Back to school again.

I have officially started classes again. Soon I will be inundated with readings and papers and such. And in that spirit, I present this:

Be still my beating heart.

Today is finally the day.



It's been too long. Come back to me, baby.

What this all means.

So I was going to write some deep, introspective analysis of my feelings about this day, about how every time I take a step back to think about what just happened today... it's overwhelming. I was going to give it a title like "Dear Barack Obama: A Letter from a Person Clinging to Hope." But then Jay Smooth had to go ahead and say it all and say it better. So I'm going to save myself some time, get back to watching the inauguration balls, and let Jay Smooth say the rest.

Good riddance.

Via Feministe, I found out about another way to signal an end to the Bush years--with a view of my shoe. Organized by Lisa at My Ecdysis, I am joining other bloggers and borrowing a page from Muntader al-Zaidi, the 29-year-old Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush to demonstrate his anger at the destruction that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has inflicted. And here it is.



Muntader al-Zaidi was jailed after the incident, and he had only been allowed two visitors--and none since December 21. According to this New York Times article, he was allowed a visitor on Friday and continued to show signs of having been beaten. He is also now seeking asylum in Switzerland.

A true revolution of values.

About five years ago, I was listening to the radio and I tuned in partway through the program. I could tell that they were broadcasting a speech and that it was one I had not heard before. The speaker explained why he opposed the Vietnam War, and it took me many minutes before I realized that it was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Because, while I had learned about him and the civil rights struggle in school, I had learned the most palatable version. The one that talked about how he believed in people being judged by the content of their character, and how he led a march on Washington, and how--if it wasn't for him--black kids and white kids would still be segregated in schools. Aside from the way that obscures what goes into movement-building and all the people who participate, which is a discussion in and of itself, I had learned about a version of Martin Luther King that did not present a challenge to the status quo today.

But that's only a sliver of his story. Here is a YouTube video with the audio of his speech explaining his opposition to the war. I want to pull out the few passages that resonate for me:

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent.

[...]

This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

[...]

True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Here is the transcript linked to on the YouTube page, which is actually more complete than the audio (which seems to have clips edited out).

A countdown from the past eight years.

Stonewall just sent me this list from Harper’s Index. Since I’m already gearing up for inauguration day tomorrow, it seemed like a good time to recall the fuckedupedness of the past eight years. You should read the whole list, but here are a few that jumped out at me, for various reasons:

Number of news stories from 1998 to Election Day 2000 containing “George W. Bush” and “aura of inevitability”: 206

Date on which the GAO sued Dick Cheney to force the release of documents related to current U.S. energy policy: 2/22/02

Number of other officials the GAO has sued over access to federal records: 0

Percentage of Americans in 2006 who believed that U.S. Muslims should have to carry special I.D.: 39

Percentage of the amendments in the Bill of Rights that are violated by the USA PATRIOT Act, according to the ACLU: 50

Minimum number of laws that Bush signing statements have exempted his administration from following: 1,069

Portion of Baghdad residents in 2007 who had a family member or friend wounded or killed since 2003: 3/4

Portion of [Bush's] presidency he has spent at or en route to vacation spots: 1/3

Minimum number of times that Frederick Douglass was beaten in what is now Donald Rumsfeld’s vacation home: 25

Number of states John Kerry would have won in 2004 if votes by poor Americans were the only ones counted: 40

Number if votes by rich Americans were the only ones counted: 4

Increase since 2000 in the number of Americans living at less than half the federal poverty level: 3,500,000

Number of U.S. cities and towns that have passed resolutions calling for the impeachment of President Bush: 92

Percentage change since 2001 in U.S. government spending on paper shredding: +466

Amount by which the federal government has underfunded its estimated cost to implement No Child Left Behind: $71,000,000,000

Rank of Bush among U.S. presidents with the highest disapproval rating: 1

Don’t let the White House door hit you on the way out.

PS Also in the spirit of the retrospective, here's a video from the Daily Show. From last week, but still fresh.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Six Days Seven Nights

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Men are from Mars, women are...

If I never hear another stand-up comedian deliver a joke that starts "You know what's the difference between men and women?" it will be too effing soon.

That is all.

There are so many wrong answers to this question.

ABC has a new show called "What Would You Do?" and I hadn't even seen promos for it. I'll admit that I was drawn to it because of another show with the same name that I was very familiar with once upon a time.

But this show is creeping the hell out of me. Here's the premise: the show's producers create artificial situations using actors who break social rules or commit major transgressions. Then they watch how people around them react to the dilemma. Will the person confront the transgressor? Will the person say nothing? It's like a truly disturbing Candid Camera.

In the segment I just watched, two actors--a man and a woman--are in a restaurant pretending to be on a first date. They're having drinks at a bar. The woman excuses herself to go to the bathroom, the man makes small talk with the people sitting next to him, and then after a moment, he slips something into his date's drink--in such a way that the person next to him sees this.

Very few people, it seems, say anything or warn the woman. A couple of people call the bartender to the side to report what they've seen. Most seem to not want to get involved. And this only gets worse when the woman is wearing a lower-cut dress with bright and flashy colors, as opposed to the first part of the segment, when she's wearing a simple black dress. This dismissal of the woman who, as far as they know, is about to be drugged and raped is frighteningly dependent on how she's dressed and thus who they assume she is.

The show lauds the heroism on the part of the few on step in. It's depressing to think that this is the exception and not the norm.

I found this video clip, which doesn't show the whole segment. It leaves out one woman who not only confronts the man who drugged the drink, but also warns the woman and goes to the bathroom to check if the woman is ok after having sipped the drink. It also leaves out the part where the "hero" who confronts the guy also threatens to hit his wife if she doesn't be quiet.

One more thing for Obama's to-do list.

It would seem that while I was drinking bubbly and counting down the seconds to 2009, the illegality of the war in Iraq took on an additional dimension. I'm nearly two weeks late to comment on this, but it's disturbing enough to be worth a mention.

On January 1, according to an article by Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, Congress' authorization for the war in Iraq expired. Bush had not sought to renew it. An agreement has been presented to the Iraqi Parliament by Prime Minister al-Maliki, and it was authorized there. However, on the US side of things, it seems that members of Congress had to rely on the Arab media's reporting of the agreement to catch a glimpse of its terms.

Yet another thing Obama is going to have to deal with when he moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Because, as stated in the article:

We are living in an age of small wars—some are blunders, but some will be necessary. The challenge is to sustain their democratic legitimacy by keeping them under congressional control. If Obama goes along with the Bush agreement, he will make this impossible. Future presidents will cite the Iraqi accord as a precedent whenever they choose to convert Congress' authorization of a limited war into an open-ended conflict.

And this is the president whose reign I came of age in.

This will seem even more relevant closer to the end of the month.

It's not just because of my massive student loans that my ears perk up whenever I hear people talking about anything related to debt. (That's a very big reason, but not the only reason.) It's intriguing how you can't talk about debt without getting caught up in a whole web of issues: morality, justice, fairness, retribution. The ties that bind you to your creditor/debtor are unlike any other human relationship. I've never "met" the entity to whom I owe much money, yet I feel a responsibility to that entity that outweighs and will outlast many of my other relationships.

For Christmas, Stonewall bought me a copy of Payback, by Margaret Atwood, which I just started reading. It's a sort of meandering but interesting long essay about debt and all of the different subjects that intersect with it. I think he got it for me because he knew of my interest in the theme of debt, but also because of how much I enjoyed reading the Handmaid's Tale and the Blind Assassin last year. I'm not that far into it, but I'm now reading her exploration of how notions of fairness and reciprocity are so central to human interactions that we see them in early childhood behavior, throughout centuries of literature, and in ancient mythologies.

To some extent, she's talking about the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."), but she also writes about the Eye-for-an-Eye Rule ("Do unto others as they have done unto you.") The latter is, of course, more directly related to the idea of fairness as retribution. If I expect that you might later mete out the same punishment--or benefits--that I have afforded you, it gives me the incentive to treat you fairly.

This whole line of thinking reminded me of a piece of an article in the Atlantic that I read a very long time ago. I tracked it down, and here is the relevant passage:

I'll be dictator. Here's how we play: An economist puts some money on the table—let's say $1,000. Since I'm dictator, I get to decide how you and I are going to split the cash; you have no say in the matter. How much do you think I'll give you?

Now, let's play the ultimatum game. We've still got $1,000 to play with, and I still get to make you an offer. But the game has a wrinkle: If you don't like the offer I make, you can refuse it. If you refuse it, we both get nothing. What do you think I'll do here?

As you've probably guessed, people tend to play the two games differently. In the dictator game, the most common offer is nothing, and the average offer is around 20 percent. In the ultimatum game, the most common offer is half the cash, while the average is around 45 percent. Offers of less than 25 percent are routinely refused—so both players go home empty-handed.

Economists scratch their heads at this. In the first place, they are surprised that some people are nice enough to share with someone they don't know, even in the dictator game, where there's nothing to lose by not sharing. Second, economists predict that people will accept any offer in the ultimatum game, no matter how low, because getting something is better than getting nothing. But that's not what happens. Instead, some people forgo getting anything themselves in order to punish someone who made an ungenerous offer. Money, it seems, is not the only currency people are dealing in.

So in the dictator game, there's little chance for your counterpart to get you back for unfair treatment. But in the second game, if your counterpart will have a chance to punish you for unfair treatment, they're likely to take it. So we have an incentive to avoid that situation.

I can see where Atwood might be going with this, too, although I haven't gotten far enough to confirm it. If you do something nice for me (lend me money), you expect me to treat you fairly (pay you back). There is a great deal of social weight involved in maintaining this standard of interaction. If I don't treat you fairly (skip town and leave no forwarding address), I'm therefore a deadbeat and can have my financial future and credit scored jeopardized. I have a very strong incentive to avoid that situation and to make my payments on time.

Maybe Margaret Atwood will have some tips on dealing with the stress of thinking about your debt. I'll keep reading.