'political' reasons. If Max Baucus doesn't support a government sponsored health care plan against the wishes of Montanan's... THIS is politically motivated at its finest. But when people risk their lives for a cause and refuse to renounce and reject everything they stand for... is this politically motivated? I think not.
lunes, 8 de junio de 2009
Fair Trade vs. Direct Trade
Stepping into my local coffee shop inquiring if they sell fair trade coffee – I was told that they had something better – “Direct Trade”. I was told this cut out the middle man in Free trade, and was the next step up. Excited, I bought the coffee, and then came home to investigate.
I also began reading more intensly my book on fair trade "the prospects and pitfalls of market driven social justice"
I am disappointed by both. More so by Direct Trade since they are demeaning to Fair Trade on their website, and trying to compete in a tiny market of ethical consumers rather than bring in new ones. And it appears they don't have better labor standards.
The book points out that with the collapse of the international coffee agreement in 1989 the price of coffee was much higher than it is today - even above fair trade prices. Fair trade a few years ago only compromised about .5% of the coffee market. So here we have some people making a little bit of money, but it is bascally peanuts. And people buy it thinking they are doing good, when they don't realize that even walmart used to pay higher price - more fair - than they are now!
I wanted to write a critical assesment of both on the blog at my internship, but I was censored. First time. I guess i can understand why since we put out catalogues of suggestions for how people can be more ethical consumers. But at the same time, isn't being realistic also neccesary? like tossing a dime to the starving child and feeling warm and fuzzy for your contribution for solving world hunger.
So even while fair trade has its pitfalls, some within it are actually trying to change the marco-economic policies, and sell fair trade products as only one small part to increase awareness and create fertile ground for cooperatives around the world who are trying to create an alternative structure to the corporate model. ie no hierarchy, democratic control of the workplace, social conciousness. the foundation must be layed first. Although other fair trade theorists have no such desire and want to increase marketability and don't believe the neocapitalist can or should be changed. It is what it is.
The dangers of co-optation. If Starbucks becomes the major buyer of fair trade coffee this raises legitamate holy fuck type questions. apparently they have already pushed for changing the labor standards, and who fair trade deals with. I think some of this already was implemented. If fair trade becomes mainstream through corporations, who then determines its course? who holds the power? these alliances should be made with suspicion. the book points out that the world bank, imf, starbucks etc. are all in favor of fair trade - at the micro level. (just enough anyways - starbucks only buys 6% fair trade coffee). But none of them would ever support changing the fundamental structures of domination - macroeconomic policies.
I emailed "Counter Culture" about their labor standards with the following questions. What really bugs me is that try to pretend to be all revolutionary on their websites, when they don't even have a vision to change anything. They also mention how transparency is fundamental, but none of the farms they trade with have websites, no way i can check up on them. I guess its easy to be transparent when there is no information. Like me: i am completely honest concerning all aspects of my artwork! uhhhh...
1. Are there specific criteria used to judge labor standards?
2. Are these criteria a prerequisite to developing trade relations?
3. Direct Trade is compared to Fair Trade throughout the website. Since an integral mission of Fair Trade is based on ethical working conditions adhering to ILO standards (no child labor, right to unionize, etc.); by saying Direct Trade has higher standards suggests that Direct Trade ensures better working conditions. Is that a proper assessment?
(“Meanwhile, we recognized that our own standards of quality, transparency, and fair pricing were somewhat higher than the FTC standard. We developed the Counter Culture Direct Trade Certification in the desire to raise the bar of fairness and sustainability and lead by example in the coffee trade”.)
4. One of the biggest criticisms of Fair Trade coffee is that its ‘fair’ price is actually below what the market was before the International Coffee Agreement was abandoned in 1989. The sales of both fair trade and direct trade do not even begin to fill the gap of the price drop. In the interests of social sustainability, does Counter Culture support efforts to change macro-economic relations?
5. Why did Counter Culture choose to peg its bottom floor price in relation to Fair Trade – which it can be argued, is not meeting the needs of farmers.
6. Does Direct Trade aim at increasing the amount of ethical consumers – by offering better coffee, or does it simply compete with Fair Trade consumers?
I also began reading more intensly my book on fair trade "the prospects and pitfalls of market driven social justice"
I am disappointed by both. More so by Direct Trade since they are demeaning to Fair Trade on their website, and trying to compete in a tiny market of ethical consumers rather than bring in new ones. And it appears they don't have better labor standards.
The book points out that with the collapse of the international coffee agreement in 1989 the price of coffee was much higher than it is today - even above fair trade prices. Fair trade a few years ago only compromised about .5% of the coffee market. So here we have some people making a little bit of money, but it is bascally peanuts. And people buy it thinking they are doing good, when they don't realize that even walmart used to pay higher price - more fair - than they are now!
I wanted to write a critical assesment of both on the blog at my internship, but I was censored. First time. I guess i can understand why since we put out catalogues of suggestions for how people can be more ethical consumers. But at the same time, isn't being realistic also neccesary? like tossing a dime to the starving child and feeling warm and fuzzy for your contribution for solving world hunger.
So even while fair trade has its pitfalls, some within it are actually trying to change the marco-economic policies, and sell fair trade products as only one small part to increase awareness and create fertile ground for cooperatives around the world who are trying to create an alternative structure to the corporate model. ie no hierarchy, democratic control of the workplace, social conciousness. the foundation must be layed first. Although other fair trade theorists have no such desire and want to increase marketability and don't believe the neocapitalist can or should be changed. It is what it is.
The dangers of co-optation. If Starbucks becomes the major buyer of fair trade coffee this raises legitamate holy fuck type questions. apparently they have already pushed for changing the labor standards, and who fair trade deals with. I think some of this already was implemented. If fair trade becomes mainstream through corporations, who then determines its course? who holds the power? these alliances should be made with suspicion. the book points out that the world bank, imf, starbucks etc. are all in favor of fair trade - at the micro level. (just enough anyways - starbucks only buys 6% fair trade coffee). But none of them would ever support changing the fundamental structures of domination - macroeconomic policies.
I emailed "Counter Culture" about their labor standards with the following questions. What really bugs me is that try to pretend to be all revolutionary on their websites, when they don't even have a vision to change anything. They also mention how transparency is fundamental, but none of the farms they trade with have websites, no way i can check up on them. I guess its easy to be transparent when there is no information. Like me: i am completely honest concerning all aspects of my artwork! uhhhh...
1. Are there specific criteria used to judge labor standards?
2. Are these criteria a prerequisite to developing trade relations?
3. Direct Trade is compared to Fair Trade throughout the website. Since an integral mission of Fair Trade is based on ethical working conditions adhering to ILO standards (no child labor, right to unionize, etc.); by saying Direct Trade has higher standards suggests that Direct Trade ensures better working conditions. Is that a proper assessment?
(“Meanwhile, we recognized that our own standards of quality, transparency, and fair pricing were somewhat higher than the FTC standard. We developed the Counter Culture Direct Trade Certification in the desire to raise the bar of fairness and sustainability and lead by example in the coffee trade”.)
4. One of the biggest criticisms of Fair Trade coffee is that its ‘fair’ price is actually below what the market was before the International Coffee Agreement was abandoned in 1989. The sales of both fair trade and direct trade do not even begin to fill the gap of the price drop. In the interests of social sustainability, does Counter Culture support efforts to change macro-economic relations?
5. Why did Counter Culture choose to peg its bottom floor price in relation to Fair Trade – which it can be argued, is not meeting the needs of farmers.
6. Does Direct Trade aim at increasing the amount of ethical consumers – by offering better coffee, or does it simply compete with Fair Trade consumers?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)