go_team

I need to go to the store for basic food staples like eggs and bread (we've finally admitted that the bread machine isn't working) but in the meantime, a little brain dump.

Previously worrisome tax stuff about the house has been sorted with our big scary corporate lender; now all I have to do is remind Lane County that I own this house, too. That's not so bad. However, while I'm on the subject of taxes, I for one am not happy to hear that the Bush administration's tax reforms may focus on taxing consumption instead of income. That translates as "big tax cuts for people with more money than they can spend", mmkay? It is bad news if you are spending anywhere near what you earn, living paycheck to paycheck, or borrowing money, you will be paying proportionally more. Isn't that kind of the definition of regressive taxation? I haven't looked it up yet, but I'm definitely feeling suspicious. If any of you want to beat me to researching this and writing or drawing it up in catchy Internet meme form, please feel free.

I think maybe I need one of these shirts. Longsleeve, though; my t-shirt collection is still pretty out of control. I'm glad to report that my crew at work is mostly shell-shocked and/or disgusted by the events of this Tuesday; the one guy who probably voted for Bush isn't scheduled to work with me for at least another two weeks, so that's all good. By then I'm sure he'll be rooting for some other team he thinks is a winner, or else I can always kick him in the balls accidentally bump him with a hot pan add him to my list of "okay, so you voted for the guy, now explain me why" interviewees. I think I'll probably be able to maintain horrified curiosity, but if he gets obnoxious, there's always the hot pan fallback plan.

I am loving SorryEverybody.com. Part of me still wants to be writing letters to everyone I know outside the U.S. to remind them that 3.5 million is not that big a lead and there's no way of knowing how much of it is faked or stolen or due to voter intimidation or crappy machines or provisional ballots or whatever but most importantly there's still millions of people in this country who are not actively trying to bring about the Eschaton. But actions are louder than words, yes? Better than a personal letter from me to a few friends and relatives is for many more people to see the world news have report millions of U.S.-ians protesting the stupids in charge. Hint, hint, y'all.

Speaking of news, self-censorship can suck it. Last night after I finished closing, I stopped by the office to chat with my manager, as I am wont to do. He's in "turn off the TV'" mode, which I can respect a bunch, oh yes. But I was never big on the TV to begin with, and I do still want to keep informed. This is where all y'all help me make a list of independent media sources so I can see things through more filters than just The New York Times, AlterNet, and whatever generic Associated Press-style shows up on my Yahoo! homepage when I make my daily email check there. I check out Common Dreams from time to time, I don't read or listen to Democracy Now! nearly as much as I should (note to self; independent radio news is kewl) and I like Salon, maybe even enough to put my money where that comment is and subscribe (they do, after all, publish Lynda Barry and Keith Knight's comix, which is reason enough to love them right there). But where else should I be looking? Keep me posted, kids!

I don't want to take the No on 36 sign out of our window. I'm thinking of adapting it to say "Constitutional Amendment 36 is still wrong".

At the very least, I'm working on compiling a big list of the good and hopeful and productive and just interesting things people are saying in the wake of this election. I'll probably write some more about hope, since that's my theme for now, but after that I'm not sure where to go. Do I try to make it into a book? Would any of you who wrote in last time be interested in contributing to a book about hope? How about a more self-published indie zine-type thingy that we sell on the Internet all underground economy style because it's easier than trying to shop things around to publishers? Again, bring the ideas, please.

Note to self: write defiant "Dear U.S. of A." letter.

Ok, so apparently PBS has a new series out about the history of the idea of race in the United States, and in particular the evolution of the idea that there are actual biological differences between races, and how really race is a social construct. It's called Race: The Power of an Illusion, and that link goes to the PBS pages about the program, which I haven't really explored yet.

Anyway, I've been reading some reviews of the series, and it's made me curious about some stuff. AlterNet ran a really positive review, of course, but I just stumbled across the New York Times's review (you might need an NYT login to see it), and it's making me really curious to actually see the series in question. The Times reviewer doesn't like Race: The Power of an Illusion much, and the main reason for that dislike (besides the fact that it's a PBS series, which can make for weird production issues) seems to be that the reviewer thinks "race is a social construct" is an old idea, and the series is beating a dead horse and avoiding more interesting issues of race in contemporary society by looking at ancient history.

So. What I'm really wondering about (besides is the series any good) is whether the idea of race as a social construct is really as widespread as the New York Times reviewer seems to think it is. Because maybe it's common knowledge among regular PBS viewers, readers of the late Stephen Jay Gould (who appears in the series), and so forth, but I think there's still plenty of people who think there's valid biological reasons for racial divisions, instead of history and social traditions and suchforth. Now whether the PBS series reaches those people is a different story, but do you really think WKKK (a totally fictional station, I hope) is going to run a series about the evolution of race as an idea and tool of oppression? Allrighty then. Furthermore, if PBS had made a series about the subtle nuances of race in contemporary society based on the idea that race is just a social construct, that assumption would make that series kinda hard for the "race is biological" people to understand (again, assuming such a series would reach them, which I know is kind of a sketchy assumption).

Anyway, my thought is that the PBS series is potentially useful, if only for introducing people to the idea that racial divisions are socially invented and enforced, but maybe it is as PBS-awful as the Times reviewer says? I don't know. I'm mostly just thinking out loud here, and I'm only posting it publically because maybe someone will read it and be able to answer my questions (is the series any good? how widely known and accepted is the idea that race is more a social construct than a biological division between groups of people?)

I didn't have a camera at the Portland anti-war rally and march on Saturday (March 15), but I took pages of notes, mostly on the signs and slogans I saw around me. Now judging by the livejournal comments I've posted, emails I've sent out, and Everything2 homenode update I've posted today, I feel like writing more about the experience, so here's some preliminary thoughts, taken from the aforementioned email and LJ comment and E2 homenode post.

The bad news first: I was really disappointed by the number of signs and effigies making fun of George W. Bush. As much as I agreed with some of them, they mostly struck me as petty and counter-productive. I know he wasn't really elected, I know he comes across as an idiot (I can't stand to hear him on the radio, let alone watch him on TV) and most of all I know it's embarrassing he's the public face of the United States in entirely too many ways, but dangit, I for one was marching for something bigger than personal dislike of Dubya. Sigh.

Now for some happier news: One of the coolest things about the anti-war rally and march in Portland was that there were people of all ages there, not just teenagers and college students. It's not just rebellious kids who think the war is stupid, it's grandmothers. Which is just great. It's good to know that not everybody is hypnotized by the TV news. Also, I feel like there's much less of getting teargassed or shot by riot police when there's little old ladies in the crowd. Which is a good feeling as well.

According to the Sunday newspapers (including the New York Times), there were 20,000 to 30,000 people at the rally and march in Portland. I was glad it made the news. Even if the administration isn't listening, at least the media couldn't ignore it, and in turn that means people who didn't march got to see that there's plenty of people opposed to the war. Whether it will make them think is a different story, but it's a start. I wonder if the U.S. anti-war protests make the news in other countries. I hope they do, because one of my major reasons for getting involved is to try to show as many people as possible that not everyone in the U.S. is blindly supporting the administration's war plans.

That pretty much sums up everything I've been telling people about my experiences at the march and rally. I feel like I should have more to say, but I'm kind of drawing a blank right now. Oh well. At least I've gotten those thoughts down where I won't forget them too quickly.

Update, 13:43: Happy Saint Patrick's Day, all. And please keep sending me your book recommendations (for those of you who just tuned in, yesterday I asked for suggestions on good books about the history and theory of nonviolent social protest).

Update, 15:55: Picture of me at the Portland anti-war march and rally courtesy of qousqous: ( Read more... )