Sunday, October 2, 2016

re: new leaked audio, clinton has it backwards

Recently leaked audio from a political fundraiser for Clinton:

Hacked Audio Reveals Hillary Clinton Sees Herself Occupying “Center-Left to Center-Right”

Personally, I think that Clinton has it totally backwards. It's not some vague, naive Millennial mindset that's affecting their politics; it's the economic realities of their actual lives that are affecting their politics.

Clinton jokes about politically-naive Millennials living in their parent's basement and working as baristas, lamenting their less-than-upwardly mobile job prospects. But it's not because they're lazy or naively idealistic; it's because those kinds of jobs are all that many can get, and Millennials are struggling to make ends meet and pay off their student loan debts while trying to find places to live in rental markets that are getting increasingly out of control, many just a single paycheck shy of becoming one of the growing numbers of the working homeless. I spent three years working in the food court of Portland State University, and can attest to that fact myself.

Clinton also jokes about not getting the idea of Bernie Sanders' 'political revolution,' and I think that's partially due to the fact that she's part of the ruling class. For one, the idea of a political revolution challenges the very status quo that she's a part of. In addition, her economic reality is very different from that of most Millennials. She possesses a level of wealth and social power that many don't. She isn't burdened with tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. She isn't struggling to find a decent paying job in an over-saturated job market or a place to live in an over-inflated rental market. And when it comes to the young black Millennials she mentions, I don't think she gets their POV because she's speaking from a place of relative privilege. Yes, she's a woman. But she's also educated, white, and from a successful, suburban, middle-class family who's likely unfamiliar with the racial discrimination and inequalities faced by people of colour.

And finally, she doesn't get it because of her politics, which has always been decidedly conservative. It's well known she was a young Republican who volunteered for Goldwater back in 1964; and she admits as much by saying that she occupies the centre-left to the centre-right and criticizes the idea of achieving things like universal single-payer healthcare, universal higher-education, etc. like they have in Scandinavia. It's all about the idealization of hard work, not the socialization of opportunity.

Certainly she's progressive when it comes to many social issues, like women's reproductive rights and more recently same-sex marriage, but the rest is moderately conservative neoliberalism through and through. Hawkish record and rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy; opposition to things like universal single-payer healthcare and universal higher-education; past support for welfare reform that's hurt the most vulnerable; rhetoric about the mythical job growth in the 90s that was, unfortunately, built upon a shaky foundation that would eventually give way and cause the 2008 crisis from which we've yet to fully recover from, etc.

That Millennials are struggling with debt, limited job opportunities after college, and a spreading rental crisis while looking beyond neoliberlism for a solution isn't the result of some naive idealism, but of concrete, material, economic realities. The fact is, Millennials aren't as naive and entitled as older generations make them out to be. They're highly educated and hardworking and the beneficiaries of amazing technological innovations which give them access to the world and the world of ideas that we couldn't have dreamed of 10-20 years ago. And part of that is being able to see beyond the rules and limitations of capitalism and neoliberal ideology.

The greatest obstacle to real political revolution isn't Millennials lack of experience or political savvy, but the unbridled individualism that keeps working people of all generations from seeing the unity of their interests over that of capital and the state.

Sunday, June 12, 2016


Rivka. She was the most beautiful person I'd ever seen. I don't say that because I'm shallow, but because it's true. She was beautiful on the inside as well; but even before I got to know her, I was in love, I think. And the more I did get to know her, the kind of person she was, the more that love grew, until my heart was swollen to the point of bursting with thoughts of her. Unfortunately, when I met her, I was in a long-term relationship. Things weren't bad between Anya and I per se, but they weren't especially good, either. We were comfortable, complacent, used to each other's company. But there was something missing, or maybe it'd be more accurate to say that we simply weren't as close romantically as we once were. Whereas my love for Anya after ten plus years was deep and still, like a tranquil lake, my love for Rivka was passionate and intense, like a whirlpool of emotions—the kind of love that borders on ecstasy and madness. The thought of hurting Anya and abandoning her was hard to bear. Even so, my heart continued to yearn for Rivka. She was shy and quiet, yet there was something inside of her that at the same time frightened and captivated me, a kind of fiery hunger that threatened to consume everything in its path if set free. I saw a glimpse of it once, and I wanted it to consume me, body and soul. But I was also afraid and shied away at the last moment, afraid of losing myself as much as doing something she might later regret. I tried to be 'chivalrous.' And in my folly, I was too timid and waited too long to win her heart. In the end, I fear it was my own cowardice that kept me from such a wonderful fate, and now I fear that that regret will haunt me for quite possibly the rest of my life.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016


Something happened that night—
a supernova
of verboten emotions exploding in my chest,
awashing my body and soul in painful longing.
A longing to be so perilously
I stood, leaning against the wall,
with your arm gently around my waist,
like a dream,
like it had always belonged there.
One touch,
a force of nature that I was powerless to resist.
And yet.
I stood there,
too afraid to look into your eyes,
afraid of falling into them,
afraid I'd never escape their gravity—
two mysterious black stars floating in oceans of green,
outshining all other heavenly bodies and
threatening to pull me into their terrifyingly beautiful
The words I wanted to say that couldn't be said;
the things I wanted to do that couldn't be done,
all lost in that silent eternity,
like so many amorous comets
adrift in the empty void of space,
never to be seen by another living soul
and far from the light of
your face.
Only the memory remains
frozen forever in an enduring now of
Or maybe that's just how I'd like to remember it—
the dawning of a dream not meant to be.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

jane: an abortion service

Last night, I got a chance to see Jane: An Abortion Service at the Clinton Street Theater, which was being screened as a part of their ongoing reproductive justice film series.

The film itself is a documentary from the mid 90s focusing on a group of young women in Chicago who formed a feminist collective that helped women, particularly poor women with limited options, get abortions before Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure. Women who, for whatever reason, weren't ready to have a child were desperate for help. They were being pushed by social pressures to have children when they weren't ready and to marry people they didn't necessarily want to be with all because they got pregnant. They were treated like pariahs and had few places to turn.

Jane, a collective of young women in Chicago, saw the need for these women to have access to safe abortions and created a service that (illegally) met this need from 1968-73. The movie, while a bit dated, was extremely moving and educational. Parts of it made me uncomfortable, while others made me appreciate anew the struggles of women the many ways they've met these challenges head-on, tying into broader struggles against things like racism and economic inequality.

As an added bonus, Judith Arcana, a writer and 'Jane' featured in the documentary, was there for a Q&A at the end.

While many people have moral objections to abortion, especially at later stages of pregnancy, I believe in a woman's right to choose when to have a child. A fertilized egg/embryo is, for all intents and purposes, a part of a woman's body, and no one should have the right to tell another person what to do with their own body.

Also, having abortion be legally available and easily accessible makes it safer for women. Without it being so, women who aren't ready to have children, are impregnated against their will, etc. will either be forced to have unwanted children, which isn't good for them or the child, or else have to rely on alternative and often unsafe methods of terminating pregnancies, e.g., herbal abortifacients that may be toxic; illegal and unsafe 'back-alley' abortions (which result in an estimated 70,000 deaths per year worldwide); etc.

Another major reason I support a woman's right to choose is that, for centuries, the dominant ideology has been that a woman is essentially a walking womb and her place is the home, and anything that gives women the ability to share equally in public life and pursue things like education and careers is anathema to that. It's no surprise, then, that the majority of those who are against these things are the ones who have the most to lose, older white men.

Ultimately, it's about power. Allowing women (and men) to use contraception and decide whether they want to have a child if pregnant, not to mention having those things be safe, easily accessible, and covered by insurance, takes away what little power patriarchal institutions still have over women, which is why I fully support women's reproductive rights, as well as anything that gives women an equal share in the sphere of public life.

Although this 'right' was recognized in 1973, there has been a great deal of pushback erodding access. From the Hyde Amendment to the numerous state laws restricting providers and forcing women to endure unnecessary and even humiliating treatment/procedures (e.g., mandatory waiting periods, sonograms, and counselling that's often biased and designed to frighten women from having an abortion), women are finding themselves in a similar position as they were pre-1973. As of today, about 88% of all US counties have no identifiable abortion provider.

As a man, I don't have to worry about becoming pregnant before I'm ready and having to make such a difficult decision, which is a relatively privileged position. But as a person committed to gender equality, I feel it's my duty to listen to women about what they want and need and give them the space to make their own decisions about their own lives.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

transgender day of visibility

I went down to Pioneer Square for the Portland Transgender Day Of Visibility in support of the transgender community, and ended up doing a little canvassing for NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon in the process.

One of the things I took away from many of the speakers is that, if you care about equality in whatever form, it's important to be vocal about it. In the struggle to dismantle the oppressive systems that serve to keep us separated from one another, we must also help to create connections with, and safe spaces for, those who find themselves the 'least among us' and marginalized in this neo-colonial, white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal society.

Being vocal about supporting transgender individuals is especially important because so many are targeted for physical and sexual harassment and violence, not to mention all the issues trans individuals face with employment, insurance, mental health (due to things like harassment, rejection, and violence), and housing. It's not just about being 'open-minded,' it's about changing societal attitudes towards LGBTQ people and helping protect them from the alienation, ostracization, and violence they face every day.

And when it comes to gender equality, I fully support organization like Planned Parenthood and NARAL because women are still perceived as walking wombs; and allowing women (and men) to use contraception and decide whether they want to have a child if pregnant, not to mention having those things be safe, easily accessible, and covered by insurance, takes what little power patriarchal institutions still have over women, which is why I fully support women's reproductive rights, as well as anything that gives women an equal share in the sphere of public life.

In the end, all these struggles are connected because the roots of these various forms of inequality are the connected and reinforce one another. And it's only by joining together in solidarity that we can uproot them and create a better world.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

excerpt from an existentialist's diary

An existential malaise has fallen upon me of late, with its feverish yet indescribable woe and melancholy. Truly, how does one put into words the terror of reality and its semblant meaninglessness? How does one express the despair of existence when all pretenses are dropped and the chaotic banality of our frailty and suffering become so apparent, so oppressive? How does one look at the face of death and its unquenchable emptiness and then turn around and describe it to another? How does one communicate the anguish of their hopelessness or the infinite sadness of their loneliness to another any more successfully than a shade can impart their innermost thoughts to the living when each is separated by an insurmountable divide? How does one confide these things when the coarseness of words fails us, when we're unable to peer into one another's hearts and read the subtle language of the soul? They say that the eyes are a window into the soul, that pneumatic void. And what would that soul say if it could speak, that deep, dark abyss that lies at the heart of our individual beingness? What secrets would it share that our lips are incapable of divulging?

Monday, January 4, 2016

malheur wildlife refuge standoff and the deeper implications of privilege

Apparently this happened while we were on the coast. My initial reaction is that this is a great example of privilege, one with deep implications:

Privilege in and of itself is difficult to talk about since it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially those in privileged positions. Nobody likes to think that they have some kind of natural advantage in life over others, that they have it slightly easier than someone else just because of who they are. I like how Roxane Gay puts it in Bad Feminist:

We tend to believe that accusations of privilege imply we have it easy, which we resent because life is hard for nearly everyone. Of course we resent these accusations. Look at white men when they are accused of having privilege. They tend to be immediately defensive (and, at times, understandably so). They say, "It's not my fault I am a white man," or "I'm [insert other condition that discounts their privilege]," instead of simply accepting that, in this regard, yes, they benefit from certain privileges others do not. To have privilege in one or more areas does not mean you are wholly privileged. Surrendering to the acceptance of privilege is difficult, but it is really all that is expected. What I remind myself, regularly, is this: the acknowledgment of my privilege is not a denial of the ways I have been and am marginalized, the ways I have suffered. (17)

And since privilege is relative, it's not easy to see, often going unnoticed because it manifests itself as a lack of discrimination that isn't always readily apparent until we take a broader look at society as a whole. We are, in effect, often blind to our own privilege, or that of others, until we take a closer look at how different groups are treated in similar situations.

In this case, a group of armed, white men who feel entitled to public land and more lenient sentencing for poaching and arson have taken over a federal wildlife refuge building and are currently being given a wide berth by authorities. Would the same be true if it were a group of Blank Panthers or Muslims? How about the Black Lives Matter movement? I sincerely doubt it. No other group in the US could occupy a government and have such a measured response. No other group would get such subdued and even somewhat positive media coverage, let alone a modicum of public support. If it were any other group, that just wouldn't be the case.

Muslims are automatically labelled terrorists in the media whenever they do anything, violent or otherwise. Black men, thugs. But a white man shooting up a Planned Parenthood or movie theatre? Possibly mentally ill. And armed white men trying to expropriate public land and threatening violence if they're confronted? Well, they're simply patriots, militia men, anti-government protesters, etc. And police seem to show remarkably restraint when it comes to armed white men, like the recent Planned Parenthood shooter, Robert Lewis Dear, who was apprehended alive after killing 3 people and wounding 9, or James Holmes, who killed 12 and wounded 30, but not so much when it comes to a black kid playing with a toy gun alone in a park.

But I digress. It's not just about racial privilege, it's also about political privilege and social power in the form of capital accumulation. As @nerdosyndical points out, "The armed white people trying to dissolve a national wildlife refuge are not practicing terrorism, they are practicing enclosure. They are trying to privatize public (not common) space for personal and private accumulation of capital." Land is part of the dispute. Who gets to use it and for what. Grazing and hunting rights seem to underlie some of this, which hints at the history of US settler colonialism and process of enclosure, where common land is 'enclosed' and thereby restricted to the owner. These men feel entitled to this land, and they've taken drastic steps to assert that perceived right.

But what of Native American claims to land that was taken or promised, many of which are supported by treaties that the US government never honoured? What about Palestinians who are being forcibly removed from their land by Israeli colonizers? These are some of the questions that this incident should raise as I think they point towards the heart of the problem, capitalist class relations and how they manifest themselves.

The relative privilege that white men currently enjoy, for example, has its origins in the socio-economic paradigm the US (and arguably most of Western society) was founded upon, which from the start was created by, and mainly for, white, heterosexual, Christian, male property owners. And while there's certainly been progress towards a more egalitarian society, the structural roots of socio-economic inequalities that create hierarchies of privilege are still buried deep within the makeup of our society and culture, hidden in plain sight. This is merely an exaggerated illustration of historical processes that have been taking shape for centuries.

The real focus, then, shouldn't be their gender or their race so much as the underlying socio-economic framework that's made these things the focus for so long—a complex system of social relations forming the material basis on top of which oppressive and exploitative hierarchies are built, a foundation we must recreate if we're ever to transcend privilege and oppression.