What Just Happened?

This is a response to a query submitted below regarding my intentions in dressing up as a prisoner of the American War on Terror.

I really appreciate what you said and the feelings you're experiencing. I understand them, I think, because they are the same things that I experienced prior to doing what I did. It's a sense, really, of a "quiet desperation," as Thoreau said. What can a single person do gazing into the gut of a monstrous machine that devours and turns what is good into utter carnage?

What a lot of people did was walk away. The problem is too big, too complex, too far away to actually engage and deal with. On the opposite side of the spectrum is attack. One can attempt to shut down the machine, to throw a Molotov cocktail in its gut. Both of these are unsatisfactory. The first step to dealing with IT, is to repent. To stand in the witness of what we as a society have done--what you as a member of that society have done--and to weep for the evil which we are capable of doing.

The issue of the American gulag system has been on my radar for almost a year, if not more. For months, I have read and read and read about it, becoming more and more outraged. Earlier this school year, I reached a point of despair wherein I realized that if I did not stand up and say or do something, then all my education on the issue would be worthless.

The journey from there on out was deeply spiritual for me, which is why I earlier used the term "repentance." Neither secular nor religious people could give me answers about what I ought to do. The idea of my protest merely crystallized one night. After that, I knew that it was my proper response.

And so just before protesting I prayed about what I was doing. And the end goal, I realized, was not that Guantanamo is shut down. Or even that Dick Cheney is sentenced to life imprisonment. The end goal was repentance leading to love, which is salvation. The demonstration was not an apology, or an attempt at atonement. Rather, it was recognition of my evil and an act of turning away from that evil. The evil, in this case was antipathy, lack of love for the men imprisoned and tortured, the families wrenched apart by this process, and the communities terrorized by my government. It was a small act of repentance, fitting a small person.

And by doing it publicly, I wanted to offer all of you an opportunity for repentance. We cannot turn away from our evil without knowing it. But once knowing, we must either reject or accept that evil. And so you are asking, I think, how may I repent?

And my answer is the same as that of the people I asked before I asked God.

I don't know.

There is no set way, there is no litmus test for whether your response is enough. In a sense, this is because there is no enough. Had I knelt in the quad for the entire school day, it would not have been enough. Had I knelt there for the entire school year, it would not have been enough. Not even a lifetime of vigil could atone for the actions of my government. Nothing I could have done would have sufficed. So I did something.

The typical responses: donate money to the ACLU, write letters to people in authority, etc, seem so empty. And they are if done without a spirit of humility, of request for forgiveness. But they are things that can be done, and things that I will, hopefully, be organizing in the upcoming weeks.

Thanks for sharing.

Tell Me These Headlines Don't Make You Think About LBJ

No Firm Plans for a U.S. Exit in Afghanistan

By MARK MAZZETTI20 minutes ago

The Obama administration sent a message that U.S. troops could remain in Afghanistan for a long time, seeking to blunt criticism of Mr. Obama’s war-strategy speech.

• Video: Meet the Press

Obama Pushes Senate Democrats on Health Care Bill

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR 6:44 PM ET

President Obama exhorted Senate Democrats to put aside their fierce policy differences and to make history by passing landmark health care legislation.

I Want a Draft

Dear President Obama:

I am a student, and I support the draft. As an eighteen year old male, I remembered only a few days ago my obligation to sign up for the Selective Service, the institution tasked with maintaining the lists and mechanisms in the case of a draft. Pressing the "Submit" button provoked my musings about the potential consequences of reauthorizing this institution. Such an event would require approval by Congress and yourself, an unfortunately unlikely circumstance. Nevertheless, I would support fully an attempt to reinstate it, as Rep. Charles Rangel, a veteran and the Democrat from New York has done twice in the past decade.

First of all, I adamantly oppose a "surge" in Afghanistan, and actually support complete withdrawal. I understand however, the point that my government teacher makes when he says that if you were to announce withdrawal, the United States would not see the end of the recession until President Palin's second term. Since it appears almost (but not completely) politically impossible to withdraw, I request that the United States restart the draft. This would "bring the war home," in a much more constructive (and morally permissible) way than the Weather Underground's bombings in the 1970's.

The history of the draft, given that it is now disbanded, is filled with controversy. The first national draft occurred during the Civil War and provoked riots in NYC in 1863. The draft instituted for WWI led to harsh imprisonments and vigilante attacks on evaders, resisters, and conscientious objectors (CO's). WWII saw the birth of the modern draft mechanism (heralding a more harmonious draft), and the Korean War saw the end of the paternity deferment. In terms of the draft (and, of course, many other things), the Vietnam War was the great cataclysm.

The experience of the police action in Vietnam and the accompanying draft, however, is part of the reason that I support conscription. The Vietnam War was a major player in the generational crisis of the '60s and '70s. This crisis was nevertheless demographically inevitable, given the affluence of the Baby Boomer generation compared to the oppression of blacks, women, and other groups at the time. But in a war of incomparable imbecility, the draft galvanized millions of students to stop talking and begin acting for peace. Their self-interest was at stake which pushed them to eventually take selfless action--witness the Kent State shootings, for example.

Beyond building a student movement for peace, reauthorization of the draft would dampen the aggression of the American electorate. My father, a small business owner, abortion opponent, and staunch Republican, acknowledges that he would not have voted for President Bush a second time had I been liable to be sent to the Middle East to search for weapons of mass destruction. He was however, willing to support President Bush's attempt at nation-building because his upper middle class son had a bright, collegiate future ahead of him. The draft would build not only a student peace movement, but a desire to resolve issues without war in the greater body politic.

This mention of class segues perfectly to my third, final point. In 1968 during the Democratic primary, Senator Robert Kennedy, running on a social justice and antiwar platform, denounced draft evaders and resisters. He said that when a rich boy receives a deferment, a poor boy dies in a Vietnamese foxhole in his stead. While you denounced the idea of two Americas in your campaign, President Obama, you are surely not blind to the reality that the American military is not at all representative of the nation's socioeconomic situation. Our all-volunteer military relies disproportionately on the working and lower classes to secure our freedoms. This is a tragic irony because in the end, it is not the poor who need the military. They do not have real estate that rival nations wish to capture, they do not have positions of authority that rival countries desire to seize, nor do they hold bank accounts that rival states want to empty. The rich profit from the military, yet they do not serve in its ranks.

President Obama, if you decide in the upcoming days to maintain or expand the American occupation of Afghanistan, please tie such an action to reauthorizing the draft. Such a draft of course, would need to avoid the faults of the one from which Dick Cheney and Tom Tancredo received deferments. Sit down and listen to Congressman Rangel's ideas. While we often associate solely the ability to choose with freedom and democracy, the social and racial makeup of the army does not reflect democratic or egalitarian values.

The Binyam Mohamed Papers

Torture papers surrounding the treatment of British citizen Binyam Mohamed are the subject of acute controversy in both the United Kingdom and the United States. In February, the Obama administration released Mr Mohamed from Guantanamo Bay and threatened the British government with a reduction in intelligence sharing if the details of his internment are released. While the British High Court has ordered the surrender of said documents, the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, David Milliband, is appealing the decision because of the American threat, something that is widely construed to be a weakness on Britain's part and illegal on the United States' part, not to mention immoral.

Truthout's Andy Worthington, Guardian's Clive Stafford Smith, and Salon's Glenn Greenwald all report and commentate on the information-control struggle between the United States, the British Department of Foreign Affairs, the British High Court, and Binyam Mohamed. Worthington provides a detailed history of the ordeal. Because of "national security concerns," the British High Court initially ruled that the documents ought not to be released, but have now reversed themselves and are emphasizing "democratic accountability and the rule of law." He writes primarily from the point of view of the two judges on the court and the bind that they have found themselves in, however he does not excuse them for their poor decisions of the past. Analogous to his judge-centric point of view, Worthington cites numerous statements made by the judges regarding the legal intricacies of the case. Mr Smith, however, provides a typically British scathing news article that roundly criticizes his government. He brings in another player, Karen Steyn, the barrister (lawyer) representing Mr Milliband and the dialogue between her and the judges. In this article, Ms Steyn emerges as the pathetic tool of an unscrupulous politician (Milliband) fighting against two honourable justices, one of whom, Lord Justice Thomas calls the American threat, "an exercise of naked political power," and remarks that it has no legal foundation whatsoever. If the British government is going to act legitimately and in line with the laws by which it is bound, the High Court, Smith argues, must stand up to the American threat and to Mr. Milliband's ugly opportunism. Glenn Greenwald, representing the perspective from across the Atlantic, accordingly makes frequent mention of President Obama in order to express his disdain for his government's perceived anti-human rights stance. He notes that the High Court made its initial ruling in favor of Mr. Milliband while the Bush administration still occupied the White House. When the Obama government assumed the mantle of power, Mr. Mohamed's lawyers reintroduced the case with the argument that President Obama would not interfere with intelligence sharing in the manner that President Bush had threatened to do. Mr. Mohamed's lawyers were wrong, but did manage to convince the High Court to reverse their ruling. Greenwald provides extensive quotations from the justices' opinions, but also quotes the CIA, the American government, Mr. Milliband, and Mr. Mohamed's lawyers.

This legal ordeal precedes a looming election in Britain in which the ruling Labour government is widely expected to lose its majority in Parliament. While the British and the Americans have historically cooperated on numerous issues (e.g. the Iraq War), British voters could easily perceive this event to be bullying coming from Washington. Indeed, threatening an ally to subvert the rule of law seems to ride roughshod over the concept of the sovereignty, and thus the legitimacy of the British state. The Mohamed trial also is a chief line in the narrative accompanying the figurative can of worms that Mr Obama opened upon his election and policy promises in which he promised transparency. He even made a speech in which he stated, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." Mr. Milliband, the Lord Justice Thomas, and Mr. Justice Lloyd George have that very choice before them, and have not, as of now, completely rejected it as false.

Public Enemy

I try to not make this blog about me, but I couldn't resist when I got "investigated" by a right wing blog called RBO (Real Barack Obama). Check this article out attacking me.

Vietnow

We wallowed in the muck of Vietnam for roughly sixteen years with no real purpose. We shake our heads at the domino theory, at preventing Sino-Soviet encroachment. LBJ passed Medicare but is a villain.

We've been wallowing in the muck of Afghanistan for just over eight years with, at first a purpose, and now, no real purpose. We should be shaking our heads at the Global War on Terror, at preventing another 9/11 by paying off and supporting a corrupt, election-stealing, women's rights-destroying dictator. Obama is near to passing healthcare reform. He could become a villain.

If you want an in-depth look at why we can't follow Gen. McChrystal's plan to ship the equivalent of all of Danville to Afghanistan, I suggest you read Andrew Bacevich, Glenn Greenwald, and Ariana Huffington. Above all things though, beyond the strategic mistakes of fighting a war that's not helping, of stealing butter for guns, and of killing others and being killed, I fear the most that Americans are becoming comfortable.

We have been at war perpetually since the beginning of the Cold War. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the obvious ones. And that's too many obvious ones in 6o years. But how about the less obvious ones? I'll list some: Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Kosovo, Somalia, and the Sahara (yes, we are fighting a war in the Sahara desert and it's still going on).

And America doesn't care. America doesn't give a damn, most likely because they don't know. Or maybe it's the other way around. Even if I, or you, or Obama told them, they wouldn't give a damn about the rampant intimidation, law-breaking, and killing in which America is engaging. It is called war. It is called America.

Communist Cleveland

A Communist is running for office. And he’s not going to call 1% of the vote a victory—he means business.

It’s a race for election to the Cleveland City Council and Rick Nagin, a Communist Party member (though registered to vote as a Democrat), placed in the primary in his Ward 14. He will now face off against Brian Cummins for a spot on the Council. Cummins has already served on the City Council, representing Ward 15, but because of redistricting he has found himself in the intense Ward 14 fight. The voters will choose between the two on November 3rd.

A number of surprises have sprung upon the residents of Ward 14, the first being that this heavily Latino area will be represented by a Caucasian (both Nagin and Cummins are white). But the newsworthy part is that Nagin, a serious Communist, is a serious candidate. While he has toned down and suppressed his affiliation, the facts remain: former Chairman of the Ohio Communist Party and former contributor to the People's Weekly World, the official voice of the Communist Party of the United States of America.

There are plenty of left-wing fringe candidates in all sorts of local, state, and federal elections, but Nagin has not only made it into the final vote, but has received the endorsement of Senator Dennis Kucinich. Of course, Cummins is no reactionary. He is essentially affiliated with the Green Party. But we all know Ralph Nader. The Greens have been around. But the machine, back in the '50s, blacklisted and jailed the Communists, not the Greens (yes, they didn't exist then, but hey).

I'll admit it: the election is considered nonpartisan, which means political affiliation is not listed on the ballot. Furthermore, if Nagin gets elected, he will not be able to nationalize Goldman Sachs, create a single-payer healthcare system, or mandate a living wage. But it will be a symbol.

I'll admit this too: we're the Young Democrats Party and I'm waxing poetic, mesmerized about a Communist. But he's also a Democrat on his voter registration card. More importantly however, as the Young Democrats of SRVHS, we desire less the triumph of the Democratic Party and more the triumph of justice. We value freedom and equality above Congressional victory and a filibuster-proof majority. These things often coincide. But if a man can stand outside the structure we've built up, if he can represent an ideal that the established interests have been endeavouring to squash, then I will support him if his cause is just.

Surprisingly, CNN even covered the election. You can see the video below.

Conservative Teabaggers

A NATIONAL ANTI-TAX MOVEMENT!! 

Or really bitter old white people who hate Mexicans, Muslims, and Barack Obama.  This isn't about taxes.  See photos here and here.

The Uppityest Class

Now that Obama has a Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, the inevitable report of personal tax problems has arisen.  Why do so many of the rich, ruling elite have problems with their taxes?  I'm sure that Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Sebelius are not coincidentally all uniquely and randomly incapable of filing their taxes.  Interesting anecdotes these are not.  There is a trend.  Perhaps it has something to do with declining amounts of IRS audits of millionaires while the number of millionaires has increased.

Bobby

The title of our blog comes from Robert Kennedy, or really Aeschylus, whom Robert quoted in a speech just after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. 

"Let us dedicate ourselves to
what the Greeks wrote so many years ago
to tame the savageness of man
and make gentle the life of this world.

I've posted below the text to an eulogy for Kennedy that I am giving in speech class tomorrow.

George Bernard Shaw said, “There are those that look at things the way they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” Robert Francis Kennedy was fond of poetically quoting others in order to make a point or express a belief. Robert, or Bobby, as he was popularly known, was a son, brother, husband, politician, and a voice for the weak and disenfranchised. Of his eight siblings, one, John, became President, and another, Ted, became and still is a United States Senator for Massachusetts. John got involved in politics first as a Senator, but Bobby followed him to Capitol Hill, where he became famous in his own right for aggressively prosecuting the corrupt Teamsters union boss Jimmy Hoffa.

In 1961, when John became President, he appointed brother Bobby as Attorney General. Instead of building political capital for his own future, Bobby risked not only his career but his life, pursuing the Mob and fighting valiantly for civil rights. During the potentially disastrous Cuban Missile Crisis, he proved so valuable President Kennedy remarked, “Thank God for Bobby.”

Stricken with grief after JFK’s assassination in 1963, Robert became despondent and depressed. Within time, however, he recovered enough to realize that his duty was to the American people. Therefore, he ran successfully and became a Senator in 1965. While there, he grew increasingly disdainful of the glad-handing, smoke-filled room bargaining style of the Senate, focusing his efforts instead on community revitalization projects in New York’s inner cities, and dragging Senate committees to investigate poverty in the Mississippi Delta and farm labor unrest in California among other things.

The year 1968 marked probably the most significant chapter of his life. That year, Lyndon Johnson’s plans to fight poverty had disintegrated under the pressure of fighting Vietnam, an issue that had consumed public dialogue and even sparked domestic terrorism. The cities were burning and blacks were struggling to be made equal Americans. Robert announced his candidacy in the upcoming Presidential election and began a campaign that would take Americans by surprise. He campaigned against the Vietnam War and against military aggression in general. He was a proponent for the rights of minorities. He railed against the poverty in both cities and rural areas of America. With an almost demonic rage, crowds would swarm his campaign cars, trying to touch him and in the process ripping off his cufflinks, taking his shoes, and once, smashing his face against a curb knocking out a tooth. But he thrived off the crowds, struggling against the divisions in America, promising a new day and new age in a time wrenched apart by social and cultural revolution and discord.

While at a campaign stop in Indianapolis in April, RFK learned off the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. He was speaking to a largely black, inner-city crowd, to whom he had to break the news. In his impromptu speech from the back of a pickup truck, he quoted the Greek poet Aeschylus. “Even in our sleep, pain which we cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.” That awful night, riots broke out in 60 major cities, but not in Indianapolis.

Two months later, Bobby won the California primary, moving from an outside candidate to front-runner alongside Vice President Humphrey. As he left the victory party, a man named Sirhan Sirhan shot Kennedy and killed him. In the aftermath, the Democratic Party became split and Richard Nixon became President.
I’d like to leave you with a quote from Robert himself that effectively summarizes what he stood for.

“Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

Three Cheers for the Founding Fathers and California on President's Day

The State of California has the lowest credit rating of any state.  We have a $42 billion deficit and no budget to ameliorate it.  In fact, we haven't had a budget for four months [Bloomberg.com].  Every Friday, employees of the State go on unpaid leave.  A breakdown in republican democracy?  Hardly.

Sure, none of these things are desirable.  But they do prove the vitality of our democracy.  The deterioration of democratic processes is evidenced not in the budget crisis, but in Congress' acquiescence in the invasion of Iraq, the apparent lack of any desire in Washington to criminally investigate the Bush Administration, and the legions of Obama-fixated citizens content with any and everything Obama is and has been doing.

I'm not at school today because of President's Day, a day for commercial sales, reverence for past Presidents, and for me, doing lots of homework (and sneaking in some blogging).  This tradition concerns me however, because the nature of democracy is that of the rule of law exercised by an elected government, not of the benevolence or good nature of our rulers.  While it's safe to revere dead statesmen (they can't come back and tyrannize us), we must be careful not to give this same reverence to our current politicians, most notably to the Office of the unduly-powerful President of the United States.  No good can come out of faithfully adhering to what public officials tell us we should think.  We can adhere, but only if we've critically examined what they've said and know it's valid.  And even then.  In 2003, the WMDs seemed to be valid.  

Nor should Congress really listen to Obama's pleas that the apocalypse will be upon us if they don't blindly pass the stimulus.  We're in a recession.  Solidly.  And a few days or weeks or a month will not make such a big difference.  The stimulus is not going to bring us out.  Period.  Quote me on it.  Sure it'll help, but the survival of America sure doesn't depend on it.

California's legislative issues are much closer to the precipice and also much more tied up.  For four months they haven't figured out what to do.  Though they are close.  But this is precisely what our Founding Fathers, the men we celebrate today, had in mind.

Why do you think they created "separation of powers" between the three branches of government?  Or the delegation of authority between states and the Federal government?  It surely wasn't to speed things up.  The framers of the Constitution were afraid of the abuses they had just escaped with their Revolution a decade earlier.  So they purposely pitted the government against itself in order to slow it down, make it inefficient, and thus make it harder for the government to become despotic.  

This doesn't mean it can't and won't become despotic.  Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts, slavery, Jim Crow, our domestic Holocaust, Californian eugenics, and torture under Bush.  That's what happens when the American public and press sits on its hands and relies on the well-meaning of our officials.

California's budget problem is not a constitutional crisis.  It's a byproduct of comfortable elected officials (redistricting), a result of the global economic recession, and the legacy of our Founding Fathers.

Obama Watch: Civil Liberties

On May 30, 2007, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of three men against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.  These three men report having been abducted by the CIA, transported secretly and against their will, and tortured while being interrogated.  This government program is called "extraordinary rendition."  Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. is a (San Jose-based) subsidiary of the large aviation and aeronautics corporation Boeing, Inc. 

"Jeppesen's services have been crucial to the functioning of the government's extraordinary rendition program," said Steven Watt, a staff attorney for the ACLU's Human Rights Program. "Without the participation of companies like Jeppesen, the program could not have gotten off the ground."

In September of 2008, the Bush administration threw the case out of court because of issues of national security.  Like that.  With a snap of the fingers, the government decided Jeppesen could not be legally held responsible for participating in torture.  The ACLU appealed and today, Obama's Department of Justice got to decide what to do about the five plaintiffs (two more were added to the original three).

What happened?

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.

Judge Schroeder asked, “The change in administration has no bearing?”

Once more, he said, “No, Your Honor.” The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said.

No change.

If you want to read about why it's so heinous that Obama is continuing this state secrets privilege, I suggest you read Glenn Greenwald's recent post or watch the video below.

In his Inaugural Speech, one of Obama's most hailed lines was:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our ideals are the upholding of liberty for all people.  We signed the United Nations Convention on Torture which includes the following clause:

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Appalled, I wrote a missive to the Obama Administration asking why they upheld the Bush position and that I was "heartbroken."  You can too.  I'm not sure if it'll help.  But it's our duty as democratic citizens to say something.  Meanwhile... keep hoping. Hope.  Change.  And we'll keep writing.

No Salary Bonuses for Bailed-out Companies

There has been a lot of talk recently about big businesses abusing their bailout funds; people were outraged that, while Americans were being laid off by the thousands, AIG was taking its employees to Southern California for a nice $440,000 corporate retreat. These funds were spent a week after the Federal Reserve extended an $85 billion emergency loan to AIG to keep it from going bankrupt due to insurance liabilities. If AIG was on the brink of going bankrupt, taxpayers argued, shouldn't it have been using its bailout money for something a little more practical?

Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat) seemed to agree with these taxpayers; last Friday she proposed a bill that would limit Wall Street executives who accept TARP funding to be allowed no more than a $400,000 yearly salary, arguing that “You can’t use taxpayer money to pay out $18-billion in bonuses…What planet are these people on?”

And surely one would think that this limit to an annual compensation equal to the president’s is no where near being an unreasonable thing to ask of corporations, yet the bill had some people up in arms. People all over the media were saying that it’s wrong for the government to require that the failing banks not give out bonuses until they pay back the taxpayers for their hundreds of billions in bailout money, arguing these executives are the best at what they do and if the taxpayers don't pay their bonuses, these failing banks will lose their expertise and the economy will suffer.

Really? There’s a correlation between a failing bank losing its expertise--leading to economic suffering--and not allowing its employees to make more money than the president does?
….Does anyone else spy a slippery slope argument here?

A Tale of Two Murders

January 1st and January 20th two murders rocked the Bay Area.  On New Years' Day, Oscar Grant, a black male, was shot by BART police officer Johannes Mehserle. It was captured by numerous people on video and is posted all over the Internet.  On the 20th, Rylan Fuchs, a high schooler was shot by another teen in what has been rumored to be a botched drug deal.  Both murders highly excited our collective emotions and consciousness, the BART shooting because of the nonchalant way Mehserle shot Grant without any appearance of a motive, and the Fuchs shooting because the death of a child or teenager, whether an accident or an act of malice, is always horribly, senselessly tragic.

From the beginning, the public has been in general outrage over the murder of Oscar Grant.  As it was happening, the numerous observers in the video above can be heard reprimanding the police as they handle the detained men roughly and then shoot Grant saying, "Hey, that's fucked up!" among other things.  Protests have turned to riots over the issue, especially when the BART police were slow to act.  Mehserle has since been arrested (in Nevada) and a judge set bail at $3 million, indicating that the judge sees this as murder, not manslaughter as Mehserle's attorney has argued.

Fuchs' murderer is (allegedly) a 15 year-old former San Ramon Valley High School (and Monte Vista) student who was living in a group home for kids in dysfunctional situations.  He is from Alameda County, and from my own personal knowledge, has had run-ins with authority before.

So what's the point?  The parallels between Oscar Grant and Rylan Fuchs?  Both of their murders were recent and in our area.  But furthermore, both were senseless.  Sympathy, in different forms, has poured out for the two.  And in the midst of all this quite righteous emotion, it is easy to demonize the perpetrators.  Johannes Mehserle abused his position of authority and took the life of an innocent man.  He has changed his story to the judge, which the judge then used as justification for setting multimillion dollar bail (see link above).  Fuchs' killer is being denounced as invading our nice suburban world and bringing the drugs and violence of the inner city.  

We have lost two lives with these two killings--irretrievably lost.  And now two more lives are in our legal system's hands.  Mechanisms of government are of, by, and for the people, and so by extension, Mehserle and Fuchs' murderer are in our hands.  We have the option to retaliate.  We also have the option for mercy.  It's doubtful that Mehserle was out on a mission to kill a man.  If he was, he wouldn't have done it in front of a cloud of human and electronic witnesses.  And in Fuchs' murderer's case, he is 15 years old.  And some people are calling for him to be tried as an adult!  His is a life too, a life that has caused great harm, but a life nonetheless.  

When Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed, Robert Kennedy, then running for President, gave an impromptu speech to a mostly black crowd in Indianapolis.  Quoting the Greek poet Aeschylus, he said, "In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."  That night, more than sixty cities burned as riots spread across the country.  But not in Indianapolis.

Wisdom comes slowly and not in the beginning throes of great grief.  We cannot crucify the murderers in the public forum and claim to have retained our humanity and decency.  Loss of life is not repaired by the taking of more.

What's Up With the Stimulus?

The first version of the $819 billion economic stimulus package (aka the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) was passed by the House on the 28th, by a vote of 244 in favor and 188 against (our Congressman, Jerry McNerney, was in favor).  Not one Republican voted for the bill (one abstained) and eleven Democrats went with the Republicans in a vote almost entirely along partisan lines.  The eleven against the bill were largely Blue Dog Democrats--an official coalition of Democrats who proclaim economic conservatism.  The full record of votes can be found here.  The Republicans as a bloc completely spurned Obama's attempts at compromise--but it was expected.  This has provoked a fair amount of outrage.  It has become quite fashionable among liberals to trash Obama and the Democrats for watering down the bill (adjustment of the alternative minimum tax, removing family planning funding, and cutting National Mall renovation).  But that's a really myopic viewpoint.

The House of Representatives is bigger and less likely to compromise than the Senate, which is where we'll see some bipartisanship (hopefully).  The aforementioned liberals are angry that the Democrats compromised since as they see it, there are no moderate Republicans anyway.  Actually, the House Republicans had nothing to gain by going with the stimulus the first time around.  It didn't meet their criteria (lots of tax cuts, less spending), so voting in favor would have looked weak to their constituents, especially to a party that prides itself on strength.  Furthermore, by going with it, it would have weakened the case of the Senate Republicans who will endeavor to develop the bill more in favor with their tastes.  And if they can't work something out, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell always has the filibuster option to stop a vote from happening since the Democrats are just tantalizingly short of a filibuster-proof supermajority (60, whereas the Democrats have 58, and should have 59, Al Franken, on the way).  

By compromising with House Republicans even when they showed no real commitment to the bill, Democrats have built up some good ol' faith with the Grand Ol' Party.  Also, if Republicans get too aggressive in their opposition, they'll run the risk of appearing as obstructing the necessary business of the country in favor of party politics--which is the partisanship we need to be afraid of.  Right now, however, we're just seeing the natural, virtually harmless political maneuvering that no amount of change will ever end.