Q&A With Shipping News’ Jason Noble

Q&A With Shipping News’ Jason Noble

We have to be advocates for art and music, and despite the myth, very few bands or record stores make much money. They just want to work with music they love. So it’s really up to us. That goes for small labels, book stores, publishers, printers and anyone working to keep independent thought alive. The environment in the U.S. is very hostile and short-sighted right now. We need to speak up for “the other” and question anyone that is embracing corporate/pseudo-religious conservative extremism. Once again, it’s a scary time. We just had an entire election cycle where no one even mentioned that we’re fighting two wars! It was all about assigning blame and attacking people, for being an immigrant or “socialist” or anyone requesting decent treatment. I understand why people get duped by these outrageous claims and shoddy promises by the right wing. (And to be fair, the liberals have their share of inconsistencies and foul-ups.) Local culture, when it is active and engaged, makes us more tolerant, more informed and less likely to be filled with irrational fear. And records sound better than mp3 files.

Laclau, "Universalism, Particularism and the Question of Identity"

If democracy is possible, it is because the universal has no necessary body and no necessary content; different groups, instead, compete between themselves to temporarily give to their particularisms a function of universal representation. Society generates a whole vocabulary of empty signifiers whose temporary signifieds are the result of a political competition. It is this final failure off society to constitute itself as society - which is the same thing as the failure of constituting difference as difference - which makes the distance between the universal and the particular unbridgeable and, as a result, burdens concrete social agents with the impossible task of making democratic interaction achievable.

Racial Propositions (excerpt) - Daniel Martinez HoSang - University of California Press

In case you were wondering, this's what I've been thinking about lately as Advisor B and I hustle towards finally a-finishing our Tea Party papier. In addition to writing the best book about the larger cultural and racial stakes of the ludicrous initiative process that I have been able to glom, Hosang's also translated the "invisibility" of the hegemonic political subjectivity du jour into something goddamned see-able :

Political whiteness describes a political subjectivity rooted in white racial identity, a gaze on politics constituted by whiteness. This concept draws from and extends both George Lipsitz's observations about the "possessive investment in whiteness" and Cheryl Harris's critical account of "whiteness as property." Whiteness, Lipsitz argues is "possessed" both literally in the form of material rewards and resources afforded to those recognized as white as well as figuratively through the "psychological wages" of status and social recognition detailed by W.{ths}E.{ths}B. DuBois. Harris similarly describes a "valorization of whiteness as treasured property," recognized by the law and enforced by the state, which produces a "settled expectation" that its beneficiaries will face no "undue" obstacles in claiming its rewards. Whiteness, she explains, "is simultaneously an aspect of identity and a property interest, it is something that can be both experienced and deployed as a resource."

The concept of political whiteness describes how these norms, "settled expectations," and "investments" shape the interpretation of political interests, the boundaries of political communities, and the sources of power for many political actors who understand themselves as white. It does not simply describe the interests or politics of "white people," which after all are necessarily varied. It instead concerns the process by which some political claims and interests come to be defined as white. James Baldwin described an "American delusion" fostered by whiteness that leads people to believe "not only that their brothers all are white but that the whites are all their brothers."Like whiteness in general, political whiteness is a subjectivity that constantly disavows its own presence and insists on its own innocence. It operates instead as a kind of absent referent, hailing and interpolating particular subjects through various affective appeals witnessed in claims to protect "our rights," "our jobs," "our homes," "our kids," "our streets," and even "our state" that never mention race but are addressed to racialized subjects.Political whiteness is, in one sense, a widely studied phenomenon. Scholars and observers have long sought to explain the relationship between white racial identity and political behavior and action. In most accounts, however, white racial identity is viewed as fully realized and defined, constructed outside of the field of politics. Conflicts like ballot measures merely express its preordained interests. This account, by contrast, does not view political whiteness as a fixed, a priori identity that simply becomes expressed through political conflicts. Carmichael and Hamilton's argument certainly holds true: there are deep "traditions" of racism embedded in diverse institutions and structures that shape the contours and trajectory of white political identity at any given moment. But white political identity is hardly static; it also becomes transformed and renewed through struggles such as ballot initiative campaigns.

The Hegemonic Character of Political Whiteness
Political whiteness bears two characteristics that are central to all hegemonic formations. First, as cultural studies scholar Raymond Williams explains, "the hegemonic has to be seen as more than the simple transmission of an (unchanging) dominance. On the contrary, any hegemonic process must be especially alert and responsive to the alternatives and opposition which question and threaten its dominance" because a "lived hegemony is always a process." It must be "renewed, recreated, defended, and modified" as it is "continually resisted, limited, altered, [and] challenged by pressures not all its own."California's racialized ballot measures reveal precisely such a process at work. Taken together, they demonstrate the contested formation of political whiteness, a gaze on politics that is characterized by both continuity and change. Rather than viewing these ballot measures as primarily concerning the rights of various racialized minorities, we can understand them instead as contests over the political authority and "settled expectations" of whiteness itself.A central assertion of this book is that the political forces that opposed civil rights and racial justice policies are the ones that have best understood the malleable nature of political whiteness, and have constantly tested the ways they could adapt and incorporate new ideas, values, and experiences. Their opponents, by contrast, rarely attempted to challenge political whiteness as a fundamental identification, treating it instead as an inexorable force of political life.Williams's second point about hegemonic formations concerns the question of opposition. By definition, ballot initiatives are viewed as contests between opposing political projects, which presumably do not share similar ideas, commitments, or values. But Williams argues that the very power of hegemonic formations derives from their capacity to shape the terms on which they are opposed: "nearly all initiatives and contributions, even when they take on manifestly alternative or oppositional forms, are in practice tied to the hegemonic: that the dominant culture, so to say, at once produces and limits its own forms of counter-culture."

Union disclosure unlike other groups' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Union disclosure unlike other groups' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

"[U]nions are [501](c)(5)s and don’t disclose...is that the business as usual? Or does that make them shadowy?" Jim Dyke, one of the GOP consultants on the board of American Crossroads, asked on Twitter today.

There are elements of this comparison that make sense. The same collapse in campaign finance restrictions that allow unlimited corporate spending allow unlimited union spending.

But when it comes to disclosure, talk of unions is a red herring. While they aren't required by the FEC or IRS to disclose donors, a separate piece of federal law, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, requires that unions disclose all sources of income that adds up to more than $5,000, a requirement overseen by the Department of Labor. As a result, unions disclose more than many political groups about their internal operations, and certainly more than than do 501(c)(4) nonprofits like Crossroads GPS or 501(c)(6) groups like the Chamber.

Fundamental attribution error - Psychology Wiki

Fundamental attribution error - Psychology Wiki

In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (sometimes referred to as the actor-observer bias, correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior. In other words, people tend to have a default assumption that what a person does is based more on what "kind" of person he is, rather than the social and environmental forces at work on that person. This default assumption leads to people sometimes making erroneous explanations for behavior. This general bias to over-emphasizing dispositional explanations for behavior at the expense of situational explanations is much less likely to occur when people evaluate their own behavior.

The term was coined by Lee Ross some years after the now-classic experiment by Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris. Ross argued in a popular paper that the fundamental attribution error forms the conceptual bedrock for the field of social psychology.

Unions Find Members Slow to Rally Behind Democrats - NYTimes.com

Unions Find Members Slow to Rally Behind Democrats - NYTimes.com

“They’re always effective,” he said. “The union leadership is wedded to the Democratic Party. But what we’ve seen cycle after cycle is the membership demonstrates real independence and votes independently of the union bosses.” (According to a national exit poll conducted by Edison/Mitofsky, 60 percent of union members voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and 37 percent for Senator John McCain.)

Weigel : The NRCC and the Coming Republican Majority

Weigel : The NRCC and the Coming Republican Majority

Kevin McCarthy, the Energizer Bunny who gets credit for recruiting most of the party's best candidates, is probably going to be the party's whip. That would pole-vault him past Mike Pence, the conservative darling who is mulling a run for president or governor of Indiana in 2012. Right now Pence is the third-ranking member of the House leadership, a position won in no small part because conservatives wanted to reward him after the Bush years and his failed post-DeLay leadership bids.

Democrats are hoping against hope that Republicans will fight amongst themselves if they take the House, but the most likely scenario is a Boehner-Cantor-McCarthy leadership team with Pence remaining as the cheerleader whose utterances are not quite considered reflective of what the party is doing.

Tuff rocks for Mike Pence, non?

Steve Early, "This Labor Day, Let's Salute All Union Stewards -- and Their Cutting Edge in California"

Steve Early, "This Labor Day, Let's Salute All Union Stewards -- and Their Cutting Edge in California"

The real heroes of what's left of the labor movement are not people with full-time union jobs, union-furnished cars and credit cards, and union benefits that dues-paying members don't get anymore.

That's the first fucking sentence of this fucking article. Wow, let's salute union stewards by denigrating union staff. Fabulous. One more thing, while we're saluting union activists and insulting staffers and staff work - the two are linked zero-sum style, I suppose? - can we give an erotic massage to old-ass Baby Boomer "New" Left fossils? We can?!? This isn't Labor Day, it's fucking Xmas!

I will probably finish the rest of this article and like some of what it has to tell me. But just now I'll thank Steve Early, who joins Robert Gibbs in providing exactly the fodder I need for my dissertation chapter about the paid and unpaid, the recognized and unrecognized work of union staff. Eat fucking shit, Steve. And get used to eating it. You were wrong about the Revolution and you're wrong now.

Christie, take two - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Christie, take two - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Chris Christie's initial, blustery response to the feds' denial of funding due to an apparent bureaucratic error seemed, at first, a triumph of his blunt style.

Now, not so much:

The error was first reported Tuesday evening by The Star-Ledger. On Wednesday, Christie blamed Washington bureaucrats for their inflexibility to fix what he described as a clerical error. Christie said [Education Commissioner Brett] Schundler had provided the correct information during a presentation of the state's application in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 11.

But on Thursday, the U.S. Department of Education released a video of that presentation that showed neither Schundler nor the other four people from New Jersey's delegation were able to come up with the information for the correct budget years.

Before the video was released, Christie had said he would not fire anyone over a paperwork mistake made by a "midlevel" staffer.

Christie just fired Schundler.

The Star-Ledger suggests that the problems between Christie and Schundler -- whose appointment was celebrated on the right -- were deeper, and that he had to go in any case.

You cannot imagine the sorta sick joy I take outta this story. Chris Christe NEEDS TO GO, so he can go onto Fox News and, mebbe, end up a perennial R veep chasepacker.

Oh, My Sides! Obama Says He’ll Keep Pushing for Employee Free Choice Act | Work in Progress

Oh, My Sides! Obama Says He’ll Keep Pushing for Employee Free Choice Act | Work in Progress

For Obama to even mention the Employee Free Choice Act as anything but a deader-than-dead failure of his administration is an insult to the intelligence of every working person in America. Obama had the opportunity to push through the Employee Free Choice Act between February and April 2009. He let it linger, then let Democrats start sniping at it, and then the ship sailed with Scott Brown’s election. Unions dismantled their Employee Free Choice Act campaign teams in January 2010. It is no longer even close to an option.

Bringing up the Employee Free Choice Act now is worse than being a tease. It’s being a dishonest, two-faced manipulator who is desperately begging for help from the very people who only got out the vote and donated money in 2008 on the promise of fundamental change like the Employee Free Choice Act. For Obama to come back two years later and promise the same thing that’s not even possible is offensive.

Unions near feud settlement - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Unions near feud settlement - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Jesus fucking christ, it's about time.

t r u t h o u t | Former San Diego ACORN Employee Files Lawsuit Against Righ-Wing Activists O'Keefe and Giles

t r u t h o u t | Former San Diego ACORN Employee Files Lawsuit Against Righ-Wing Activists O'Keefe and Giles

As The BRAD BLOG has documented for many months now, the activists edited their tapes to appear as if O'Keefe dressed as and represented himself as a pimp to ACORN workers. He did neither. In fact, he represented himself as Giles boyfriend, hoping to save her from an abusive pimp. Moreover, the highly edited tapes were edited to give the impression that ACORN workers advised the pair on how to break the law. Here's just one example of how O'Keefe and Giles misrepresented what had actually occurred in the meetings and on their deceptively cropped tapes.

The blatantly dishonest hoax, however --- amplified and enabled by a wholly uncritical mainstream media --- was brutally effective and destructive, coming as part of the years-long assault by the GOP and the Right against ACORN, largely for having had the temerity to legally register hundreds of thousands of low and middle-income (read: Democratic-leaning) voters to legally cast a vote and participate in their own democracy.

Vera's complaint goes on to note that the eavesdropping and recording provisions of the Penal Code, Section 632, "defines confidential communication to include "any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto."

"Although the Act contains exemptions for particular individuals or circumstances," the complaint reads, "no exemption exists for filmmakers, the media, or journalists."

In his 28-page report [PDF], the CA AG explained that since O'Keefe and Giles received immunity from prosecution after providing the complete tapes, they "did not determine if they violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act when they recorded the ACORN employees. If the circumstances meet the requirements of the Act, the ACORN employees may be able to bring a private suit against O'Keefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation without consent."

Former San Diego ACORN worker Juan Carlos Vera, has now filed suhch a private suit against O'Keefe and Giles.

In addition to naming O'Keefe and Giles, the suit also specifies unnamed defendants "DOES 1-20 inclusive," allowing for the plaintiff to add additional co-defendants later, as the need arises throughout the discovery phase of the case. As the secret video tapes made in California were the last among a number of such tapes made by O'Keefe and Giles (the others on the East Coast), and as O'Keefe and Giles' employer/pimp Andrew Breitbart lives in Los Angeles --- and has lied about the tapes in the past, as seen in both his newspaper column and on video tape --- it seems quite possible that he would have been aware of the video taping in advance of the California meetings, at the very least.

If so, we'll be neither surprised nor saddened to see Breitbart named as one of those DOES in the not-too-distant future.

t r u t h o u t | The Politics of Death: Throwing Mumia Abu-Jamal Under the Bus

t r u t h o u t | The Politics of Death: Throwing Mumia Abu-Jamal Under the Bus

Because Trots for Romney, Trots for Blago and even, most recently, Trots for Crist, have been active with the Mumia defense histrionics.

By the way, has anybody out there read the memoir of Maureen Faulkner, widow of the police officer Mumia has been convicted of murdering? It's co-authored by Michael Smerconish, a popular fount of "centrist"-ish pablum on Hardball. I'll allow readers to draw their own conclusions about the memoir itself, but here's what one of Lex's Oracles had to say:

"The Bible teaches that the truth will set us free, but Michael Smerconish and Maureen Faulkner teach us that even a powerful truth needs courage as its ally."
Chris Matthews - Host of Hardball with Chris Matthews and The Chris Matthews Show

Fuck that, Chris. What a bunch of swishy drivel. That's probably why Romney, Crist and Blago don't wanna do yr dumb show no more times. It's probably why I, myself, find myself wondering if I wouldn't be better off to allow myself only one hour of daily cable talk, and that talk should be Maddow talk? Probably I should really watch GritTv, huh?

What news videos do you people watch? I could use some ideas.

Connecting Dots | Democratic Strategist

Connecting Dots | Democratic Strategist

It's reasonably clear by now that by sheer repetition, the claim that the president has fumbled the BP oil spill in some significant way has sunk into media and public perceptions. Some of this, of course, is coming from people who are lifelong cheerleaders for offshore oil drilling, and who idolize Dick Cheney, who is probably more responsible for the policies that enabled this disaster than anyone else. But presidents do get blamed for things they didn't do, so appearing large and in charge in the present and future must accompany any Obama effort to assign responsibility for why this happened in the first place.

Aside from that difficult task, the president must also connect the dots between the disaster and the path he wants the country to take on energy policy. While it may seem obvious to some of us why a carbon cap or tax of some sort is an appropriate response to yet another calamity associated with fossil fuel production, it's not at all obvious to the public generally. And this is the same public, moreover, that never much bought the president's arguments that health care reform was essential to the country's economic future. So while it might not be that hard for Obama to rally support for tougher regulation of offshore drilling, it will be a much heavier lift to connect the disaster to the need for climate change legislation.

Alvin Greene Interview with CNN Must See! 6-12-2010

Why am I so sure that we won't be delighted when we get to the bottom of how, exactly, Alvin Greene became the D nominee for US Senate in South Carolina? This is a harrowing clip.

Gather Your Armies

This would be what I'd call taking it to the next level ca. 2010.

DSCC: Unions, Netroots are “Special Interests in Washington” | Work in Progress

DSCC: Unions, Netroots are “Special Interests in Washington” | Work in Progress

Senator Robert Menendez, leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, sent out a memo deriding labor unions who supported Bill Halter as “special interests in Washington.”

Tonight Arkansas Democrats nominated Blanche Lincoln, a proven independent voice for her state. In this race Blanche took on powerful special interests in Washington and won. In the Senate, she fights those same fights everyday, supporting home-state farmers, strengthening programs for childhood nutrition, and bolstering rural economic development. As Chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, Blanche has stood-up and delivered for every region of Arkansas.

And if you aren’t sure this is an isolated incident from the DSCC, they posted this article from The Hill on the DSCC website. The editorial by Hill editor A.B. Stoddard, as posted on the DSCC’s website, congratulates Lincoln for:

fending off Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and the unions and the netroots and the punishment the left promised to exact for her opposition to a public option in healthcare reform and to legislation, favored by unions, known as “card-check.”

Ernesto Laclau in Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left

Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left

I have argued that class antagonism is not inherent to capitalist relations of production, but that it takes place between those relations and the identity of the worker outside them. Various aspects must be carefully distinguished. First, we have to distinguish the contradiction between forces and relations of production - which, I have maintained, is a contradiction without antagonism - from class struggle - which is an antagonism without contradiction. So if we concentrate on the latter, where is the antagonism located? Certainly not within the relations of production. The capitalists extract surplus-value from the workers, but both capital and labor should be conceived of, as far as the logic of capitalism is concerned, not as actual people but as economic categories. So if we are going to maintain that class antagonism is inherent to the relations of production, we would have to prove that from the abstract categories 'capital' and 'wage labor' we can logically derive the antagonism between both - and such a demonstration is impossible. It does not logically follow from the fact that the surplus-value is extracted from the worker that the latter will resist such extraction. So if there is going to be antagonism, its source cannot be internal to the capitalist relations of production, but has to be sought in something that the worker is outside those relations, something which is threatened by them: the fact that below a certain level of wages the worker cannot live a decent life, and so on. Now, unless we are confronted with a situation of extreme exploitation, the worker's attidue vis-a-vis capitalism will depend entirely on how his or her identity is constituted - as socialists knew a long time ago, when they were confronted by reformist tendencies in the trade-union movement.

Could we perhaps say that these demands have priority over those of other groups because they are closer to the economy, and thus at the heart of the functioning of the capitalist system? This argument does not fare any better. Marxists have known for a long time tat capitalism is a world system, structured as an imperialist chain, so crises at one point in the system create dislocations at many other points. This means that many sectors are threatened by the capitalist logic, and that the resulting antagonisms are not necessarily related to particular locations in the relations of production. As a result the notion of class struggle is totally insufficient to explain the identity of the agents involved in anti-capitalist struggles.

Ark. fight fuels W.H.-labor family feud - Glenn Thrush and Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Ark. fight fuels W.H.-labor family feud - Glenn Thrush and Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Emanuel has a good relationship with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Stern, the former SEIU president, is close to White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard, who once worked for him. Both Trumka and Stern reportedly are on good terms with Emanuel’s deputy Jim Messina.

But the departure of Stern, Obama’s highest-profile labor backer, has robbed the administration of an important emissary, and Emanuel’s relationship with labor has been strained over his willingness to scrap the public option to pass health care reform.

Emanuel, who engineered Democrats’ majority in the House by recruiting conservatives during his tenure as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, remains obsessed with reelecting endangered freshmen and sophomore members.

Emanuel also has told Trumka and other labor leaders in no uncertain terms that their strategy is counterproductive, according to individuals familiar with the situation.

But despite that admonition, anti-Lincoln Democrats say the union assault on the Agriculture Committee chairwoman has paid real-world dividends — in the form of tough new derivatives reforms championed by Lincoln after it became clear she would face a challenge from the left.

“I don’t understand how the White House can say that all this pressure on Lincoln hasn’t helped,” said one Democratic political consultant. “They would have a much weaker financial reform bill if labor hadn’t gotten behind Bill Halter.”

Can’t Stop The Bleeding » Fellow Taxpayers / GM Owners – You Just Bought Galarraga A Corvette

Can’t Stop The Bleeding » Fellow Taxpayers / GM Owners – You Just Bought Galarraga A Corvette

“Until G.M. has repaid the taxpayers in full for the money they have borrowed, every action that G.M. takes should advance them in that direction,” said Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican of California who is a visible G.M. second-guesser.

Last month, Mr. Issa was among a multitude of critics who took issue with another G.M. marketing effort — the running of self-congratulatory advertisements about having repaid a government loan. (Taxpayers still own $2.1 billion in preferred stock of G.M. and 61 percent of its common equity.)

“The leadership thought it (awarding Galarraga the car) was an excellent opportunity,” Chevrolet spokesman Klaus-Peter Martin said. “We looked into the cost-benefit ratio and decided to go for it.”

Mr. Bardella, the spokesman for the congressman, said he hoped that was true and noted that many people would be watching.

“If you were to ask the majority of taxpayers — outside of the city of Detroit, probably — if they thought that giving a $50,000 car away for free was a good use of money, I’m sure that most people would say no,” he said. “If it creates the perception of good will and a solvent company and encourages people to buy their cars, then great. Is it something they should do every day? Probably not.”