Ok, there's a lot in the media recently about Bush's thanksgiving trip to Baghdad. I've read things written by angry liberals about what a crock of shit it was, how it was just a big stunt and it doesn't do anything to change the fact that we shouldnt even be there in the first place.

Well, here's my take: I think the liberals who are crying need to shut up and eat some leftovers. It was Thanksgving, for chrissakes. Of course it was a publicity stunt, but to me it just shows that his team knows that they are vulnerable right now. How can you argue with the fact that he went out of his way to give a little morale boost to a bunch of young men and women who havent exactly had the easiest time these past few months? For all of my antigonistic feelings towards Baby Bush's administration, this is one time that I'm not going to complain. Maybe it's the turkey in my tummy that's softening me up--well, I know for a fact that I'm softening up, but that's another matter altogether.

There's a sequel coming out. I don't really think BJD is doing anything for feminism or body image issues. Look at the way they phrase the questions to her, as if she's undergoing some kind of horrible makeover to look like a normal woman.

That article must be a few years old; BJD came out in 2001. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say by posting this article though. I guess it's kind of weird to see actresses putting in all that effort to play the role of a "normal" person. She isn't the first to pack pounds for an acting role; Robert DeNiro did the same for "Raging Bull". Anyway, I do confess to liking "Bridget Jones's Diary" even if it was a chick flick.

Zellweger gains insights, pounds as 'Bridget'

Renee Zellweger put on nearly 20 pounds for her role as Bridget Jones. "It was really important to me that the character physically reflect the lifestyle that she leads," she said

By Sherri Sylvester
CNN Showbiz Today Reports

HOLLYWOOD, California (CNN) -- Imagine a scenario in which a film's male stars starve themselves on salads, while its leading lady is tanking on the pounds.

Hollywood fiction, you say? That's what happened on the set of "Bridget Jones's Diary," a chronicle of one woman's struggle with alcohol, cigarettes, self-help books and a lousy love life.

In bringing Helen Fielding's bestseller to the big screen, filmmakers cast the usual British suspects -- Hugh Grant and Colin Firth as the men in Bridget's topsy-turvy life. But for the title role they chose Texas-born Renee Zellweger. The actress, who turns 32 later this month, gained an English accent and nearly 20 pounds for the role.


In an interview with CNN's Sherri Sylvester, the actress said she worked hard to gain that weight, and, yes, she's proud of that celluloid cellulite.


CNN: About that weight. The guys were eating salads, and you got to have all the fun. How did you gain the weight?

Renee Zellweger: It was pretty boring, actually, and really regimented and mathematical. I went to a doctor and he said, "Here's what you're going to have to add in order to achieve this," and so that's what I did. It was really important to me that the character physically reflect the lifestyle that she leads. It was like changing the way she speaks -- I had to work every day with a dialect coach.

It was a process, that's all. But every now and then I would throw in an extra Kit-Kat bar for the good of the film.


CNN: About those rear-end shots. How close was the camera to your ...

Zellweger: "Butt-cam," we called it. They had what looks like a Chinese rickshaw, and the cameraman would sit on it -- seriously -- and they would pull him along while he got an ECU (extreme close-up) of my rear. I would run in front of the rickshaw constantly.


CNN: That's so anti-actress, so anti-woman to say, "Shoot my cellulite. Here it is, boys, come and get it."

Zellweger: Not for me. I was so excited about it. We went to the first wardrobe fitting, and I was elated. I'd say, "Can we make this a little tighter so it (the fat) scrunches up a bit?" It was an amazing challenge as an actress and creatively satisfying to completely be someone else.


CNN: You also worked undercover at a publishing house as part of your research. What did you learn from that experience?
Zellweger: Well, that experience was invaluable. It was really important in terms of understanding what this character's day was about, what her responsibilities were. I didn't want to just sit behind a desk and just play with things there. It also helped me become familiar with her cultural and social references, the daily lives of working women in England.


CNN: Did you have any Bridget-style experiences?

Zellweger: I had ongoing Bridget experiences. I practiced (working) with a cigarette, and I was working with one of my girlfriends. She was showing me how to hold it, and she didn't mention to me about the smoke in your eyes and how it burns your eyes. So I was walking around with them, I had them in my purse -- I got comfortable with them. But the only thing I didn't do off-camera was light the cigarettes.

Comes the day (when) we are shooting this party scene, and I have a cigarette hanging out of my mouth. Hugh Grant is in the middle of this really important speech, and he's doing a brilliant job, and I know I'm going to spoil it. I can't keep my eyes open for the cigarette smoke.


CNN: Have you ever kept a diary?

Zellweger: Yeah I do, but I'm very jealous of people who can keep them and stay true to them for years and years. I have friends who've had them from the time they're 10 years old. Mine have about 20 pages. Each time I start a new one, I write on the first page, understanding full well that this could be the first and last entry of this journal. I keep a different kind of book. I keep a "things I'm grateful for" book.

I think the whole driver's license thing also serves as a symbolic gesture. It's a step towards making these people feel like they're part of this state. After all they do for California and Californians, I think they should feel that way.

Welcome to the blog. If anyone has issues with your thoughts, I'm sure they'll take them up with you and not Ed, seeing as how when he invited you to the blog he obviously deemed you capable and worthy of expressing yourself just fine.

The SB60 bill is not meant to aid terrorists or encourage people to risk their lives in an attempt to cross the border and get a California driver's license. Rather, it is a bill aimed at making our roads safer and making the lives of these undocumented aliens a little safer as well. Now, I'm not rallying for or against the bill, but I'd figure I'd let people know what it's about in my eyes, without any hatemongering against immigrants.

The bill would make California's roads safer because you just don't want unlicensed people driving around. More fleeing from accidents, more people who are apt to evade a traffic officer who is trying to pull them over. Immigrants would have to pass the driving test like anyone else before they got a license. There are a lot of economic justifications for enacting a bill like this, I have only thought of a couple but if I pass this along to my friendly Econ prof he'll probably tell me a few more.

It would also make the lives of immigrants a lot safer. Having something which verifies your identity means that you'll have an easier time getting a job, getting emergency medical care, etc. While people will argue that our government shouldn't be giving IDs to immigrants, the fact is that right now they get fake IDs so they can find work. We can continue to pretend that they don't exist, or we start to recognize the reality of the situation and start trying to incorporate reality into our perception of what California is right now. Eric Schlosser wrote a lot more eloquently about this topic in his book "Reefer Madness," which has a large section about undocumented labor in California.

Now to address the rest of your post. It seems that Mr. Wiese doesn't take well to all of the people who work and reside in California 'illegally.' Might I ask why? If you are an advocate of business, of tourism, of eating strawberries and strawberry shortcake (that was really racist and I apologize, but someone pointed out that maybe I ought to make my posts a little more humorous, so for better or worse, there's a little humor), you should be for for for all of the brown people who do the dirty work without bothering their bosses with pesky things like tax documentation, health benefits, 40 hours work weeks, etc. You realize the crucial aspect they play in our economy but then wish for a parallel universe without them, as if there are no forces outside of their lives which affect their decision--"I really have no sympathy for people who just ditch their own country and defy another just for the (usually) false hope of prosperity." That's a load of bullshit.

People don't pick up and leave for the fun of it. They don't just "ditch their countries." There's another side to the story which is rarely considered when we debate immigration issues like SB60. I strongly feel that we must consider the underlying forces which bring about the "hot button" issues which pop up in politics. In this case, something is going on in Latin America which is resulting in a loss of agency (not the CIA type agency, the type of agency which allows people some semblance of personal freedom and self determination in their lives) for the working class. They are getting poorer and poorer and finally they are becoming what amounts to economic refugees.

America is not an implicit observer in the economic struggles of these people. It is our free trade policies and neoconservative agenda which have brought textile and technological component factories to their towns, and when we find that labor is cheaper in China and Ba

Well this was inevitable: Ahhnold proposes his first round of budget cuts for California (LA Times link, you have to register for free). Among the slashed: the developmentally disabled, food stamp recipients, and here's a dandy, UC and CSU outreach programs, which try to "bridge the achievement gaps that exist in California's public schools."

Oh, and to put forth a point I discussed via IM with a couple of people, I think that bloggers should feel free to post about any topic, new or old, whenever they want. If there's a topic that seems to be in the middle of being dissected, it'll still be discussed, so don't worry about interrupting anything. Also I feel that people should respond to anything that has been blogged about in since their last post; for example, if you were to go on vacation for a week and then came back to read what you missed, you should feel free to bring up old topics if you have any insights on them.

Also, George had an idea about a comments link on the webpage (themastodondiscourse.blogspot.com) but I forgot what he wanted to do. If there's a way for this to happen I'm all for it.

Ok, seeing as how it's almost Thanksgiving, I will write a few thoughts about the holiday season. I will be in Hilo for Thanksgiving, and this is the first year i've ever been without family or my closest friends. It's kind of sad, but I'll be home in less than a month so that makes me feel better. I really feel sorry for people who don't have any family or people to be with during the holidays. I can see why suicides and depression increases during this time of the year. On one hand, I am pretty turned off by a lot of the consumerism which comes with the shopping season, but on the other hand, as cheesy as it sounds, I do enjoy the time you get to spend with people you are close to. Life moves so fast sometimes that you lose sight of a lot of things, and this is one time of the year when hopefully people can see past the buying and receiving of gifts to reflect on the value of family, friends, and health. It's never winter in Hawaii, by the way, and there are no turkeys, only cockroaches.

Goddamn, I had a blog all written and then magically somewhere between when i clicked "post and publish" and when it was supposed to show up, it went kaput and blogger ate it. I hate that.

So, to rewrite as best I can: To pick and pull from George's blog, his example of kids from poor areas who find themselves out of place at a good high school and wind up wishing they went to their neighborhood school is as good a portrayal of privilege as I can think of. Feeling comfortable around your peers at a school like Lowell is privilege! Poor kids shouldn't have to overcome these factors in addition to likely being underprepared by their elementary and middle schools. These opportunities must be given to them from birth if we are ever to think about equal opportunity in high schools and college; and really, kids shouldnt have to go outside of their neighborhoods to find good schools. That fantasy really isn't too far-fetched, either, I remember talking with a public school reform advocate about it (he was Sarah Brant's roommate, Peter). Basically we need smaller schools, individualized attention, decentralized decision making and for God's sake a stop to all the standardized test madness. Peter said it wasn't even a matter of getting more funding, because he was able to make positive changes in some of the poorest school districts in East Palo Alto and New York City. It was more a matter of just getting through all the red tape and bureaucratic stuff and incompetent people in power in public school districts, if I recall correctly.

My other point is that race really does still matter. A poor white kid will still have more opportunities than a poor black kid born to a comparable economic situation. Society still has very different expectations of males and females, whites and blacks, hispanics and asians. An example of white male privilege is the fact that white males can do pretty much anything they want and they'll be accepted in their field/interest/hobby. We simply never question it, which we shouldn't. But if a poor black kid wanted to take a year off to travel and find his path in life, what do think his peers would say? They'd laugh at him. Affirmative action doesn't hurt the white families in Hunter's Point and South Central LA at all, the increasing difficulty for poor people to provide for their kids and have time to raise them well hurts them a lot more. To me, race still matters because the poorest neighborhoods are still overwhelmingly populated by blacks and immigrants, the richest schools and most prestigious institutions are still composed a disproportionate majority of whites, and if we didn't have affirmative action there would be very very few blacks or hispanics in decent schools right now.

Ok, I hope this post gets there. Not the most well thought out post but it'll do for now.

ok, my two pennies:

the disparity between a middle class privileged education and a underprivileged inner city education is obvious everywhere. i think all of us can agree on that. there's absolutely no doubt that parents who can afford a private school education for their kids are giving them a clear advantage over public school students, especially when it comes to college applications. the support, counselling and attention given by the private schools are simply nonexistent in most inner city public schools.

From there, the issue becomes complicated. like tai, ed and simone, i attended e/m/h public schools. my high school, one of the best public high schools in california, is notorious for its complicated and controversial admission policies. despite various attempts by the administration to please both overanxious white and asian families and serve the diverse urban community, the school never achieved any kind of true diversity. what small number of minority students actually attended lowell were pretty much secluded or "tracked" away in remedial, P.E. or non-honors classes. Two classes could be held next to each other, one an AP Economics class and another, a remedial Math 1A class and the racial composition of these two classes would be completely different. I can't think of a single black kid walking into ANY AP class in all four years I spent in high school. How does that speak to the efficacy of affirmative action programs? If it is, presumably, in the interest of the students and the school to group ambitious, bright kids into a certain track and underachieving, struggling kids into another track, then the school is effectively re-segregated.

With that said, I still back affirmative action as a legitimate step in the right direction, at least in the short term. Of course, eliminating the huge social and economic gaps in our society or initiating sweeping welfare reform and providing even the poorest children with a more equitable opportunity would be the ultimate solution. Despite it's shortcomings though, affirmative action at least makes sure institutions are represented by some underprivileged minorities and frankly, that's a good thing. Exposure to new cultures, accents, arts and perspectives is as important to education as algebra and Catcher in the Rye.

My one criticism of the policy -- and why I believe it's such a polarizing issue -- is with the emphasis on race. High schools and colleges should take into account a student's socio-economic background, including the neighborhood the student was raised in, the caliber of the schools he attended, his parents' economic situation, etc., but why factor in race? A poor white youth raised in the inner city is at an equal disadvantage to any minority youth. I think affirmative action should be aimed at helping kids based upon that criteria rather than simply race.

I'll conclude by bringing up another issue with affirmative action which I think has been overlooked, namely, the resistance put up by minorities against being assimilated into a predominantly white school community and the peer stigma of academic achievement amongst a lot of poor minorities. I remember meeting kids from all over the city as a freshmen in highschool -- the kids who came from the roughest neighborhoods with the roughest schools always expressed some degree of regret for not having attended the high school in their neighborhood. Instead of studying harder than they ever have and feeling like an isolated group in a sea of white and asian faces, they could be among their own friends back at their neighborhood highschool. I think up to this point, most people have the assumption that a lot of these kids are knocking on the doors of these more prestigious institutions and demanding entrance. I feel like that's a false assumption; a lot of kids in inner city schools are content to be there, to be with their friends and be in an academic environment that doesn't necessarily challenge them. This isn't in any way intended to denigrate the capacity of those kids to learn and achieve in a serious academic environment, but given the choice, what would you do? How many people do you know who would willingly leave a community of friends and a predictable academic environment for a daunting new school filled with people who are not like you, which also expects a greater degree of attention to academic subjects that never managed to captivate you in the first place? Just food for thought.

Ed we need to figure out how to get the posts published in descending order, instead of having the most recent show up at the top. It's confusing to follow the arguments this way.

Of course there are other ways to succeed besides getting a degree from a good university, but like I said, i think the most effective means of granting opportunity to the lower classes is through education. Affirmative action not only helps colleges create greater diversity, it raises the level of academic expectations for the poor kids in shitty schools, which is crucial. If there's no perception of college as a possibility then there's no incentive to use academics as a way out. You have to understand that when you are poor grow up in a hard place you have a completely different set of parameters.

Perhaps most importantly, if we lose the battle for affirmative action, we lose all of the kids who are in marginal situations right now who need to see something from the system besides cops, angry counselors, social workers, and welfare checks. My experience with kids in impoverished situations is that they always feel like they're fighting upstream--they see school as another obstacle in their lives. Basically there are too many sticks and not enough carrots, there's no dream of opportunity in the classroom, there's only the ornery teacher who will send you to the ornery counselor who will send you to the ornery ornery. Losing affirmative action is a big step back in the fight for allowing these kids to believe in themselves instead of a life destined to the ghetto.

There's no way I would argue affirmative action to be a permanent solution. But if we lose it, we go back a generation. Schools like Lowell and UC Berkeley will be grossly underrepresented in their ethnic makeup, and we'll continue point to our infallibly truthful measures of merit as justifications for it. Hey, you wanna get in you gotta work harder, buddy. Right now affirmative action needs not only to be defended, it needs to be coupled with a public commitment to the interests of underprivileged youth. It is but one battle in the greater attack on poor people that we see from the Republicans' economic policies. They fail to realize the social implications of their conservative stances, that by losing these youth now we will see more people dependent on welfare later, and that when we cut welfare, public school funding and medicare, we will see greater crime, greater drug use, more dropouts.

Do you see affirmative action as a temporary solution then? How do we know when affirmative action has done its job? And how can we make sure that when we pull affirmative action away things won't revert back to the way they are now? Affirmative action isn't going to do anything if we don't raise the minimum wage to a living wage, educate kids on drugs and violence, create after-school programs, and take steps to ensure that kids graduate from high school in the first place. But I know you are already implying that we do these things side by side with affirmative action and you also will probably say that affirmative action will give kids the motivation to try to graduate from high school. Are you also saying that getting into a prestigious university is the only way to succeed in this society? That, if there wasn't affirmative action and some inner-city kid had to go to a city college instead of a fancy college he's doomed to a life of cleaning toilets?

I guess I would also be ideologically opposed to affirmative action. But realistically, nothing in politics is ever fit to anyone's ideal type. There are always nuances, exceptions, and contextualizations to be considered. Your personal biases (what's the plural for bias, anyone?) will form the structure of your argument and then you'll go from there. Here is my take on AA and discriminations, privilege, etc. In order to clarify my stance on AA I need contextualize it in terms of how I feel it ties in with the broader issue of class inequality in America.

I should preface things with a little about my background. I grew up poor, my folks never had much in terms of material possessions or savings, my mom raised me on WIC and shared housing and went back to school when I was around 12. We moved a lot but whenever money was really short my mom could move in with relatives, she's pretty tough when it comes down to it. My dad was an artist and had other jobs to support us, but he pretty much never made more than what was needed to make ends meet, he paid 250 a month for rent. I never had my own room. But I never knew what rich or poor was until I started going to other kids homes to play; even then, it didn't matter much to me because I was raised well and my parents provided me with everything I could ask for.

I would say that my experience growing up poor is worlds apart from what other inner city kids go through. First of all, I wasn't raised in a housing project and exposed to the social ills and influences which come with that, and I didn't attend crappy public schools, I went to good ones and was always placed into the honors track.

Ok now to the AA issue...from my point of view, it's impossible to even begin to equate the opportunities granted to people fom such different backgrounds as upple middle class white and poor black/hispanic. Studies have shown that while race/gender/class have nothing to do with capablities, a child's early experiences greatly affect their baseline capacity, and further along the way whether or not this capacity is fulfilled depends greatly on opportunities and experiences within the child's upbringing, i.e. community factors, attention, etc. How then can we possibly reconcile the respective childhoods of a poor kid who isn't getting proper nourishment, let alone the kind of attention which will allow him/her to develop cognitive abilities, with an upper middle class child who is going to paid professional daycare? This is even before a child reaches elementary school age.

Then when these children reach middle and high school, they are exposed to entirely different sets of expectation, influences, peer pressures, and privileges. A poor kid will have to worry about providing for his/her living expenses, avoiding violent situations, teenage pregnancy, drugs, and everything else which is correlated to inner city poverty. A middle upper class kid will have the opportunity to find their interests and a school which suits them. The very notion of individuality and "finding one's path" is a concept of white privilege and to a lesser extent male privilege.

The previous two paragraphs are meant to portray the futility of trying to judge merit when looking at people from different backgrounds. It's impossible, especially when merit is determined by test scores and grades, as it is currently the case. Compounding this issue is the seemingly infallible air of truth and veracity that quantifiable figures such as SAT scores hold. If SAT is a measure of merit, then how might we quantify the ability of one to overcome an upbringing filled with daily threats of violence, heavy drug use, lowered academic expectations, and a chronic shortage of academic opportunity? So I feel that the current system of college admissions is heavily skewed against those who have to overcome childhood hardships. Yes, there are exceptions and examples of people who succeed in the face of overwhelming odds. More power to them. The overall picture is still a disturbing one; people who are born into poverty are simply not prepared to compete with the rest of the college age populace in terms of what is being looked at in the admissions process. They are not ill qualified, they are just at a disadvantage when you view things through the SAT/GPA/Extra-curricular activites lens.

So for me, having a system of admissions which is "race blind" or free of any affirmative action type program is really just allowing the cycle of poverty to perpetuate itself. It says that we don't care. We know about the systemic symptoms of poverty but we aren't willing to intervene. To me, it hurts even more because I feel that education and childhood interventions are the most effective ways to "equal the playing field," so to speak. Right now, affirmative action is necessary because it's one of the only things we have going; it may not be the best solution, but to deny its efficacy or significance is to turn a shoulder on the greater struggle for social justice.

The alternative is to have our institutions of higher learning consituted with the kind of diversity found in Congress or Boalt Law (when they stopped using race as an admissions factor). There are tangible examples of what happens when people of color aren't allowed into prestigious universities and grad schools: they turn out very homogenous. There are also studies which show that when affirmative action is implemented, the kids who benefit don't fail out of school or perform horribly. They do well, and the school also benefits in numerous ways as a result of the added diversity.

To deny affirmative action on ideological grounds, when you know that the current education system isn't creating sufficient opportunities for the poor to rise, is to overturn a generation's worth of work in social justice. Affirmative action is not the final answer, but it acknowledges the fact that we are willing to strive towards equality. It is but a baby step in the grand scheme of progress, and if it is eradicated, then it shows the underprivileged youth in this country that they have that much less of a chance to succeed through education. I don't think affirmative action will directly improve public schools in America, but I think it show a commitment to public education which will create positive solutions in the future. Smaller schools, individualized learning (instead of those damn standardized tests), and people willing to give kids care and attention will do a lot for public education and affirmative action will show kids that college is a viable possibility in their lives.

To conclude, a dialogue on affirmative action forces us to address the severe disparities in opportunities and privilege found in comparing people of varying economic backgrounds--coincidentally, people of color tend to be poorer and rich people tend to be whiter! This is the kind of dialogue that America needs to have, a dialogue about race and social justice, and it may just create positive changes in the public school system. Of course, if we continue to deny these issues, the poor will further disengage from mainstream America and into counter cultures (which corporate America will then appropriate in advertising), and they'll create their own opportunities to succeed. Cue "Juicy"...

Simone, why are you against private e/m/h schools but not private colleges?

Private schools are an inevitable institution as long as we live in a capitalistic society. Any business can be made as long as there is demand and there are always going to be fussy, disgruntled, or picky parents. Personally I would never put my kid through a private school even if I had the money. School is just as much about learning how to deal with people and how the world works as it is about learning about hypotenuses and iambic pentameter. I think private schools just limit the type of people you meet and interact with and therefore limit the kind of experiences, perspectives, and ideas you'll be exposed to.

Some people may find this surprising but I do not think affirmative action is a good policy. I support outreach programs, comprehensive review, and all that, but affirmative action is too flawed to be put into use. Just because we're aiming for diversity in our schools doesn't mean that "the ends justify the means". I am a minority student and I went to some of the worst elementary schools in the Bay Area. I don't think I've ever been a beneficiary of affirmative action, nor do I think I should have been. I'm not saying the system right now is perfect and that success is proportional to effort and hard work. I'm just saying that you can't tackle a huge and complex problem like this by oversimplifying it to solely a matter of race. Suppose the entire class is struggling in a course. A lot of teachers just slap a huge curve on everything and then things look dandy on the surface. The students aren't going to complain about their C's being turned into A-minuses. Let's not just slap a curve on everything and actually look at the teacher's performance, the course material, the way it's presented, and the way these students are being tested.

Let's talk about education in America. Did you go to a public or private school, and how did it shape you? Does the public school system really offer a viable way for impoverished children to make something of themselves as it exists today? If you are born in a middle class suburb as opposed to a working class city, what kinds of opportunities are you entitled to and how will your educational experience differ? Are private schools to blame for some of the public schools' failures, and are vouchers a realistic solution? What about standardized tests? As far as institutes of higher learning go, is affirmative action necessary to create more diversity in universities, or is really a form of discrimination?

I am interested to hear any and all comments on the matter. If education is to remain the most feasible means of upward mobility in America, it's crucial that young people become engaged in this matter. I know that we all come from different backgrounds and have been fortunate enough to go to college, so I would like to hear people's thoughts/experiences.

Istanbul is getting rocked right now, terrorist bombs.

An interesting NY Times op-ed about why Dean's polarizing politics isn't good for America. I disagree, but I recognize the validity of the argument.

I dunno, sometime I think that people like Angela Davis serve to shake our collective mindsets, at least the people willing to listen to her. I read her last book and liked it a lot, "Are Prisons Obsolete." Fifty years ago the nuanced public debate might have included a discussion of whether to allow blacks into public schools...so, maybe what is considered radical now won't be in the future. I am confident that those who fight to deny gay rights to marriage and marriage benefits will look as close minded as those who defended Jim Crow laws. There will always be the folks on the fringe on both sides, and to expect anything other than an audience fully receptive to her ideas (given that it was her talk and at a very liberal institution) is kind of unrealistic. This is Angela Davis we're talking about; she got sexually violated while being injustly imprisoned so of course she's gonna rail against that shit. It'd be great if they had a corporate exec up there talking about how he got raped while serving a sentence for money laundering or fraud. If it were a moderated debate between her, a district attorney, and a proponent of the war on drugs then one could anticipate a more well rounded dialogue.

The victory in Louisiana was completely unexpected; from everything I read Jindal seemed like he would win a close race...Blanco came back from 9 points down in the polls with something like a week to go. It's a nice battle to have won before the war in 2004, but I dunno about Louisiana setting any precedent for the nation; if Louisiana were to set an example for the nation to follow let's hope it's in how to fry a crawfish rather than anything political. Kidding, kidding...

As a follow up to the article I linked about Cambodian deportations, I think the way the US government is handling this issue is deplorable. Those refugees were set up to fail in America and now their children, raised in housing projects and impoverished ghettos and made to join gangs for their protection, are suffering the consequences. This is the kind of thing I'm going to stop when I finish school!

Aw man, CNN is telling me that Michael jackson is accused of molesting a little boy. Is this really news to anyone?

Ok, time to get some econ done. Hopefully I can peruse the internet tonight and find a veritable treasure trove of compelling articles to share. I want to find something about public vs private schools... Also, Matt Tokeshi needs to get his knob slobbing ass on the blog, because I know you're reading this, Matt. If Blogger is giving you any more trouble then e-mail me or IM me and I'll send myself another invite you can go through it. You'll have to live with whatever user name i give you though.

I just got back from a a speech by Angela Davis at Reed's Kaul Auditorium. She mostly discussed the prison/industrial complex and its evils. Her discussion of specifically women's prisons and the state-sanctioned sexual assault that occurs there on a daily basis was interesting, but her speech was characterized by a lot of the rhetorical tropes of the dissenting far left. I would say no less than 100 percent of her audience held the same liberal /socialist political ideology as her and in many ways, her speech was like an unconscious parody of a church sermon (replete with the sermonsitic suffix of -uuh after each sentence). Due to excessive warmth and the ungodly hours of my biology lecture this morning, I have to admit I was at least a little drowsy through the first half hour of her speech, but to me, davis presented more of a kind hearted ramble of earnest left wing rhetoric than a truly impassioned and nuanced dissection of the social/economical substructure that produces the dehumanizing puntiive system we have right now. she concluded with a vague and rather naive call to action for grassroots groups and other organizations to take over the social spaces currently occupied by the prison system. the whole thing was kind of a let down in my opinion, but i mostly went to hear some adorno gossip (i heard her dissertation advisor at berkeley was none other than theodor himself).

oh yeah, and when she was called into doubt by some brave conservative girl during the question and answer session, davis scaled back her argument and rambled more uncomfortably. I felt like the question was straightforward and oversimplistic and easily answerable, but the way davis handled it was completely unsatisfactory.

so i guess my question is, why are ideological presentations like the one i just witnessed the norm instead of the exception? what does it imply about our democracy that different parties sit separately in different venues listening to different speakers expound the same set of rhetoric, but with different ideological twists? whatever happened to the spirited public debate? the forum? a public space for ideas to be proposed and challenged. why is that not the dominate political discourse in this country?

Ok I lied, I didn't go to bed, I read an interview with Gore Vidal instead. It's from the LA Weekly.

An interesting article culled from the NY Times Magazine: The United States is now trying to deport refugees who have committed crimes back to their "homeland." This is the story of a Cambodian man who has been deported, despite the fact that he has a wife and children in Tacoma, Wa., and had already served a sentence for shooting a gun when he was 18 years old. I will blog my thoughts on the article later on; I found it very compelling and upsetting, but right now it is 4:42 am in Hawaii so I'm off to bed.

It's impossible to understand the immigration question without considering its relation to the economic conditions prevalent in the Latin American countries where most of the immigrants in California come from. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but it seems hypocritical of politicians and border-hawks to advocate a closed door immigration policy while they push for free trade, tariff free labor zones, and other things which widen the rich/poor gap in developing countries and cause more impoverished people to try to get to the nearest big city or America to find work. Or maybe the people in power know this and let them take care of the low paying labor while they pretend to be up in arms over these foreigners who are flooding the social services. I contend that there will be no solution to the immigration question until people in Northern Mexico and Nicaragua can work (a decent job, I'm not talking about maquiladoras), send their kids to school and afford food and housing. While we wait for that to happen, there's no justification for denying medical care to someone who is sick or injured, regardless of nationality.

I also find it disheartening when I see labor unions and working class Americans crying out against immigrant labor. There are much bigger fish to fry; by that I mean that their energy is better directed towards securing a more sustainable and just economy. Lobbying against immigration in the name of the working class is like knocking out one of your teammates for shooting too much in a game which you are losing anyway. But I guess it's easy to only see the short term and get angry at the people who are crowding your neighborhood and schools, when things are hard for everyone.

1.) Let's face it, California wouldn't be the raging economic machine it is right now without immigrant labor. But a lot of politicians just like to sweep these people under the rug and pretend like they are a nuisance that should be shooed away. Instead they are being exploited as some kind of secret formula for inflating productivity, output divided by work force. To justify this exploitation by pointing out that other minorities have been exploited in the past is utterly unreasonable. Of course (and sadly), everything has to be put into the context of money; what's a solution if we can't afford it? I think we can afford it though, if the government ever learns to spend its budget on the right priorities.

2.) What is Bush trying to preserve marriage from? If we don't have this week are kids going to start marrying their classmates? Are people going to start marrying animals and sisters? No. This "sacred institution" ain't goin' down the crapper, people. If he really wanted to make marriage respectable, he'd ban wedding chapels in Vegas or something. No, Bush is trying to prevent some people in love from marrying each other just cuz he's got something against gay people. Since when were politicians allowed to let their prejudices take over their job?

3.) Patience, Tai, Nowitzki will come through in the long run.

4.) Young people might not vote because of apathy, unfamiliarity with the voting process, or maybe because they might not have jobs and thus aren't too concerned with where tax dollars are going to. Working class people may be less educated on political issues and have less leisure time.

5.) A lot of people still read books, but I know the point you're trying to make because I confess to not reading books regularly either. Blame it on a new generation of kids with shortened attention spans and a work-obsessed society of people who are spending too much time in their cubicles and not enough time at home spending time with their kids or reading.

Also, for those people wondering, all of these posts wind up on www.themastodondiscourse.blogspot.com. Bookmark it cuz it gets tedious to type out. Oh, I'm Edmund, by the way. From UCLA. I think it's cool that we're going to have all these people from different colleges posting here.

Who(m?)ever emerges from the cast of Democratic candidates will need to run a gutty, attention grabing campaign to have a chance against Bush, that's for sure. The link is to a CNN page of all the candidates, from which you can click around and find out their stances on issues like education, the environment, the Iraq situation, etc.

In the meanst, there are a multitude of things I'd love to blog about:

1) I saw a MSNBC special on immigration. It was one of those shows where they have Pat Buchanan, a civil rights lawyer, an America First! advocate, and an activist from La Raza Unidad on at the same time and they wind up just shouting each other down. When they got the chance to speak, however, each brought up interesting arguments. The civil rights lawyer pointed out that every minority group which has immigrated to the US has faced initial prejudice and scapegoating for economic and social problems. The America First advocate pointed out that money education and medical care is already being stretched to a point where working class Americans aren't getting their fair share, so why should immigrants be allowed to tax the system even more (I completely disagree with this)? In California this issue is huge--how do we justify our dependence on immigrant labor and then want to deny them social services?

2) A couple weeks ago, President Bush declared a Marriage Protection Week for America. What does marriage mean these days, and is it an institution worth trying to preserve? Or was Marriage Protection Week a veiled attack on gay rights?

3) Dirk Nowitzki is 7 feet tall. How come he can't get any blocks for my fantasy basketball team?

4) Why don't more young people vote? Why don't more people vote in general? Is it an indication of an unhealthy democracy, or evidence that our system is working well enough for people to be content with their lives to the extent where they don't feel the need to vote? What keeps working class people from the polls, seeing as how it would seem that they are most affected by the publically funded social programs which are affected by each election?

5) Does anyone read books anymore, outside of class? Are other forms of media rendering the book obsolete? I would love to link some kind of statistic which shows the sales of books declining as the internet and video games gain in popularity, but I don't have the time to search something like that down right now. Suffice to say, I find it hard to read novels and other bound material these days; most of my reading is done on the nytimes, cnn, and espn web pages.

I look forward to hearing from folks on these issues, and of course if there's anything else on your mind, blog it. And if anyone has any friends who would be interested in joining, e-mail me (ttokeshi@hawaii.edu) and they will be sent an invite.

I dont know where I read/saw this, but has anyone else seen a picture of Dennis Kucinich's daughter? She looked hot hot hot.

On to less facetious matters, I don't know why, but I can never involve myself with election news this early in the race. I always find the race for the democratic nomination dreadfully boring. Granted, this year's crop has more dark horses and interesting personalities than any election I can remember -- and it's always good to see that stiff-faced republican whipping post, Dicky Gephardt slowly realize that he looks too creepy to ever be nominated. But why care at all about the snarky comments and weird personality quirks and states like Iowa which gets that one week every four years to shine?

I feel like the character of the democratic party has, if anything, become more cowed and submissive to the republicans in the past four years than ever before and we'll inevitably end up with another moderate/right pseudo-crat and another round of staid, scripted debates. Maybe I'm too hard on Dean and even Kerry, but does anybody think Dick or Wes have the political balls to go after Bush?

Oh, and to make introduction: I'm George and I probably know most of the people who read this. I'm a junior english/bio major at Reed College. Politically, I'm left left left, but in theory, I have deep doubts about the sustainability of democracy as we know it today. But that's a post for another time.

Howard Dean's remarks about courting voters who fly the Confederate flag on their pickup trucks have garnered quite a bit of attention in the last week or so. While I don't think his comments were intended to be as controversial as they have become, I think it shows that as a contender for the Democratic nomination, you really have to be conscious at all times of what you say, especially in a public forum. My cousin, who has been following the Democratic race as well as anyone I know, feels that while Dean has picked up momentum and is now the leading contender, he is highly prone to making a vocal slip which could cripple his campaign--I have to give him credit for predicting this long before the Confederate flag comment.

Anyway, a couple of parting thoughts regarding Dean:

1) We on the left desperately need a liberal candidate to run against Bush in 2004. I have thought about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that a moderate simply will not do. There must be as much partisan debate as possible, and I believe that a race which polarizes the nation will give the Democratic candidate the best chance to win. Why? Because Bush is vulnerable on many fronts in terms of his issues and policies, and we need a candidate willing to confront him heads-on about his tax cuts, the money and troops he is committing to Iraq, the ethics of what is happening in the reconstruction of Iraq, the lack of funding and subsequent collapse of many social programs, etc etc. Also, the media will play a big part in the election, and if there is a Democratic candidate who keeps the race centered around key economic and foriegn policy issues, Karl Rove and company will have a much harder time spinning their half-truths and exaggerations for Bush. The spin can be exposed, but only if we have a candidate who takes it to Bush as much as possible.

2) The other Dem candidates seem to be reaching for vulnerabilities they can exploit in Dean. Edwards especially seemed all too eager to try to take advantage of any controversy created by the Confederate flag comment. To me, it shows that they are trying to seize the momentum from Dean's corner because they aren't happy with the way things are shaping up.

3) If Dean does shoot himself in the foot by saying something naughty in public, I hope Kucinich picks up the torch. But he's really far behind at this point and my only hope for him is to stay in it long enough to get his message out there for people to hear, because he's very very solid on many of his stances.

George's blog is pretty dead on, and while I don't think Sullivan is necessarily calling out a Holocaust type situation in the near future, he is guilty of lumping anti-semitism with anti-imperialist or perhaps anti-Americanism sentiments. Basically, I think a lot of the statements that Sullivan and other neocons point to as "anti-Semitic" are actually questioning US interests. Consider the following statements: American corporations shouldn't be bidding on Iraqi restructuring contracts; and, Paul Wolfowitz is a convoluted war monger who wanted to sort shit out int the Middle East with a pre-emptive strike strategy long before 9/11. If those American corporations happened to be owned or run by Jews and if Wolfowitz were a Jew (he is), then that doesn't make those statements anti-Semitic, but paranoid neocons would misconstrue them as such.

The woman interviewed in the Vice article, Amy Chua, wrote a book all about ethic minority/wealth majority conflicts which I read for a Globalization class last semester, "The World on Fire." I didn't sleep with it under my pillow or anything, but it was a good read.

By the by, we should all introduce ourselves so we can at least get to a little about everyone else. I'm Tai, 20 years old, a sophomore at UH-Hilo, poli sci major. That sounded real bland; don't worry, I'm much more interesting in real life, but most of you know me anyway.

Offered for your consideration:

I've been thinking about anti-semitism lately -- a lot of neocon pundits like Andrew Sullivan are really concerned with what they perceive to be a rising tide of anti-semitic sentiment not only in countries with Arab or Islamic populations, but amongst Europeans and liberal folk in this country. Most of the examples they cite seem to perpetuate this paranoid ideology that revolves around an all powerful, insidious Zionist agenda which has some dark, contagious influence in the most powerful political spheres. The latest speech made by Mahathir Mohamad from Malaysia comes immediately to mind.

From Sullivan's point of view, this is a racist world view which echoes the dangerous ideologies of facist Germany and acts as the most damning indictment of modern liberal politics and hypocrisy.

Is this an accurate assesment of liberal ideology?

Many liberals and some jews have responded to these accusations by pointing to the policies of the Bush administration as the catalyst for these sentiments -- they argue that so prevalent is the hatred for American policy in Iraq and Israel that these anti semitic comments are just a part of a backlash against America in general. But does this really excuse anyone?

And how much of these "anti-semtic" remarks are true? Is it anti semitic to note the near unconditional support for Israel and the disturbingly anti-Islamic policies of this country and make the logical correlation? After all, this is definitely NOT a neo-Nazi Europe. No one is calling for executions or scapegoating.

Recently I read an article published in Vice Magazine about international incidents of racial hatred resulting from one ethnic minority controlling an overwhelmingly disporportionate amount of wealth (ex. the Chinese in Indonesia, Jews in Russia, East Indians in Kenya). Go read it, it's the ever so rare combination of Vice's amusing hipster apathy and a well researched Freezerbox article. Anyway, maybe Jews dont control America, but what if you lived in a country that did have an ethnic minority which controlled all the wealth? Is democracy still possible? Would the struggle for economic parity be an inherently racial and thus, racist struggle?

Those are just some of the disjointed, rambling questions I've had on my mind lately and I'm wondering how other people feel.

Welcome to The Mastodon Discourse, a blog for articulate, politically engaged students from around the country. My hope is to create a open dialogue for any issue concerning young people, with an emphasis on current politics. If you have any friends (we especially need moderates and conservatives, for the sake of balance), let me know via e-mail, ttokeshi@hawaii.edu or dutchnutmegcompany@hotmail.com and they will be sent an invite presently. I look forward to a passionate, enlightening discourse with all of you.