eternal state of terror 2004.Aug.22 20:38

An article about an American visiting Jerusalem, and musings about living under constant threat of death.

I wonder though. Is it really all that paralyzing to realize that someday you are going to die?

I think the pathologization of death is a recent thing, peculiar to Americans. I think many other people in the world are more aware of the fragility of human life (and are also more blase about it.) Maybe it's because of the conditions that most of the rest of the world are under.

What makes one fear death? I have my own ideas, but consider this: If you didn't fear death, then the terrorists couldn't win.

I think that you can be unafraid of death without loving it the way bin Laden states he does. I think that, if you are aware that any moment in time might be your last, and you aim to live a good life, then it is easier to stand firm for what you believe in.

I think that a lot of evil occurs because people try to avoid death at the expense of others, which is completely nonsensical because it is a universal truth that people die.

To sacrifice your principles and perhaps other people just to gain a momentary extension of your time here on earth is sad. Sure, it's the human condition, the animal condition. But isn't that the whole argument? That what separates us from animals is that we are aware of these things, that we can choose not to be the selfish, Darwinian animal and choose the greater Good.

Of course, I've only had a gun pointed to my head once in my life, and even then I didn't think I was going to die, so what do I know?

permalink | 0 writebacks

conservative people of color need not apply 2004.Aug.21 10:10

Michelle Malkin is certainly making lots of friends. (Despite my apparent fascination with my fellow Filipino American, I do not think she is all that hot. I'm not even going to try to psychologize the whole Pinay-white man thing....) But this blog entry reminds me that no intelligent person-of-color, even if they are conservative, can rationally support the Republican Party.

It is clear that the GOP stands for internment of ethnic groups and racial profiling and denying people-of-color their civil rights and their chance to excel on equal footing with white people. While you might have been able to dance around this before, what with Lincoln having freed the slaves and all, and people like Colin Powell in respectable positions of power, W and his clan have sort of laid it bare. Think Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott. The fiasco in Florida in 2000 that disenfranchised lots of black voters.

I think this fact is more clear if you were a person of color and living in California. For the past decade now, there has been blatant legislation passed that prevents undocumented individuals from receiving proper health care, that dismantles the ability of state institutions to use a person's unique background as criteria for admission or employment, and that erases programs that can teach a person not skilled in English how to function in society and hopefully learn English. Then there was the beating of Rodney King, which really hasn't changed much, considering the sorts of things that still happen routinely in Compton and Long Beach.

Seriously, though. Lots of people-of-color use "Republican" interchangeably with "racist."

permalink | 0 writebacks

malkin watch 2004.Aug.21 06:58

More about Michelle's meltdown on Hardball. Misogyny against women people-of-color is now fair game, thanks to her.

Women people-of-color really should know better than to be lunatic fringe neo-conservatives. We've got some serious educating to do.

I'm not even going to go into the fact that she things internment of ethnic groups is a good idea. How about this one, Michelle? Abu Sayyaf is a Filipino organization funded by Al Qaeda. The Philippine government has not been effective at stopping them. Some typical neo-conservative "logic" ensues. This is equivalent to saying that the Philippine government supports Abu Sayyaf. Therefore, all Filipinos are terrorists. Ergo, we should also intern Filipino Americans because, who knows? Maybe they work for Abu Sayyaf.

Hey, maybe Michelle Malkin is making herself so visible in the mainstream media because in reality she is a double-agent from Abu Sayyaf trying to infiltrate the GOP and influence the neocons!

Heh. Now that's crazy.

Random, tangential question: what is a crazier thing to say, that Kerry purposefully inflicted his wounds in order to get a medal and an early discharge, or that Bush had something to do with 9/11?

I'm obviously biased, because I hate Bush, although I am lukewarm about Kerry. But I think the notion that Kerry somehow had this all planned out, that he realized some 30 years from the time of the incident that it would all pay-off politically—this is indeed stretching the bounds of credulity. Even the idea of volunteering for one of the most dangerous assignments there was in order to get an early discharge or maybe get a medal is pushing things. After all, couldn't he just have hidden out in the National Guard like oh-so-many Republicans did during the Vietnam War? Or go AWOL altogether like our Dear Leader? (Man. Bush didn't even have the cojones to at least dodge the draft like the Clenis™ did.)

permalink | 0 writebacks

political correctness is economically sound 2004.Aug.20 21:50

This article illustrates how being culturally insensitive can cost a corporation hundreds of millions of dollars (found on LYD's mini-blog). White people beware!

permalink | 0 writebacks

get this woman off the air 2004.Aug.20 19:44

What really sucks about Michelle Malkin is that she perpetuates the stereotype of the Pinay as this insane, raving, emotional lunatic who cannot see reason. In the interest of all Filipino Americans, it would be wise to disavow her or something. Make it clear that she is an outlier. That not all Filipino women are like her.

I mean, I don't know how I feel about a white guy like Chris Matthews putting the smack down on Michelle [transcript][commentary], even though I know he's right and she's wrong. It's the whole racial/gender power dynamic that I find troubling.

And the only thing that Michelle can do is call Matthews names. It's really sad.

But I really like that phrase. Coalition of the Insane. I think I need to steal that.

So, seriously, if you are for women's rights, especially the rights of women of color, and you want to dispel the stereotypes, get Michelle Malkin off the air, for Christ sake.

permalink | 1 writebacks

resistance to the invasion and occupation of nyc 2004.Aug.19 10:28

This would be so funny if any of it came true and it doesn't become the chaos and violence that Ted Rall alludes to with his reference to Chicago in 1968.

But, yeah, the comparison of the USAF entering Baghdad to the GOP having their convention in NYC is apt to a degree. It makes sense that this administration, who brazenly claimed that Iraqis would welcome them with open arms, would make the same mistake twice and think that New Yorkers would greet them with flowers.

Watershed times. Sentinel events transpiring. If only our media would actually do some reporting once in a while.

permalink | 0 writebacks

colonial mentality 2004.Aug.17 19:20

I don't like accepting the fact that some people are just irrational, and there's nothing facts can do to change their mind. I like to believe in causality. Behind all malice is an inciting cause.

Now, without knowing someone personally, it's hard to make these kind of judgements. But I must say, it is very easy to write Michelle Malkin off as one of those disaffected Filipino Americans who totally sold out to the man, and who sneers at the vicissitudes of her fellow people-of-color.

To put it bluntly, she has little-to-no street cred. Only white people would take her seriously.

So it is somewhat of a relief to hear of the rumor that Malkin's family was somehow tied to the Marcos despotism in some shape or form. I can't find anything to corroborate or invalidate it. This rumor completely jibes with my sense of consistency. It actually puts her incendiary, historically amnestic, and plain moronic comments in a logical context. This is the sort of bombast that Imelda Marcos would write. The colonial subject's complete capitulation to the West: buying into the paradigm that the West is cultural superior and should be emulated. This, ultimately, is the bullshit that Malkin peddles, and it really pisses me off that she can so blithely dance on the graves of all of my kinsfolk and ancestors who suffered and died in defense of Liberty. All her railings against the attempts of people-of-color to better themselves without subjugating themselves as dependents of the Western ideal seem like direct insults to those people who fought for Freedom against Tyranny, indeed, against the entire saga of Philippine independence from the West (still painfully incomplete nearly half-a-millenium in the making), and of the Filipino American struggle for parity in the West.

I have this vision that Malkin would've derided Rizal, ridiculed Bonifacio, insulted Aguinaldo. And Luis Taruc would be nothing but a terrorist to her, completely ignoring the fact that he was one of those who defended the Philippines from Tyranny. She and her family no doubt disdained Corazon Aquino, sneered at the EDSA Revolution.

The Manongs should have been happy to even have a chance to come to America, never mind the fact that they were treated by whites pretty much like dogs. Right.

So Michelle Malkin makes me really sick and sad. She is the ultimate expression of how U.S. Imperialism has totally warped the Filipino and Filipino American's self-image, to the point that we can only compare ourselves to white people, and we forever see ourselves coming short.

To which I reply: that's complete shit.

Ms. Malkin, I hope that someday you will gain the wisdom to realize what sort of fool you are being played for.

permalink | 1 writebacks

sword of damocles 2004.Aug.17 18:57

I realize that John Kerry is not exactly the ideal progressive candidate. It will be a long hard time before the pendulum will ever swing left, if ever. The choice this election really is between the lesser of two evils. Or as this website puts it succinctly, John Kerry Sucks Less.

In a sane, rational nation, Kerry would easily become president, and W and his gang of thugs would go to jail. Of course, we all know that this nation isn't really all that sane, so I will not consider the Republic Restored until Chimpy is irrevocably ejected from office.

Still, who knows what sort of government we might find ourselves with come January 20th, 2005. I think most pragmatic progressives realize that things probably won't change much. The voices of the lunatic right wing fringe will be muffled down a bit, but otherwise I suspect business will continue as usual. America will keep making missiles, bombs, and planes and selling them to nations who don't really want them, or could use their money on more useful things like, say, food. Oil will continue to run out, gas prices will continue to rise. The rest of the world will be just as dangerous as ever, with Osama bin Laden running rampant around the world. Same old shit, different political party.

While Bill Clinton was an exceedingly popular president, reaching the same heights that Ronald Reagan did, he clearly did disservice to the progressive cause by capitulating many issues to conservatives. I have no illusions about what sort of guy he is, and I have a generally jaundiced view of politicians in general. (My philosophy is that anyone who wants power should be kept away from it. I would've made a great Whig.)

So what will become of the right-of-center mainstream Democratic party should John Kerry be elected?

permalink | 0 writebacks

what is wrong with conservatism 2004.Aug.16 18:12

This essay breaks it down. There should be no shame in being a liberal. The Founding Fathers were liberals, and this country is great exactly because of liberals.

More literate conservatives might argue that the millenia-old debate between liberal and conservative does not apply to this day and age, that what is "conservative" now is what used to be "liberal" back in the day. Certainly, neo-Marxists use this terminology, describing the capitalist hegemons of the day as neo-liberal.

But, I think the crux of the debate is between hierarchy and egalite. I do not think it can be disputed that conservatives are more hierarchical, while liberals (though sometimes naievely misguidedly when it comes to dealing with people of color) aspire to egalitarianism.

It is interesting, though, that the Declaration of Independence is pretty unequivocal about it. All men are created equal. I do not understand how this statement can be hijacked by apologists of hierarchy.

Ever since I understood the implications of the fall of the U.S.S.R., I've always thought that we would realize that it is not really socialism that is antithetical to democracy. There are lots of socialists democracies in the world today. I think that, even more acutely, we will truly discover that capitalism as practiced and democracy are likewise antithetical. (The idea of capitalism as expounded by Adam Smith is still pretty convincing, but who really has a laissez-faire economy?)

permalink | 0 writebacks

why does george w bush hate america? 2004.Aug.07 17:31

This is the second secret agent whose cover W has blown. What the fuck?!?! This is treason, for chrissake!

permalink | 0 writebacks

crime against humanity 2004.Aug.06 16:30

I have been reading a lot about Einstein and modern physics, so I guess it's apt that I come across this image on The Agonist.

For better or for worse, the United States is the only nation in history to use the ultimate weapon of mass destruction on other human beings.

I don't care to talk about Harry Truman or Enola Gay or Douglas MacArthur or any of the policy-wrangling taking place in that bygone era. Politics are politics. I am well aware of the atrocities committed by Japanese troops at Bataan, Corregidor, and throughout the Philippines, not to mention China, Korea, or Southeast Asia.

I am not going to defend the Japanese Empire by any means, but it is notable that any time a war happens, guess who gets killed? It surely isn't the people who actually started the war. It's usually a bunch of civilians who are entrapped by their culture and governmental policy.

The guilty never die.

That frozen clock from Hiroshima, the shadows burned into the walls at Nagasaki, are the reasons why I am wary of anyone who wants to start a war but doesn't want to go themselves, instead sending young man to their dooms and letting innocents die for their sins.

permalink | 0 writebacks

empty 2004.Aug.04 20:45

The Retardicans have nothing left. All they can is make fun of Kerry and his antics. Although I must agree, this picture looks rather strange.

permalink | 0 writebacks