« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 21, 2006

Sunday Mornin Talk Show Snippets

Saw the end of Gonzalez rambling his b.s. on This Week. Was so late and so distracted by cleaning my dishes that I didn't notice who was spewing the company line. The I was intrigued by John Edwards and his vehement attack on the Shrub administration and everything they stand for. He kept burnishing his outsider creds - saying he knows so much more about what's going on with the average working man b/c he no longer lives in DC. Because, you know, a millionaire living outside the beltway obviously has his finger on the pulse of society. He didn't rule out runnin for prez in 08, but apparently his decision depends on his wife's health condition. Wasn't listening close enough to know what that health condition is, but I hope she gets better.

SecState Rice bantered with Tim for a good half hour. She continued the lie perpetuated by this totalitarian administration that their "war" makes it necessary to Spy on Citizens and Deny Freedom in order to make the world safe (for capitalistic greed). She defended the existence of US torture centers, despite the fact that the UN Committee Against Torture recently ruled they should be shuttered forever. Of course, she panders some token words about the desire to close them, but only after this "war" is over and The State has an alternative incarceration system for the detained "terrorists." (I am not convinced terrorists exist in those prisons when the vast majority of detainees are held without any formal charges and only a select few are being prosecuted in a real court of law.)

Enough of the morning chatter, it was time for a break with Ebert & Roeper. They really liked The DaVinci Code, and felt the movie was more realistic than the book. Personally, I was struck by the glaring omission of a key piece of the ending in the celluloid version. But I agree that it worked as a thriller, although at times I was bored by the extended chatter of explanation...They also liked X Men III, which I'm so excited about seeing. And they liked Over The Hedge. They split on Shiloh 3, and both liked The King, a movie that wont be in 98% of the movie theatres in the country, but does star Gael Garcia Bernal, so is worth looking for.

Back to a "serious" show, The Chris Mathews Show on NBC. I seriously don't know why I bother watching this crap. He has absolutely zero respect for progressive opinions and always tips his panel to the right. Adding insult to injury, almost every week features Katty Kay, the most repulsive British export, chatting like she knows shit about being American. In her version of America, it is impossible for a woman to be president. I really wish she was deported. Anyway, the show spent the majority of the hour discussing the Democratic horse race for the 08 presidential nomination. Note that it is still 2006 and there's an important Congressional election coming up this fall. Never mind those nattering particulars, it's apparently more interesting for inside-the-beltway pundits to yap incessantly about a race that is two years away.

Back to more palatable fare: PBS. I should've watched Zakaria's slightly annoying program instead of Matthews, but I went mainstream for that half hour.

John McLaughlin's One on One was actually good, probably b/c he was interviewing a fellow conservative, this time Francis Fukuyama. He also made time to chat via phone with Joe Cirincione of the Center for American Progress. Francis distanced himself from the neocon mainstream, following the pattern he started with his most recent book, America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. McLaughlin kept harping about the noble lie, attributed to Socrates in Plato's The Republic. Google Answers has a concise explanation of the original noble lie (which someone paid 5 bucks for). Here's a long interview about the lefty theory that the disciples of Leo Strauss are perpetuating the use of misconception and mass manipulation to further the aims of the Bush administration. Fukuyama vehemently denied that Strauss agreed with noble lying, and said his work was related to political theory, discussing / critiquing dense work and that he never formed a doctrine. Then they chatted about nuclear proliferation with Joe C.

Next came Now, which oddly seemed like it should be re-dubbed "Then," since the majority of the show was about the lead-up to Saturday's mayoral run-off in New Orleans. Not on Now: the fact that Ray Nagin won re-election. Well, apparently the original air date was May 19. But still, it was weird and oddly public tv-ish: because if a network re-ran something, they'd include an update. Turns out more NOLA's want to stick by Ray rather than cede power to the Landrieu dynasty (pa = frmr gov, sis = sr LA senator).

Therein ends my teevee watching till this evening's cotton candy.

Posted by cj at 6:01 PM | Comments (0)

May 16, 2006

Madam Secretary Albright's Speech

Former SecState Madeleine Albright spoke today at the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs. Many shout outs were given to Swellesley, a group photo of alums was taken (who knows if I'll be seen since a very tall woman decided to stand in front), and I purchased her new book and it was signed. The following is a transcription of my notes from the speech and Q&A:
-------------
Introduction:
Shout out to Wellesley alums. Albright realized post 9-11 that religion can't be separated from International Relations (IR). Major themes of her speech include morality and diplomacy; and liberals v. conservatives. She was SecState 1997-2001; received BA from Wellesley College, MA and Ph.D from Columbia. Currently heads the Global Strategy Group, part of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a professor at Georgetown, and recently publishes The Mighty and the Almighty.

Speech
Will discuss themes from my book; different from writing a memoir: I'm the foremost authority on myself, but there are many people more knowledgeable on religion. Writing this book was a genuine learning experience. I'm not a theologian nor a mystic; I continue to be a problem solver.

It is evident that religion is a major part of international affairs. For example, Jerusalem: if it was just a real estate issue, it could have been solved by now. I enjoy giving this book tour b/c it allows me to explain my views better than the sound bites expected from television interviews.

My book has four themes.
1. US has to have a moral foreign policy.
State what our values are
Use vast power.
Not a moralistic - i.e. lecturing
There is an artificial division between realists and idealists in IR theory. I'm a realistic idealist or an idealistic realist.

2. DC is toxic.
People don't talk to one another.
There are subject that the right and left can agree on.
For example, I've been working with Senator Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican from Kansas. We created a conference at Georgetown that look at four main themes:
1. stopping genocide
2. stopping human trafficking
3. refugees
4. religious tolerance

3. I don't like the concept of clash of civilizations.
We are involved in a battle of ideas.
There are major differences between the rich and the poor.
State v. non-state actors.

Iranian President's letter
involved saber-rattling
basic questions were raised
it is important for someone at a high level to lay out what we're for.
Questions raised resonate with people and we must respond.

4. What the role of the individual is
For example myself: I was raised Catholic, married an Episcopalian, and found out I'm Jewish. I was also raised in the US instead of Czechoslovakia, giving me the opportunity to become SecState instead of having a career as a college professor.
The concept of the individual should be understood better.
It is part of all the Abrahamic religions.

We need to look at religion as a way to solve problems, rather than dividing people.

What really is the role of the US? From my book:
Have reponsibility to lead.
Liberty is G'd's gift, which makes it morally neutral.
Democracy is a human creation.
US should help others who desire help.
Promoting democracy is a policy, not a moral position.
We are not above the law.
Not a divine act: we can ask for G'd to bless America, but we should never assume that G'd blesses America.

Questions & Answers
"I loved being SecState; but one of the advantages of not being SecState is that I can actually answer your questions."

(1) Supporting religious charities?
We're dependent on charities / NGOs. How much are they accountable? It's good to support these NGOs. American missionary movements knew more about IR and other languages than other Americans. We must insure that those we work with have free access / tolerance instead of proselytizing.

For example, Palestinians.
Our official policy is that we don't deal with Hamas.
We're expecting NGOs to pick up the slack.
What is the end that happens with the money given? That is the question to be asked. Compare this to Saudi support of religious charities.

(2)First time a moral foreign policy is being suggested?
There are various periods in history where moral policy was emphasized (eg Wilson) then swing to realpolitik, personified by Henry Kissinger. Carter modernized moral FP with an emphasis on human rights. It's not that we're convinced we're right about everything. It is difficult to have a totally consistent FP b/c pragmatic steps are needed, therefore take cognicense. We need to stop lecturing.

The division between good and evil emphasized by Bush is difficult to accept because the definition of "good" is hard.

(3)I do think the US is an exceptional country, as an immigrant (legal)

The US is an indispensable nation. President Clinton originally said that, although it has been ascribed to me. I said that originally to get Americans hooked in to have interests internationally. Why do I believe this?

Things don't happen if we're not a part of them.
That doesn't mean we're above the law.
Whether you read the New Testament or Spider-man, "to whom much is given, much is expected."
Morality is not necessarily national.
For the foreseeable future, US will be a managing partner in world affairs; emphasis on partner. Therefore, building bridges is important.
The US gains from international support.
We can't be treaty allergic.

(4)Why do you think Democrats have such a difficult time stating what they're for?
1. We don't have control of anything.
2. The thing that makes us so charming - that we have a lot of different opinions - makes it difficult to articulate.
3. We have no leader.
4. We aren't disciplined. "I don't belong to any organized group; I'm a member of the Democratic Party." -- Will Rogers
5. Republicans have think tanks that stick around when Republicans are in power.
6. I'm involved in the Center for American Progress.
7. During the 2008 Presidential primary process, I hope we don't create a firing line in a circle.
8. US government has to function in checks and balances.

(5)[Oddball question re the power of 12 step programs]
It is necessary to recognize the power of people's individual faith. We still believe in the separation of church and state. That was originally conceived as keeping the state out of the church, not the other way around. We need to respect how people practice their religion.

(6) What brought on the toxicity in Washington?
"I'm going to try so hard to be good."
What happens when there's a complete shift in power: You try to explain national security policy of the S to people you don't like and you have to hand it over to. When I was gaining the seat of power, I listened carefully to the other side. We need a sense of continuity between presidents. The Bush admin had a complete disregard for Clinton's domestic and foreign policy. Bush said his national security team is the best the US has ever had. Maybe, but for the wrong decade. They really did have an ABC policy: Anything But Clinton. For example, re North Korea: I still have the dubious distinction of being the highest ranking US official to ever meet with Kim Jong Il. Even Congress feels it is not allowed to set the agenda.

We tried to have a bi-partisan foreign policy. For example, I worked with Jesse Helms, who at the time was the head of the Senate foreign relations committees.

Bush has convened former top level officials: in January he met with 13 of us, 7 former SecDefs and 6 former Sec States.

But there is a fundamental lack of respect for the other side's point of view and this is self-perpetuating.

(7)Wellesley Alumnae Club President's Question: What can we as individual micro-powers do to help achieve a moral foreign policy?
*We have a tendency to take the US for granted because we feel powerless because "they're taking care of it in Washington." (I assure you, they're not.)
*We in Washington want to hear from people.
*We need to take our duty as citizens much more seriously.
*Voting.
*Asking questions is important.
*Keep asking questions out loud: e.g. Are we really fighting terrorists in the right way?

(8)How do we reconcile the US' bloody history with working with others?
*American model isn't the only model of democracy.
*I believe we are all the same and want to make decisions for ourselves.
*As I tell my students at Georgetown, foreign policy is trying to get another country to do what you want.
*For example with Iran: Carter was forward leaning on human rights, but he did deal with the Shaw.
*We need to favor working with the N.
*But for example on Kosovo, we weren't able to get force approval from the UN. So sometimes you have to take a difficult approach.
*We'll never get complete approval for everything we do.

(9)Chavez is calling us a paper tiger and seems to want to take the mantle of Castro when he dies.
The Bush administration is not as unilateral as they are uni-dimensional. They only understand military power and only in the Middle East. I told Bush, you act as if you created democracy, whereas in truth I did. I created a community of democracies. I used to carry around this map of the evolution of Latin America from authoritarian to democracy. But democracies have to deliver. I don't mean to sound Marxist, but people prefer to eat rather than to vote. Land reform is needed throughout Latin America. When a populist becomes elected, he often becomes authoritarian. Free trade needs to move forward through bilateral agreements.

Countries are beginning to group in opposition to the US. Things happening aren't being paid attention to. Policy is about framing the choice. When the choice is between being for the Iraq War, Guanatanamo Bay, etc vs. other, people are going to choose the other. Then more people are against us. We can't have certainty that we're always right.

Posted by cj at 9:46 PM | Comments (0)

May 15, 2006

poking a hole in my bubble

I currently live in a bubble of blogging, working, and working on WILPF. I'm trying to change that. So after my last post / rant, I went to said disparaged sites and found Drinking Liberally. So if I have energy after the Lost finale (or maybe during the Lost finale, cause let's face it I haven't exactly been watching it this year), I'll head on over to Red Lion for the Northside drink up.

Other (mostly white) progressives are doing a Principles Project, to declare a cohesive platform for liberals. Haven't read the actual platform yet, but noted that all the usual suspects for young, white liberals are on board.

In related news, the Chicago Liberal Drinkers linked to this blog post full o Edmund Burke quotes.

And here's the League of Young Voters, formerly called the League of Independent Voters, "coloquially" known as the League of Pissed Off Voters.

Off to iron my shirt...gonna meet Madam Secretary Albright tomorrow. Or at least take a picture with her. Gotta love alumnae clubs.

Posted by cj at 10:53 PM | Comments (0)

Beyond Chatter

There are plenty of important news stories out there. The government is spying on us, each and every one of us, and the scariest part is how many citizens are perfectly okay with it.

More people die everyday in Iraq, and no one can remember that Mother's Day is an Anti-War Holiday.

Gas prices aren't going down, oil companies keep getting richer, and the masses continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Republicans and other blowhards fail to connect the dots on immigration - progressives don't bother to point out that the entire reason we have limits on legal immigration is to keep the number of non-whites admitted to the country lower than the white population. It started with quotas for Chinese immigrants, expanded to limit Eastern Euros and Slavs (all considered non-white at the time), and on down the line.

The government and the capitalists crow for days on end about the glories of free trade. That goods and services must flow freely across national boundaries in this age of globalization. I'm extremely unclear why pieces of paper and other constructs of the human mind have more transnational rights than living, breathing human beings.

Rebel fractions from Darfur continue to insist that the peace agreement was not a truly negotiated deal and therefore they should not be expected to stop their uprising against the Sudanese government.

New Israeli Prime Minister Olmert lays out a "convergence" plan for appropriating even more of the arable Palestinian territory, and completing the apartheid wall, and the reaction from the world is muted, and there is no unified rage within the US that he is coming to DC and meeting with every single impt head there is (POTUS, VPOTUS, joint session of Congress, SecDef, and SecState).

What we need is coordinated movement building. The NYT says the CIA is no longer able to do strategic intelligence gathering. Similarly, the left has lost its strategy. We're a thousand voices, unable to frame our issues in a way that easily connects them for outsiders. We spend more time yapping at each other's heels than we doing Building he Movement, Speaking Truth to Power, or Creating Viable Change.

We need to stop simply reacting to the actions of the corporate-political syndicate. We need to create our own actions that do not rely on daily news briefs to move forward. We should be moving forward without the latest bit of bad news. And not just online in domestically-myopic forums like Atrios and Daily Kos. We need to create Social Upheaval.

Posted by cj at 10:24 PM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2006

Observations from Israel

The "Women Challenge US Policy: Building Peace on Justice in the Middle East" (WCUSP) campaign received the following first-hand account of Israeli ethnic-cleansing from an Israeli peace activist. We urge you to join our challenge to US monetary, diplomatic, and military support of the illegal occupation of Palestine.

-----

Tonight an Israeli television news report (channel 1) seems indicative of things to come, and the word should be spread. The report reveals that a Palestinian city with some 400 structures, narrow alleys, even a minaret has been built in the Negev for Israeli and American troop convenience--to practice house to house fighting in urban Palestinian and Iraqi communities. This does not bode well for either Iraq or Palestine, but my concern now is the latter.

This village-for-warriers-to-practice-killing-Palestinians, together with what I see happening in the OPTs (I'm there at least once a week--mainly in the Salfit governate, though I also go to some demonstrations against the wall in other areas) bring me to conclude that Israel is increasing its endeavors at ethnic cleansing. The changes that have been occurring the past several months (fences everywhere, more road blocks than ever, longer waits at checkpoints, tall lookout towers that can be used to snipe from springing up outside villages that have never been violent, continued land theft, etc etc etc suggest that attempts at ethnic cleansing are increasing in intensity, with the notion that making life as tough as possible for Palestinians will encourage them to leave, if not Palestine, at least their villages and run to urban areas that are safer (e.g., Bethlehem or Ramallah). There are not many of these 'safer' urban areas left. It appears (to me, at least) that Israel's ethnic cleansing is aiming driving as many Palestinians out as possible, in order to urbanize the OPTs for continued Jewish settlement to produce the 'greater Israel,' leaving Palestinians 4-5 cities with no hope for expansion or means of sustenance.

Immigration to Israel has almost entirely dried up (this past year population increase was due to birth not to immigration). The notion of a Jewish state demands a Jewish majority. With demography the main Zionist criterion, it appears that Israel's governments have realized that the only way to keep a Jewish majority here is by driving the Palestinians out. The simulated Arab city in the Negev is an ominous sign of what awaits the Palestinians. Heaven help them, and all of us, because it doesn't seem as if the world gives a damn more about what happens to Palestinians than it did about what happened to Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc during WWII.

This Palestinian city in the Negev was undoubtedly paid for with American $s. If you have time and influence, use it to cut American military aid to Israel, and to encourage the Presbyterian Church and others to engage in divesting from (at the least) companies that help maintain the Occupation, and boycotting Israel.

Dorothy

Cross-posted from the WILPF blog. I am the WCUSP Campaign Representative on the national board of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).

Posted by cj at 12:55 AM | Comments (0)

May 9, 2006

1001 Preachers and No Choir

Last Sunday, I went to the annual Walk for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine. Just once, I'd like to see an even organized primarily by concerned Jews list Palestine before Israel.

Nitpicking aside, it was an intriguing event. Definitely a disappoint after the incredible display of organization and solidarity at the May Day immigrant marches held throughout the country. This march is always held to coincide with Jewish United Fund's Walk With Israel According to JUF, they mobilized 12,800 people through 8 Chicago-area marches, including 600 people at their Oak Park / River Forest march (the closest one to the event I attended). I'd say about 200 people showed up for the reality-based march.

According to Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada, 17,000 Palestinians live in the Chicago-area. I'm unclear why more of an effort wasn't made to bring them to the event. Abunimah was definitely the most charismatic leader: he offered insight into the desperation situations faced everyday by Palestinians and encouraged us to hold our government responsible for its collusion with the Israeli government.

The "marquee" attractions: Phyllis Bennis and Danny Glover gave uninspired speeches at the end of the day that made me feel like they either had too many events on their schedules or like me were disappointed in the size of the crowd. I don't fault what they said; I simply think their message was to simplistic for their audience.

There comes a time when speeches have little impact on you. Perhaps that's the point when you should stop being an observer and become a speaker. I'm tired of the rhetoric; I'm tired of leaderless movements; and I'm tired of doing actions that lead nowhere.

On a personal note, it continues to be difficult for me to find pride in my Jewish heritage. I want to have an asterisk by my ethnic identity: yes, I'm glad I know where I came from on both sides of my family (Russia, aka the Ukraine, by way of pogroms that killed some of my ancestors); but I have no interest in patriotism. I have even less interest in religion-based nationality. The actions of the militaristic Israeli state and its thousands of supporters here in the US make me question why I maintain my Jewish identity. In the end, my religious conviction impels me to continue my work, so I will.

I watched Frontline / World's account of Hamas and Palestine tonight. I'd say more, but I'm falling asleep.

Posted by cj at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)

May 7, 2006

Name Change and Transitions

In case you're wondering why this blog's name changed...

Last summer I was searching for a good phrase as an email / IM handle. I found "social upheaval" in a description of "No Direction Home," the Scorsese doc re Dylan. That exact press release doesn't seem to be available anymore, but it said that 1961-66 was a time of social upheaval.

And that's when it hit me - what this globe needs is some good ol' fashioned social upheaval. I abhor violence and I don't think it ultimately brings any positive results. But challenging and changing the heart and soul of society is what all of my life's work is about, including this blog.

Since Google often confused "Chicken Foot Stew" with a recipe for chicken foot stew - leading many would-be stew makers to this site - and since the meaning seemed convoluted to me (why hide behind a catchy name when you can stand out front with your politics on your sleeve?), I decided last December to purchase socialupheaval.com and transition my blog to that name.

My friend the anonymous donor of server space has a lot on his plate and didn't get socialupheaval pointing here until today. I've still got to work out the complete transition, but it's getting there.

Chicken Foot Stew will continue to be an active URL, it will simply be a mirror site for Social Upheaval.

Posted by cj at 11:49 PM | Comments (0)

1000 Preachers and No Choir - Part II

Notes from the Opening Plenary Speakers at the Chicago Social Forum

JR Fleming, Coalition to Protect Public Housing
The UN Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to adequate housing, regardless of income, health, or marital status. Forceful evictions: can happen when homeowners are taxed out of the ability to keep their homes and through gentrification. The US has been charged with crimes against humanity at the United Nations in Geneva for its inadequate public housing.

Suzanne Adley, Coalition to Protect People's Rights
The US claims the moral high ground and polices the globe, but refuses to be held accountable for its own human rights abuses. Chicago Mayor Daley is in Israel to get police training from the Israelis who have perfected racist and abusive police practices.

The Case of Mr. Muhammad Salah
In 1993, Palestinian-American Salah went to Palestine with aid. After visiting a hospital, he was picked up by Israeli Defense Forces and driven around for hours. He was brought into IDF custody and held for 80 days and tortured. He confessed to some crimes during this torture process and as sentenced to five years in an Israeli prison. In 1998 he returned to Bridgeview, Illinois and learned that he had been placed on the US "Special Designated Terrorist List," which means that his family's assets were frozen and he could not move around freely because under the terms of US law he would have to declare himself a terrorist when getting on a bus.

Salah was indicted by the Clinton administration, but the Justice Department threw out the charges.

The Bush administration recently indicted him based on the confessions in Hebrew he signed while being tortured by the Israeli government.

This is a landmark case because it is detrimental to due process and human rights.

The Coalition to Protect People's Rights was formed to address the issue of torture in all of its forms and to support due process.

More info: " Coalition Mobilizes for Man’s Rights in US Courts," By Sonia Nettnin on Scoop
Public Truth Hearing on the Case of Muhammed Salah, next Saturday, March 11 1-4pm at Chicago-Kent School of Law

Frank Borgers, PhD
This guy works for the California Nurses Association (CNA). In partnership with the Steelworkers, CNA is trying to expand its organizing into other states and other hospital workers. Apparently, they represent the nurses who work at Chicago public hospitals. These RNs have been without a contract for years and are threatening a one day strike.
CNA' s March 2, 2006 press release on the matter
SEIU announces the formation of the Nurse Alliance, a nation-wide membership organization by and for nurses (nurses who are connected to their fellow caregivers by being in the same union, SEIU, the largest healthcare workers' union in the country)

Jesse Sharkey, Save Senn Coalition
So, the Save Senn Coalition lost its fight. The board voted to establish a naval academy at Senn and 1/3 of the school was kicked out. Per Sharkey, our numbers are too small to be effective; but class consciousness is rising. There is a cumulative effect of our organizing and educating.

Abel Nunez, Associate Director of Centro Romero
Immigration is not just a domestic issue. Why are people forced to come? Because wealth is not being distributed fairly. There is state / corporate power over people. Why type of country do we want? A country of exclusion where only a small percentage of the population have everything? Or a country of inclusion, with justice for all?

We need to exercise our power.
It is great that the movement has diversified and de-centralized.
We have learned that it is easy to organize in reaction - for example to oppose specific legislation (HR4437).
But it is harder to mobilize to build.

[further notes must be postponed to a later date. must sleep. Also want to report back from the Walk for Peace and Justice in Israel / Palestine.]

Posted by cj at 10:19 PM | Comments (0)

1000 Preachers and No Choir - Part I

There's this dumb saying "preaching to the choir." Progressives often disparage their own work by saying they're just preaching to the choir, not gathering new converts to their cause.

Let's think about the words progressives use - they have a superiority complex based on their rational reaction to the world. Instead of claiming higher authority for their cause, they (usually) claim superior intellect. Now, it's true that some people come to their progressive activism from their religious heritage, but if that's the case they usually have a superiority complex about their religion (as opposed to their more conservative brethren). It's all a vicious cycle.

Conservatives, on the other hand, could care less if you the outsider sense their moral superiority. They enjoy preaching to the choir because it strengthens the base. They know these speeches cannot sway large numbers of people who aren't already inclined to agree. They also understand that evangelicalism begins with an individual relationship, not a Big Rally or Demonstration. Two people, talking to each other. That's how opinions are formed, questioned, and ultimately changed.

So, that's why I don't usually enjoy demonstrations, rallies, or day-long forums. It's not just that I'm sick of being preached at. It's that I'm sick of progressives having no plans. I spent all day Saturday listen to people talk at me about their particular issues. Not a single person or organization presented a plan for how to involve me in their issue.

Well, that's not exactly true. I could've signed up to walked the picket line with Chicago public nurses. And I did sign up to visit my alderman with teachers to protest the "Renaissance 2010" plan for education overhaul. But usually, after a day of meetings, I've accomplished more than giving people my email address. Dude - I did not have to wake up early and spend a gorgeous Saturday inside to sign up for more listservs!!!

You know, it's not bad to preach to the choir. What's even better is to be a conductor and teach the choir to sing in harmony. True change will not begin until we all work together with one voice towards one goal. Some people think it's a good thing that there are no charismatic leaders leading "the movement;" they think this means we're truly grassroots. I'm not sure about that. As long as we chatter at each other and don't unite, the corporate controllers of our society will continue to call us the restless rabble, and the majority of our sisters and brothers will believe them.

Posted by cj at 9:07 PM | Comments (0)

May 4, 2006

File Under: Ridiculous Corrections

As pointed out by Today's Papers. I find it appalling how many mistakes were made.

Because they had so little time to prepare ... From the NYT:

An obituary on Monday and in late editions on Sunday about the economist and diplomat John Kenneth Galbraith referred incorrectly to his family at several points. He had a younger brother, William, who died several years ago; he was not an only son. A sister, Catherine Denholm, also died several years ago; she was not among his survivors. Mr. Galbraith had 10 grandchildren, not 6. Because of an editing error, the term for his wife's vocation was truncated in some copies. She is a linguist. A caption misstated the date of a photograph of the Galbraiths taken at their home in New Delhi while he was an ambassador. It was in 1956, not 1966.

Posted by cj at 6:39 AM | Comments (0)