Ganging Aft Agley
I am from North Carolina, Memphis, the District of Columbia, and L.A., CA where I am currently learning how to be a lawyer. I have both a wandering mind and a child-like sense of wonder. Email me if you like at ganging.aft.agley@gmail.com!
kalel asked: What do you think of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate or even just changing the number of senators required to break a filibuster?
The filibuster is one of those things that I (of course) love when republicans control the Senate and hate when the democrats are in the majority.
I feel like getting rid of the filibuster would be a recipe for radical changes in law and policy from one election to the next, which could be a chaotic mess, but could also be a useful way for people to actually figure out whether they like their party’s policies rather than just their party’s rhetoric.
Another way to think about it is that getting rid of the filibuster would mean the party in power can get more things done. But getting things done tends to piss people off. It’s much easier for individual Senators to get reelected when they haven’t done anything and can blame the system or the opposition party for it. So, getting rid of the filibuster could also lead to Senators being more effectively held accountable for their actions or inactions in office.
That is, I think getting rid of the filibuster would lead to more frequent changes in policy, majority party, and individual Senators. Having written this out, I’m starting to convince myself that the benefits of these structural changes might actually outweigh what would be the horrifying reality of a republican government unbounded by the filibuster.
I also think that such a change in how easily the federal government can pass laws would lead to an absolute exodus of poor republicans from the republican party because it would be much easier to feel the difference between democratic and republican policies, rather than simply going on and on about cutting government without ever actually doing it. That is, I think a lot of people might realize that government’s not so awful after all.
UCLA Student Fights with Libyian Rebels
If I had a badass of the moth award, it would go to Chris Jeon:
“And the next thing [Jeon’s roommate] knew, he was looking at a picture of Jeon surrounded by Libyan rebels, with an AK-47 in hand and garbed in a very familiar blue Lakers jersey.”
“’It is the end of my summer vacation, so I thought it would be cool to join the rebels,’ Jeon told The National. He also pleaded, ‘Don’t tell my parents.’”
Jon Stewart on “not defending DOMA” as opposed to “still enforcing DOMA.” :I
Love, love, love this song.
UPDATE: Citgo Petroleum Corp. interested in working with FIGHTprejudice on “Rebel Flag” issue
FIGHTprejudice Executive Director Shawn Meerkamper received a call this morning from CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s Public Relations division. The CITGO representative was eager to work with FIGHTprejudice to identify specific CITGO locations that sell the Confederate flag so that CITGO Corporate can contact those stores directly.
As FIGHTprejudice continues to work on this issue with CITGO, we need your help:
PLEASE EMAIL shawn@FIGHTprejudice.org WITH THE ADDRESS (AND PICTURES IF YOU CAN) OF ABSOLUTELY ANY GAS STATION OR OTHER CORPORATE RETAIL LOCATION SELLING OR DISPLAYING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG.
FIGHTprejudice intends to use its progress with CITGO to pressure other retailers to pull Confederate Battle Flag memorabilia from their shelves. Together, we can make this happen.
Up close & personal Kilimanjaro style! #giraffes (Taken with Instagram at Disney’s Animal Kingdom)
:)
(via fuckyeahgiraffes)
Open letter to CITGO CEO Alejandro Granado RE CITGO display and sale of The Confederate Battle Flag
FROM: Shawn Meerkamper, Founder, Executive Director, FIGHTprejudice, Inc.
TO: Alejandro Granado, Chairman, President, and CEO, CITGO Petroleum Corporation
CC: CITGO Board of Directors; Gustavo Velásquez, Vice President for Supply and Marketing; Daniel Cortez, Vice President for Government and Public Affairs
DATE: Monday, July 25, 2011
RE: Open letter concerning Chevron’s sale and display of The Battle Flag of the Confederacy (commonly known as “The Rebel Flag.”
Mr. Granado:
I am student and loyal CITGO customer. I do my best to be a conscious consumer, and given the recent serious accidents with BP in the Gulf of Mexico and Exon Mobile in the Yosemite River, CITGO is an excellent alternative.
However, I was troubled recently when I was driving from Nashville to Memphis along I-40 in Tennessee and stopped in at one of your locations to fill up and grab a few snacks. As I entered the store, I noticed that the Battle Flag of the Confederacy was prominently displayed—as part of an advertisement for decals one can purchase inside the store—right next to the front door. When checking out, I also noticed Confederate Battle Flag memorabilia for sale at the cash register, including key chains.
I asked the cashier why CITGO sells so many Confederate Battle Flags and was told, “Because this is the Confederate South.” Having grown up in Tennessee, I am well aware that some still hold this belief. However, as a matter of historical fact, Tennessee has not been a part of the “Confederate South” since 1865, and this is how I should have replied to your cashier.
While I realize that individual CITGO stations are not directly run by CITGO Petroleum Corporation, I certainly hope that this is something your corporate board will be able to address. CITGO’s mission and values include integrity, respect, fairness, and social responsibility, and your own equal employment policy reads,“… I affirm personally and on behalf of our organization, CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s commitment to the equitable treatment of all employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, color, gender (sex), religion, age, national origin, disability, genetic information or veteran status.”
So, it seems strange to me that your retail locations display and sell an image that would not be tolerated in your corporate offices. Further, to many prospective CITGO customers and employees, The Battle Flag of the Confederacy is a symbol of disrespect, unfairness, and social irresponsibility. Further, while FIGHTprejudice does not have the resources for market research, I have personally spoken with a number of Tennesseans of color who tell me that they refuse to patronize any business, including gas stations, which display or sell the “Rebel Flag.”
I understand that you are in the oil business and not the business of making social statements. However, given CITGO’s demonstrated commitment to diversity in its corporate ranks, I urge you to do what you can to ensure that The Battle Flag of the Confederacy is not associated with CITGO’s brand in the eyes of your customers. Regardless of the various different meanings the flag has for different individuals, it is a symbol that strikes fear and anxiety in hearts of many. CITGO does not support hate, yet in these times of racial and ethnic tensions (from our immigration policy to the election of our current president to the backlash against Muslim Americans), the display and sale of The Battle Flag of the Confederacy may give your customers the wrong idea.
All of this is to say, I urge you to make a change that will be good for business and good for CITGO’s customer relations: while opponents of the “Rebel Flag” already do boycott those stores of yours that sell it, I seriously doubt that fans of the confederacy will react similarly to the flag’s absence.
Thank you for your time. This open letter will be posted on FIGHTprejudice.org, and our organization will prepare an official press release in the event that we do not hear back from you within a few weeks.
Sincerely,
Shawn Thomas Meerkamper
_________________________________________________________Executive Director, FIGHTprejudice, Inc.
Candidate for Doctorate of Jurisprudence, UCLA School of Law 2013
B.A. Philosophy & Political Science, George Washington University 2010
“It has to be based on the belief that everyone has the capacity for the most valuable forms of experience, and on the processual belief that people can and should collectively determine the conditions of collective life. These beliefs cannot be grounded in reason, as reason is commonly understood, nor is it possible to resolve their contradictions otherwise than in practice, but that is not to say that they are arbitrary. Because the existing system of hierarchy denies their validity and frustrates their realization, we should abolish it.” — Duncan Kennedy, The Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence, Harvard Law School, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy.
Open Letter to Michael DelGiorno of Supertalk 99-7 WTN Nashville
Mr. DelGiorno:
I am writing you from the East Nashville offices of a newly formed nonprofit community organization, FIGHTprejudice, Inc. I personally listen to 99.7 every time I’m in the car, and I hear your show often. Today I was extremely interested by your “Obama voice.”
The thing is, it doesn’t sound anything like him. If you recall, earlier in his term the President was sometimes criticized for “acting white” or for having been called Barry when he was younger, for example. It is funny to me, then, that your impression of him sounds much more like an impression of the proverbial poor, undereducated black male than of a graduate of Harvard Law and someone largely considered to be the greatest speech-maker of our time.
I called and spoke with your producer Tommy (I believe was his name) this morning, and he said that he thought your Obama voice was actually dead on. I respectfully suggest that perhaps you should have your producer listen to an audio clip of President Obama speaking so he can learn what the President’s voice sounds like. Many excellent example of the President’s speech writing and public speaking abilities are available on YouTube, for example here. You may also want to refresh you memory, so as to perform a more accurate impression for your radio show.
Would love to talk to you on the air sometime. I’ll do my best to call in next time I catch the show.
<3[FIGHT(!)prejudice],Shawn Thomas Meerkamper
Founder, Executive Director, FIGHTprejudice, Inc.
Candidate for Doctorate of Jurisprudence, UCLA School of Law, 2013
B.A. Philosophy & Political Science, George Washington University, 2010
shawn@FIGHTprejudice.org
“It has to be based on the belief that everyone has the capacity for the most valuable forms of experience, and on the processual belief that people can and should collectively determine the conditions of collective life. These beliefs cannot be grounded in reason, as reason is commonly understood, nor is it possible to resolve their contradictions otherwise than in practice, but that is not to say that they are arbitrary. Because the existing system of hierarchy denies their validity and frustrates their realization, we should abolish it.” — Duncan Kennedy, The Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence, Harvard Law School, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy.
______________________________________
Michael DelGiorno is a local Nashville conservative talk radio host.
“[Post-racism] isn’t a place, time or accomplishment. It’s an excuse to silence those who think about racial problems. We cannot ignore race to solve the problem of racism. We must address it.”
—Professor Kimberlé WIlliams Crenshaw, Professor of Law at UCLA. Soon to be my Civil Rights Law professor(!!!!!).
While the Dartmouth student’s introduction is excellent, the professor’s keynote speech starts at around 24 minutes in. Click the link if you want to watch on YouTube and skip ahead to Professor Crenshaw!
Steven Colbert had formed a “Super PAC,” it seems, in order to ridicule and expose the terrible Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FCC.
This conversation is ripe with classism, as the SCOTUS decision makes it even harder for the voices of the poor to be heard in US politics, that is, the politics of a democracy.
<3[FIGHT(!)classism]
Herman Cain: Tear down this mosque! - Salon <3[FIGHT(!)ethnocentrism]
Dear Mr. Cain,
Step one: look up “freedom of religion” in a book.
Step two: speak intelligently about freedom of religion!
Sincerely,
<3[FIGHT(!)prejudice]
![“Society teaches ‘Don’t get raped’ rather than ‘Don’t rape’”
<3[FIGHT(!)sexism]](http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loc8o0n3ou1qzktkfo1_400.jpg)
“Society teaches ‘Don’t get raped’ rather than ‘Don’t rape’”
<3[FIGHT(!)sexism]
(via feminismisforlovers)
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute needs to go to college.
The “Intercollegiate Studies Institute” (ISI) has a bland-sounding name, so they wouldn’t have a radical ideological agenda, would they? It says “college” in the name! And colleges only test knowledge, they don’t use trick questions to lead you to shakey presumptions about the world … right?
Figure 1: I aced it, in part because I saw through its false normative assumptions
Figure 2: Here’s how you might answer this question on a test: one of these things is not like the other. No matter how little you learned in history or civics class, you probably remember that tariffs are bad, you know that “decreases in economic growth” have got to be bad, and you DEFINITELY know that “decreases in standard of living” are bad.
- So what’s good, then? What’s the right answer because it’s not like the others? “Increase in productivity!”
- “Productivity” is much more vague than the others, though. So, as you might or might not realize as the test taker, “productivity” can go way up while “standard of living” plummets at the same time.
- In fact, that’s what usually happens to countries around the world who open up to free trade, then have their markets flooded with cheap American food—which is subsidized by US government(’s protectionist trade policies)—, then are forced to “specialize” in jobs in factories that are more “productive,” in the sense of putting out more product, but pay less, and afford a lower standard of living.
Figure 3: A “public good” has a real definition in political science, and the “answer” to this question is incorrect.
- A public good’s defining characteristics are “non-rivalability” and “non-excludeability,” that is one person’s use of the good does not diminish another’s use of it and one person is physically incapable of excluding someone else from benefiting from the good.
- Problems with public goods are a type collective action problem, that is, “Well, we all need it, so who’s gonna build it??”
- One problem within that coordination problem is “freeloaders,” or those who do not contribute to building or maintaining something, yet still benefit from it.
- The concept of “freeloader” in political science is not a moralizing one. It is a coordination one: given the rational incentive to NOT contribute to a public good (because you as an individual will benefit anyway), how do we collectively organize to create or preserve a public good?
- ISI’s unfortunate use of “a flood-control levee” calls to mind the suffering of Hurricane Katrina, and—by moralizing and vastly oversimplifying the issue—ISI seems to imply that poor people not “directly paying for” a good or service is the problem of freeloading. Hello, classism!
- Examples of the rich freeloading:
- Wal-Mart freeloading on government-provided health care because they don’t provide employee insurance and because they exploit massive tax loopholes
- Wealthy “supporters” of green energy who live in scenic places and won’t allow wind turbines to be built in their line-of-sight (e.g. Cape Cod)
Figure 4: Yes, so true, because “local knowledge” is a cornerstone of the most successful companies, which build massive chains across the country, homogenizing goods, services, roadways, and landscapes!
________________________________________
A quick glance at ISI’s website confirms one’s suspicions of ISI’s ideological goals in their seemingly innocent “civics quiz.”
Here’s their website banner:
… when everyone your organization chooses to represent is white … there’s a problem. PLUS, their first issue area is “western civilization,” under which the Wailing Wall is pictured, which is a symbol of the so-called clash of civilizations.
In their FAQ section, ISI proudly claims ethnocentrism as one of their “core values.”
My personal response? Yer dumb. Any organization working to ”chart the way into the exotic landscape of Western Civilization” is simply gasping for a last dying breath of white privilege as the United States becomes more and more diverse. Just because you are not as good as you used to be at keeping people down does not mean that your civilization is dying.
Finally, it should be pointed out that ISI specifically refers to the importance of “Western patrimony,” also described as patriarchy, that is, the systemic oppression of women by men. Woo, go western civilization! Part of why you’re so great is that you’ve seen no accomplishments by women, or at least not any worth mentioning, apparently …
Planning classes for the fall at UCLA Law!
Green are the most likely
Purple are want, but probebly won’t get
Blue are backups
Orange is a seminar I applied to
ALL CAPS represent extra excitement
Professors look amazing, no class on Fridays, and all but one class I’m considering is offered in the spring as well.
Best. Decision. Ever.
