text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68872552018-12-25T08:25:57.191-08:00shoplifters unite!Carlos firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-62041744820817905872018-12-24T19:35:00.000-08:002018-12-25T08:25:57.182-08:00Xmas in TexmasI had a load of fun with my cousins. We saw them on Easter, and at random times when visiting my mom's mom. And we always saw them on Christmas Eve. Mom and dad packed up all the gifts they bought for the kids, along with a dish or two of food, and we made the trip across Corpus Christi to my grandmother's house. We switched some years actually, and it would be at an aunt's house, and once or twice at our house.

I remember it being very cold some years - like below 30 - and fairly warm some years - like in the 70's at night. When we arrived at our destination, we would help unload the wrapped gifts and place them under a tree. Multiple families and multiple kids, plus a few gifts for the adults, made for a very full tree. Then there was the food. Pan de polvo and other sweets. Tamales, sometimes made with deer from a recent hunting trip, were always part of the spread. Chips and queso dip in a crock pot also. Maybe some cheesy rice or something like that. You'd kind of just eat all night. There might be a Christmas-themed movie on the television, then later we'd monitor Santa's progress. The local meteorologist would provide regular updates, I guess because Santa was in the sky where the weather was.

I caught up with my cousins. They might have a new video game to show me - I really did not like Street Fighter and would always lose because I didn't know the secret moves. Someone might have fireworks, since new years was a week away. Hide and seek or some sort of game where we ran around in the dark - I recall something with a flashlight where people were trapped in "jail" until someone else comes to release them - were common, unless it was raining. We'd all be told when we'd be able to open presents - often midnight. In retrospect, I don't know how some of the adults stayed so chipper until then, after hours of food and alcohol. At midnight, then, we'd rip open the gifts, and all disperse. We had to get home before Santa arrived; for some reason the weather person stopped giving updates by then.

Christmas morning, for us anyway, was a walk down the stairs to find unwrapped gifts in front of the fireplace. My brother and I played, and assembled things. Mom and dad downed some coffee and packed for a short trip to the Valley. We'd pick one or two new things to take, and we'd head to McAllen. Mom put Christmas music on the radio, and we kept our eyes open for wildlife. Well, not just wild, it was also a treat to see the cows grazing.

We arrived in McAllen for my dad's side of the family's Christmas. Honestly, this part was somewhat boring for me. I always thought of McAllen as a sad, hot, humid, place with foul-tasting tap water. I'm just being honest, but I understand that I was young. I actually know very little of the place besides my grandparents house. I knew almost know Spanish, but Spanish soap operas were always on the television. Soap operas were bad enough in English, but that was torture. I did have two cousins down there, but they were girls, and besides a game or two of UNO, we didn't play much. There were often tamales, but also a bunch of gross stuff - cabrito, menudo, and occasionally a whole cow head that my grandfather would pull apart for tacos. I did love the tortillas though. Smaller and thicker than the flour tortillas commonly purchased at stores today - they were always cooked on the comal until they were slightly crisp. Although they were probably already full of lard, we often spread butter on them. They were on the side of each meal, but also eaten occasionally as a snack.

We traded gifts there as well, but by then we were getting a bit numb from all the free stuff, and could feel the the good times winding down. "How many weeks until my birthday?" I'd ask myself.

That was our Christmas tradition for many years. At the time, I assumed everyone did something similar, but I realize now traditions are all over the place just among those who celebrate Christmas. Despite the fact I was sometimes bored, cold, or hot, they were good memories.

Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-52012265270914881582017-10-30T18:04:00.001-07:002017-10-30T18:10:42.932-07:00Russiagate! Nope.

Vladimir Putin is the reason Hillary Clinton lost, and the truth of this is about to bring down the Trump presidency and restore civility and honor to the Republic. Maybe something along those lines, but I can't get as excited about the whole thing as many liberals/centrists and corporate pundits seem to be. In large part because:

I wish I lived in a world where killing innocent people in other countries would be the real scandal;

I wish I lived in a world where we were more shocked about the influence of money in politics than the influence of Russian Twitter bots;

I wish I lived in a world where we found it just as immoral when the U.S. interferes in democratic processes around the globe as whatever (so far hazy) acts committed by the Russian government against our own democratic process; and

I wish I lived in a world where countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia could be as easily demonized by American media and politicians as Russia or Venezuela.

Among other things.

Russiagate, for lack of a better word, seems to be more a type of therapy for those who prefer establishment moderates run American empire than a scandal that will actually bring about as much positive change as the blustery hope surrounding it might suggest. It is reassuring in so many ways for these individuals: Clinton did not really lose (and well she didn't - she won the popular vote - and that twist seems to be something we should be genuinely outraged about) - Russia manipulated social media to fool a bunch of unsuspecting voters in key states. Trump does not really represent many of the bad aspects of America - he is more a product of Siberian oligarchs and backward Muscovites. And for those more evil than ignorant - we can ratchet up people's fears around not just North Korea and Iran, but also Russia! It's win, win, win!

For those in positions of power, however, it is more than therapy. Russiagate also serves as a bludgeon, for use against anyone who wants to challenge these conventional ideas promoted by the powerful center. It reeks of American exceptionalism and sucks up all the energy that might go towards the fight against money in politics and for ballot access. It takes up so much political space, and does so conveniently at the expense of the politics of change - universal healthcare, anti-imperialism, free higher education, and the urgency of ending fossil fuel use; ideas that neither political party embraces, but that have grown in popularity among the masses. These are the concepts that most politicians would rather not talk about, and most corporate newsrooms know won't help their bottom line.

It's hard to sympathize with Trump and his supporters though. And if the ends justify the means, why not have this imperfect process with all of its problematic players and ideas, take out the man at the top. Maybe it is worth it to get rid of President Trump, or even just to horribly taint his brand of politics, which as incoherent as it often seems, has nonetheless emboldened a motley crew of Nazis and white supremacists. Maybe. But Washington has shown it can get rid of presidents far more easily than it can actually change for the better. Nixon was impeached and resigned, remember, but roughly six years later, Ronald Reagan was elected. Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-18044300082050151612017-07-10T16:20:00.000-07:002017-07-10T16:20:03.350-07:00Sebastian, a.k.a. Sea Bass, a.k.a. Bass, RIPNot long after the Twin Towers collapsed, while I was still living in Austin and we were all kind of scared and sad, my roommate, Liz, and I decided to adopt a dog. We went to the Town Lake Animal Shelter, and I saw the perfect, most adorable dog for adoption. But, there were already four people on the waiting list for that one, so we adopted Sebastian instead.

But, before we even got him home, while sitting with him in the back of Liz's old Mercedes, rambling down the road, we slammed into another car - Welcome to Your New Family, Sebastian! We were all fine. Sebastian was nervous in cars for a couple of years after that though.

He was a lanky dog, who leaped about. He probably needed a few acres to really be happy, but a small back yard worked pretty well. Especially with overhanging branches, and plenty of squirrels. For years Sebastian's favorite pastime was barking and jumping into the air at squirrels that were taunting him by flicking their tails; as if he could ever reach the 15 foot high branches. He could get up to 6 feet, so maybe he was working up to it. Years later he went through a phase of barking at airplanes and airplane trails, though he didn't bother to jump at them.

Sebastian was a good dog; Even though he bit my friends, and bit me once pretty hard too; and even though he sometimes attacked other dogs while on leash and wouldn't let go of them as they whimpered and their owners got mad at me; and even though he killed our beloved chicken "Laverne I"; he was a good dog. He was with me through a few challenging times. He wasn't much of a lap dog and the most he ever did to comfort me was to lick my hand a couple of times as if to say, "there there," but he was present and I needed him. He was a great road trip dog, once he got over his fear of crashing. Sebastian was my sole companion on a few trips to West Texas, a few trips home to Corpus Christi, the four day drive that brought me out to San Francisco, and a few days along Highway 1 I remember fondly.

When we got him, they told us he was about 1 year old, which would make him nearly 17-years-old at his death. He was old, so this wasn't entirely unexpected, but it is particularly hard because he has been a constant presence in my life for nearly 16 years: From single law student in Texas to married, non-practicing, police oversight, middle-manager, in California; through six rented apartments and one mortgaged house. He was always pretty spry. People thought he was a puppy even just a couple of years ago. Besides our chicken, he killed a number of non-pets: a rat, a mouse, and several baby possums that we know of. He was pretty healthy too; he never really had any problems; until recently, that is.

He nearly faded out a couple of times over the last year - he would stop eating and get lethargic. A change in diet generally fixed that. Just in the last six to nine months he began having problems standing up - we found him with his four legs splayed out on the concrete, unable to move, a few times. He would go on walks occasionally, but couldn't go far. More recently he started having nose bleeds. But that's all over now.

I assume heaven for him is whatever hell is for squirrels. Sebastian can climb trees and jump 50 feet high! Good boy! Go get those squirrels!

Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-7317482673816194112017-05-20T08:45:00.000-07:002017-05-20T08:45:00.310-07:00Adobo, a.k.a. Dobes RIP

Dobes napping.

When Adobo first marched into our home, peeing here and there, smelling the ground with his lips flapping about, we noted several unique things about him: he had a particularly long tail, an unusually long tongue, and he was prone to sneezing when his nose was tapped. He also had an eye that looked like a big, dark brown, flesh marble. What was wrong with his eye? We knew we couldn't get too attached because we needed to figure that out first. So we shelled out the money to have it removed, as recommended. The vets said it was benign and he'd be a healthy one-eyed dog. He could have no eyes and we'd have been ok with that, as long as he was healthy.

Adobo, or "dobes" for short, was loyal, but he also had issues. He got into a few fights with Sebastian - the 16-year-old dog we didn't expect to outlive Adobo, but he's like one of those 100-year-old marathon runners. If dobes was sitting with his dads or near any food or treats, he was in growling/protect mode against any threats, especially Sebastian. He usually did not like kisses and would growl, and occasionally snap, at anyone who gave him one (though he did have his moods when he was cool with a peck on the head). He also ate poop. And we loved him.

We heard he had spent a lot of time in a crate and without a backyard before getting to us, so for the short two years we had him, we let him take advantage of the huge park across the street, and eventually made some changes to the house to give him access to the yard at all hours (he ruined a few IKEA rugs before that).

We adopted him as a senior, and knew we wouldn't necessarily have him for multiple years. But he stayed with us just long enough for us to get really really attached. He went out on a high note: uncomfortable, but still able to walk, wag his tail, and (with pain pills) eat a decent breakfast. He'll be missed, but I think his time with us was pretty much dog joy from beginning to end.Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-1665673434509809642017-02-09T18:42:00.000-08:002017-02-09T18:42:08.750-08:00Disparaging Jill SteinAlternate Title: Democratic Hacks Ask, "Is it ok to punch a hippie?" and answer "YES!"

I'm not really a huge fan of Jill Stein, but she has been a favorite punching bag for Democratic partisans and liberals who ridicule her as "stupid" and irrelevant, but also blame her for Trump's victory and the coming apocalypse. I feel the need to defend her and the Greens because I feel her liberal critics are often misinformed or disingenuous (no she is not an anti-vaxxer who believes wi-fi causes brain cancer). The bitter, scornful critiques of Stein from the middle and near-left spring forth from a political perspective that, honestly, has a lot more to do with the mess we're in now, than anything she or the Green Party have ever done. If you aren't a right-wing Republican and you care about human rights and the future of our planet, you will of course be outraged at what Republicans are doing now, and you should be doing whatever you can to resist their agenda. But this is also a critical moment to shine a light on how the Democratic Party has failed us. Don't demonize or ridicule Stein and the Greens; focus your derision on the far more powerful and far more corrupt Democratic Party.

To illustrate this, here is a list of things Jill Stein did not do:

 Vote for a war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and left a chaotic situation in the region;

Vote in favor of Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense - General James Mattis, AND his nominee for U.N. Ambassador - Nikki Haley (some people who did both - Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren);

Deport over 2 million people (as Obama did);

Vote in favor of Trump's nominee for CIA Director, Mike Pompeo (some people who did - Tim Kaine, Chuck Schumer);

Vote against a bill that would have lowered prescription drug prices for Americans (as Cory Booker did);

Vote in favor of Ben Carson for HUD Secretary (some people who did - Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren);

Support free trade agreements that prioritized corporate interests over workers' rights or the environment;

Give a speech backing charter schools to an organization chaired by Betsy DeVos, like Cory Booker did;

Write an article about how she would affirm an unbreakable bond with Israel and Benjamin Netenyahu (as Hillary Clinton did);

and so on ... if we go back to the 90's there is a lot more material.

Stein has mishandled some things and she is certainly not a polished, Washington insider.

For example, there was that Russia Today event she attended where at one point she was seated at a table with both Vladimir Putin and Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn. They weren't making out or anything, and it is likely that she didn't get to choose where she sat, but still. It should be noted, however, that she never called Putin a friend to her family (as Hillary Clinton did regarding Hosni Mubarak) and she doesn't spend her winters with Putin at Oscar de la Renta's beachfront villa (as Hillary Clinton frequently has with Henry Kissinger). And at that notorious event where Stein was at a table with Putin she spoke on a panel and said:

Imagine how much better off the world would be if our two nations could lead the way for the major powers to reduce the size of our military establishments. We could invest the money saved in something truly beneficial - such as job creation to expand renewable energy and stop climate change. Ending our multinational fossil fuel addiction will make disastrous wars for oil obsolete in the first place.
What a monster!

Then there is the most recent example, which motivates my posting on this today. On February 7, Stein tweeted:

Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because Democrats serve corporate interests. https://t.co/66rpL1ifik
— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) February 7, 2017
This was in reference to to the vote to confirm Betsy DeVos, in which 2 Republicans joined the Democrats creating the tie in the Senate, eventually broken by Vice President Pence. The usual crew of Democratic apologists piled on. Doesn't she know that every Democrat in the Senate voted against DeVos!!!! She was either "stupid" or deceiving her "stupid" base.

The tweet is still up despite all the negative attention it got. For that reason, and because the tweet linked to a Washington Post article that made the unanimous Democratic opposition clear, it seems unlikely that Stein made a mistake. Perhaps her communications team could clarify, but maybe she meant that the Democrats lost the Senate, during Obama's tenure, and didn't win it back in the elections last year, because people who would otherwise vote for them didn't get very excited about politicians who "serve corporate interests." But why give her the benefit of the doubt when she can be demonized and ridiculed, and anyone who would ever dream of voting 3rd party can have all that shame and doubt beaten into their subconscious?

Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-58496670700326397792016-12-31T17:21:00.003-08:002016-12-31T20:26:10.047-08:002016: Thoughts on a Year Full of ChangeI have really neglected this blog; in large part because of all the change going on, though you'd think that would just give me plenty to write about. No. Sometimes change saps the creative energy out of you. And sometimes it just makes finding the time to write (or paint or build a dog house) nearly impossible. Plus, rapid change can make the casual writer's political scribbling become irrelevant before she or he is able to click on "Publish." Well, I have a couple of 3-day weekends this month, so here's a summary of 2016.

The National Lawyers Guild was flexible enough to let me study for the California bar exam this year. And I did. I spent hours reviewing contracts, property, criminal procedure, civil procedure, and man it brought back memories. More on that later.

Bellas Artes Very Art Deco Interior

JC and I went to Mexico City for a few days in May. Unlike the last time I went, I got to go to Palacio Bellas Artes, the Templo Mayor, and the Museo del Carmen. I was able to revisit Teotihuacan, where I could be the guide this time. More adventurous friends had shown me how to avoid the tours and get to Teotihuacan via the metro and regional buses. It takes a bit longer, but the bus depot had a Subway sandwich shop, which kept us going.

As I recall, the Templo Mayor was closed on my last trip. This time we were able to tour the ruins uncovered beneath and alongside the Metropolitan Cathedral and the main Zocalo. In one spot you could view modern Mexican business towers, colonial Spanish buildings from hundreds of years ago, and the templo itself – layer upon layer of newer structures built over other structures. We also saw mummies at the Museo del Carmen, which I had missed last time – again, closed. I managed to purchase some t-shirts at a store with a complicated shopping process: once I decided what I wanted (in this case needed), workers lowered the shirts with a rope from the storage area above; then I paid for them at a counter, but had to pick them up at a different counter upon showing my receipt; the gentleman at this last counter reviewed and stamped my documents. The shirts were too tight.

We also found decent vegetarian food.

Casa de los Azulejos

I'm generally a happy traveler in urban centers full of history. Add in my ancestral roots, and you've got me hooked. Staying right on the Zocalo was pretty touristy, but it pleased me nonetheless. One afternoon we were in our un-airconditioned hotel room, watching some storms roll in and trying to get the breeze blowing through the french door windows. I got a call from someone I only knew through email and a couple of previous phone calls. He let me know that I was likely to be offered a job that I had applied to many, many months ago.

Speaking of Mexico, this kid, Francisco, came into my life in March through the Big Brothers program. He and his family are from Mexico. Kids need mentors, and I needed an excuse to go to the park more often. It's a pretty good match.

I first met him in an office building. His mom brought him into a small room and we were instructed to talk about the activities we enjoyed. I had to sign a form saying I wouldn't take him on motorcycle rides, and an additional form about firearms since we had a pellet gun in the house (we've yet to purchase pellets). After about 20 minutes, the kid asked, "do I go with him now?" And, ever since, we pretty much have a standing date on Saturdays. Did anyone see the 2016 movie "Nine Lives"? No? Well I did! Francisco and I (and increasingly JC) have also been on frequent trips to the beach, a rock-climbing gym, a carnival, kid-friendly museum/discovery/science places, and plenty of parks.

I also took him to a community outreach event I did for my new job – there was music, and games, and he got a free backpack out of it. The new job is probably the biggest change for me this year. I was at the NLG for nearly 12 years. I was increasingly open to change, but also didn't really like any of the jobs I saw posted. And I was seeing the good jobs – the ones people would send me to post to NLG lists so awesome people would apply. Some of the best options required a law license, and that, in part, is why I was studying for the California bar exam. Other really good options required one to be bilingual. Duolingo now says I'm at 46%! But that guy who called me in Mexico had emailed me one over a year ago that caught my attention. It was an investigator position at the Office of Citizen Complaints - a San Francisco public agency that investigates public complaints against police officers. The idea of being a public servant maybe sounds boring, but is appealing to me, especially serving a function that (while insufficient on its own) is so necessary. The idea of focusing on one type of work was also appealing: instead of being the director, human resources person, researcher, public speaker, event planner, fundraiser, communications director, tech person and a hundred other jobs required to keep the NLG functioning with only two staff people. So, on a whim, I applied and, eventually, got an offer. And that's what I'm doing now. I put the bar exam on hold, pero todavía estoy practicando Español cada dia.

Taken early one morning on my way to work. Early for me anyway.

The focus at the new gig has been good, but there is still a great deal of variety. Everyone comes in with different issues – not just the particular misconduct of which they are complaining, but sometimes unique legal issues, personal issues, cultural issues, and so on. They may have violated the law themselves, or may think the police should have arrested someone else. Their primary form of income may be, technically, illegal. They may not realize that their complaint is completely unfounded, or they may not know that the police did several other things during their encounter that amount to misconduct. I do work in the field, and interview witnesses as well as, naturally, the police officers accused of misconduct. So, it isn't like I'm making the same widgets every day from 9 to 5. Actually I usually start at 8:15 AM! Adjusting to that has been one of the biggest challenges. Well, that, and I don't get to be learning about, strategizing about, and debating political change all day. Just at lunch, during my morning and evening commutes, and during my two fifteen minute breaks; also at night and on weekends and holidays.

OK, I'm mostly just on twitter. I need to do more, because there is plenty to do.

The Sanders campaign had been the political surprise of the year until November, right? The media wouldn't portray it as such, but a grey-haired, socialist from Vermont giving the Democratic Party establishment a run for its money was pretty unexpected. And that's really who he was running against. Clinton as a person has her own flaws and epitomizes that establishment, but it was a broad swath of the Democratic Party establishment that was really up for election this year, and it failed to beat a World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame inductee who pals around with neo-Nazis. Although I'd bet more money on Sanders' elect-ability, I still thought Clinton would pull it off in the end. I shared the shock of my liberal-moderate brothers and sisters on that count.

Now the question is what do we do, and it feels a bit like being out in the wilderness at night in complete darkness, because you don't know exactly what to expect, but you know you need to prepare yourself. I actually think that may be one of the things that makes Trump more frightening than Clinton – the unexpected. After all, I have no doubt that a Clinton administration would have unleashed a great deal of pain on the planet, unlike Trump, she and her compatriots would have dressed it up in humanitarianism, incrementalism, and wonkishness. But she is a standard politician entrenched in the same Democratic Party that coalesced around her husband's presidency 20 years ago.

Trump is an unknown. He doesn't seem to have a well thought out political ideology and he may be part of the ruling class, but is certainly not part of the Republican establishment.

So there is the unexpected, but even if Trump is prepared to do about the same amount of harm as a standard Republican or Democrat, the other scary aspect of his campaign and future presidency is the proto-fascists, crass bigots, and shameless corporatists he has empowered. Unfortunately, many Democrats are saying they are willing to work with Trump, and even liberal journalists and pundits seem perfectly willing to normalize the worst aspects of what we've seen and what may be to come.

So we – those of us who are not politicians and not "millionaires and billionaires" (said in a Bernie Sanders voice) – have to fight and protest. There lies our hope. The people freezing in North Dakota to stop an oil pipeline have shown us the way forward. So have the movements for Black Lives and the one to Occupy Wall Street, which both came while an ostensibly progressive, black president sat in office. A Sanders presidency would also have needed protest, though I think a Sanders administration would have been more responsive. At any rate, we live on a planet dominated by an economic system that is killing us, and in a country that is more or less running it, so who our political leaders are is important, and yet, even the right people would be relatively incapable of saving us, if we aren't willing to take risks and save ourselves.

That should be our New Years Resolution actually.

Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-63514380778455347402016-09-07T20:29:00.000-07:002016-09-07T20:29:36.719-07:00Running the Excelsior

I haven't written about running in some time, in part because I'm doing it less. But I still do it, and will likely keep doing it until my knees or hips snap or otherwise become permanently damaged. It is easy (no equipment necessary - though I always have my preferred sneakers, a digital watch, my iphone, and bluetooth earphones on me), you get to see a lot (when you're running outside and not on a treadmill), and it generally feels good/is good for you/etc.

My San Francisco neighborhood of the last few years is the Excelsior – a residential, somewhat foggy, enclave that some SF residents think is Daly City when driving south on Mission Street. It slopes down toward Cayuga Creek (or Islais Creek or Rodeo Viejo Valley) – a creek long covered by Cayuga Avenue; up hill to the west is Balboa Park; up hill to the East is McLaren Park. There are no major hills by San Francisco standards, but still a lot of incline and decline. I happen to be adjacent to McLaren Park, so it is challenging to find a sufficiently lengthy route in my neighborhood that is flat, without running back and forth several times.

So I start one of my frequent neighborhood runs going downhill towards busy Mission Street. My legs are still cold, so I have to avoid pounding down on the concrete while I continuously check for inattentive drivers - of which there are many. Mission Street has the added bonus of large buses, taxis and Uber/Lyft cars making illegal U-turns; plus many more pedestrians.

model of Corpus Christi church

I attempt to make the most of the flat roadways in the neighborhood by maximizing my route along Alemany Boulevard and San Jose Avenue - both traveling parallel to the old creek, like roads on the edge of a broad canyon, they are fairly level. Alemany has a bike lane in each direction, as you would expect for a relatively flat road. Follow the bike paths in San Francisco and you'll usually be on the more manageable routes. As I run my first section of Alemany I pass Corpus Christi church – notable because it shares a name with my birth city, but also because the vicinity is full of human obstacles on Sundays (since I'm off on Sunday and don't go to church, it is a common running day for me). I cross right there and continue down a ways before turning and continuing my descent.

Little City Gardens

Just as my legs are loose enough I begin one of the steeper inclines of the run up to San Jose Avenue. At this point I pass by Little City Gardens. You'd probably miss it if you drove by, but it extends back several yards between private homes, full of rows of flowers and vegetables. It is a working farm; among other things, it provides food to local restaurants. It's future is uncertain, however, and along the way you can see little yellow signs in some of the front windows of homes that say "Save the Farm."

Onto San Jose Avenue - a minor commercial corridor with two corner store/sandwich shops, a bar, tattoo parlor (parlour?), a Samoan church, a Korean church, laundromat and a Chinese restaurant, among other assorted places. It is dominated on the West by Balboa Park - a park that has many forms of leisure and exercise, and also happens to be a public transportation hub. There is an enclosed pool, various playing courts, baseball fields, and a skate park. The J Muni light-rail line runs along San Jose and ends at Balboa Park station – the busiest BART station in the Bay Area outside of downtown San Francisco.

Geneva Car Barn and Powerhouse back in the day

Geneva Car Barn and Powerhouse marks my turn back downhill. This stretch of Geneva is busy, but mostly residential. There is supposed to be a public garden here (Geneva Community Garden), but that plot is mostly dirt and weeds at the moment. It is a somewhat steep downhill and back up, getting back onto Alemany for a last stretch of flat concrete. This is a good spot to crank up the pace – one last push to avoid ending up with a horrible average speed.

As I continue back uphill into my neighborhood I pass the Persia Triangle – really a colorful laundromat/car repair parking lot/makeshift church. There are future plans to make it a friendlier triangle, which will be nice, but it is central and busy anyway. The large windows at the Dragon House sometimes draw one's attention to kick boxing, Kung Fu, Jiu Jitsu and the like. Again, this is Mission Street so watch out for scofflaws, Ubers and impatient drivers in SUV's with loud mufflers. (I once saw the intersection blocked off by police, a truck on the sidewalk a few yards beyond, and groceries scattered about the road.)
Heading up the long, steady incline of tree-lined Persia is sometimes made more difficult by smoking pedestrians or exhaust fumes. The wind is typically at your back, however. Passing the towering murals of Cleveland Elementary (home of the Peacemakers!) is an encouraging reminder that I'm nearly home and I switch my iphone to a a more victorious song, if appropriate.Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-51019422465569647562016-04-02T18:07:00.000-07:002016-04-02T18:07:36.679-07:00Paul Krugman Wields Math to Demand Sanders Stop Competing with ClintonPaul Krugman – a Hillary Clinton supporter, who should really start columns like the one in question with that caveat in bold text – wrote the not-so-cleverly-titled "Feel the Math" because he wants Bernie Sanders to stop competing in any serious way with Clinton, upcoming races in populous states like California and New York be damned! The whole thing is just a professorial stump-lecture for Hillary Clinton that is both arrogant and disempowering.

He starts off by acknowledging how surprisingly well the Sanders Campaign is doing, but then swiftly deflates the enthusiasm by pointing out that he doesn't really have a chance to win – maybe 10% chance – and so "it's time [for professor Krugman] to lay out some guidelines for good and bad behavior" kids.

The rules he sets basically come down to: (1) You don't have to drop out, but you need to stop actually competing with Clinton, and (2) You need to throw some cash to the Democratic Party and other Democratic races.

I have less of an opinion about the 2nd point, but as someone who doesn't identify with the Democratic Party and who finds much of the Democratic establishment to be an impediment to real change, I'm not too concerned about Sanders keeping his fundraising close to his own campaign and not wanting to spend too much time or money on the Democratic party generally. I think a lot of people donating to his campaign feel the same way about their contributions.

The first rule is the one that I find most troubling, and really underlies a lot of the liberal elite's attitude about Sanders at the moment. It isn't just Krugman demanding that Sanders stop genuinely competing if he refuses to drop out, a top Clinton aide has said that Sanders needs to change his tone if he wants to get another debate with Clinton – a demand that amounts to the same thing. Even though Clinton has said that Sanders "stood with [the anti-Immigrant] Minutemen vigilantes" (a calculated lie), and she has falsely and angrily accused the Sanders campaign of lying about her contributions, and she has accused Sanders – who is arguably more pro-choice than Clinton – of not taking abortion rights seriously, among other distortions and accusations, it is time for Sanders to stop challenging Clinton in any way that may do damage to her campaign.

That's what it amounts to; and they are comfortable doing this because, from day one, the Sanders campaign has been a side show to them, and now it is getting to be a real annoyance. As Krugman writes, "we've now reached the point where what's fun for the campaign isn't at all the same as what's good for America." To him the Sanders campaign has been fun, maybe cute, but it is time to move aside (not drop out, of course, because let's go through the motions or whatever), but stop competing and bringing up facts about Clinton that Republicans could take advantage of when she becomes (I mean if she becomes) the Democratic nominee.

His central point is that Sanders is unlikely to win (because of the math) and so now he needs to play nice, even if Clinton doesn't. She, after all, has to prepare for the general election; so she has a different set of rules to play by.

But the fact is the race is far from over. A ten percent chance is still a decent chance – and probably one of the best chances a genuinely progressive/left candidate has had in a long time. (I would put his chances higher, though I recognize the steep, uphill battle his campaign has.) In states like mine, California, and other large, populous states like New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey, election day is still in the future. We are still having the debates, trying to convince our neighbors, co-workers, fellow students, about who they should vote for. There are enormous difference between Sanders and Clinton on foreign policy, money in politics, the environment, workers' rights, healthcare etc. There is also a clear distinction between the candidates' history and character – differences that should inform voters about who they should trust more. Sanders, in my opinion, is far and away the better candidate in all these regards; and the more voters learn about the differences, the more momentum his campaign gains. This is what Krugman and other Clinton supporters seek to stop when they trot out their math and their candidate's inevitable and likely victory.

The constant drumbeat from the corporate media, even from liberals in the New York Times and at MSNBC, about Hillary's inevitability has been Sanders' biggest obstacle (something the Clinton campaign has used as much as possible to her advantage). That perception of inevitability has been self-fulfilling – contributing to how well she has done so far, and thus adding to the sense that she is the likely nominee. Journalists and pundits amplifying that perception is a really undemocratic way of talking about elections. It is the opposite of how much of the establishment punditry have talked about the Republican nomination process, where there is constant hand-wringing about how candidates with far fewer delegates, but who are not Donald Trump, could still find a way to be the nominee (also a pretty undemocratic discussion but in favor of insurgent campaigns and quirks of party rules that could favor someone, anyone, but the frontrunner). In this sense Krugman, and much of those in the corporate media, play a role in disempowering voters and discouraging the substantive, democratic discussions that ought to be happening during this long primary season.

Of course, for Krugman, that is just fine as long as he is disempowering Sanders voters and quieting any issues that benefit his campaign at the expense of the Clinton campaign. Krugman's candidate is the inevitable winner (as far as he is concerned), so challenging her from the left is off limits. Sorry California and New York – maybe start organizing around the general election or something.Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-71279912466142294502015-07-23T12:24:00.001-07:002015-07-27T12:05:05.525-07:00Don't Blame Sanctuary City Policies for a Tragic DeathThe fact that Kathryn Steinle was killed is horrible, and the way that Kathryn Steinle was killed was horrible. Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, who was in the country without legal authorization, was likely the person who killed her. Some have seized on this and used Steinle's death to push their anti-immigrant agenda or to boost their own political fortunes or both. These critics have singled out sanctuary ordinances – policies that bar local officials from working with federal immigration officials – and policies like California's Trust Act – which limits detention of people in local jails when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests it. The battle over these laws is ultimately about policy decisions, the pain they cause or alleviate, and the values they reinforce or undermine.

Under our laws, since Sanchez did not have a record of violent felonies, and once the district attorney opted not to charge him for an old drug crime, there was no longer any justification for keeping him in jail awaiting a pick up from ICE. If he had been a citizen, it wouldn't even be a question – a citizen would be released at that point, even if he or she did have past convictions for violent acts. The only difference in the debate is immigration status – and for some people, that is good enough. At its base, then, the argument in favor of a stricter policy in the wake of the Steinle killing has little to do with concern for victims of violent crime and everything to do with the notion that certain people don't belong here.

The crude logic relied on by critics is that "but for the sanctuary city policy, Kathryn Steinle would still be alive." If ICE had been alerted by local officials, and Sanchez had been held for them, they would have taken him into custody and imprisoned or deported him, or both. Then this horrible act would never have happened. Maybe, but that doesn't indicate either causation or the wisdom of the policy.

Any number of policies, official practices or laws acted upon Sanchez in the days, months and years leading up to this senseless act; that does not mean those policies or practices are implicated or that changing them would actually make acts like this less likely. The District Attorney decided not to charge Sanchez with a decades old marijuana possession case. Yet few pundits have pointed to that decision as bearing responsibility for Steinle's tragic death. Some sanctuary defenders have pointed to the proliferation of guns and the large number of guns lost by or stolen from federal agentsas having culpability (the alleged weapon in Steinle's killing was reported stolen from a federal agent's car a few weeks before). Still others have pointed the finger at ICE and the fact that it did not seek a warrant to hold Sanchez. Those arguments don't seem to have much traction with most politicians, however, who are now reviewing and focusing their attention largely on local immigration policies such as sanctuary city ordinances.

If one starts with the idea that certain people don't belong here, then it is natural to focus on sanctuary policies as the problem. To those who feel this way, residency in this country, for those born outside the United States (and apparently sometimes those born inside), is a gift. Maybe you can win asylum if you show that you will likely be killed if deported, maybe you can be granted a visa for a limited time, maybe you can wait long enough and jump through enough hoops to be allowed to stay, but probably not. The default is you don't belong here. So the fact that there was no indication that Sanchez would do anything violent is beside the point; and the wisdom or fairness of any policies are largely beside the point as well.

But the sanctuary city ordinance and the Trust Act are good policies worthy of strong support. Despite the recent fear-mongering, a sanctuary city policy has been in place in San Francisco since the 1980's. The focus back then was on people fleeing Central America, largely because of wars that the US had its hands in. Yet over the past few decades, there is no evidence that the policy has led to more crime or the shielding of violent people. The more recent Trust Act limits ICE holds in jails throughout California; it went into effect January 1, 2014. It too has failed to result in more violent crime or chaos. "Homicides, robberies and overall violent crimes fell statewide in 2014 to levels not seen in decades ..."

For some, the primary purpose of the sanctuary city policies is to ensure that people feel comfortable communicating with local law enforcement without fear of deportation. I have mixed feelings about that argument, but it certainly makes sense. If you know a child is being abused, for example, but you've overstayed your visa, you may think twice before calling law enforcement (or any other local officials). It's difficult to measure the positive effect San Francisco's sanctuary policy has had on public safety and declining community violence, but the logic definitely seems well-founded.

For me, though, the more important reason to support sanctuary city policies and the Trust Act is because they keep families together, communities cohesive, and, essentially, decriminalize the entirely harmless act of residing somewhere without the proper paperwork. Enforcing immigration policy is the job of the federal government, and its policies are increasingly punitive. The Feds shouldn't be able to forcibly enlist local or state officials in carrying out its bad acts. (Where are all the states rights libertarians on this?)

Federal immigration policies have led to record numbers of deportations during the Obama administration – over 2 million people – and also record high numbers of people in detention centers. As Detention Watch documents:

In 2001, the U.S. detained approximately 95,000 individuals. By 2010, the number of individuals detained annually in the U.S. had grown to approximately 390,000. The average daily population of detained immigrants has grown from approximately 5,000 in 1994, to 19,000 in 2001, and to over 33,000 by the end of 2010. ICE's stated goal is to deport 400,000 non-citizens each year.
Sanchez had spent half of his adult life in prison, mostly, it would seem, for entirely harmless violations of the law: possession of drugs, and re-entering the country after being deported. He had been deported multiple times, and it generally seemed that he had a shitty life in and out of the hands of law enforcement. It is unlikely he had access to mental health care or adequate treatment for substance abuse problems in or out of the various prisons and jails in which he spent so much of his life. Yet the fact that we choose to spend billions of tax dollars on border militarization and immigrant detention, not to mention the criminalization of harmless drug crimes, rather than on health care for the poor and homeless (Sanchez was apparently living on the streets when Steinle was killed), does not seem to be part of the policy discussion.

There are good policies that we ought to support that probably would prevent violent acts like these, are more connected to the root cause of violence like this, and don't needlessly force suffering on others. And they don't compromise the principles we ought to embrace, such as universal human rights, human dignity, and liberty. Yes, liberty, because holding someone without a warrant likely violates the 4th Amendment and proposals, like building a giant wall along the border, are an affront to basic liberty – the freedom to travel, to associate, to easily find employment, and so on.

Most of the outspoken critics using Steinle's death to attack sanctuary policies begin with the proposition that some people belong here and others do not; that those people over there deserve less liberty and fewer rights. They seek to use this tragedy to scapegoat, disparage and, ultimately, cause more harm to people they see as unworthy of compassion. For those of us who genuinely care about preventing suffering and even violence like the killing of Kathryn Steinle, we should defend sanctuary policies without apology, and focus attention on the widespread misery caused by sprawling and expensive immigration and criminal systems focused on punishing people for simply being here. If we don't see immigrants as less worthy, then we can do much better. Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-30151587861979632592015-06-08T19:06:00.001-07:002015-06-08T19:06:23.387-07:00Einstein von Eisenbark a.k.a General Sweet-heart-oWhat I loved most about this beagle is how much he loved me. When I got home from work, and he realized who I was, he shot a loud, long bark right at my face. Then another. Then another. It might go on for some time, actually. He was happy to see me. When we went on walks, even though his original dad had control of his leash, he would look around to see where I was every few minutes. I was told he would whine a lot when I was gone. In the morning, when his original dad was gone to work, I hopped in the shower. As soon as I opened the bathroom door, he was laying down in front of it, waiting for me to come out. He wanted to sit next to me, and sometimes right on my lap.

I met his original dad back in very late 2006. And I remember when JC drove up to my place one day with Einstein in the passenger seat. He was excited to see me; even though he didn't really know me yet. Over eight years later, JC and I are married and own a home together. We brought our own dogs to our relationship, but I quickly felt a connection with Einstein I didn't quite have with my own dog. Sure I love my dog (Sebastian), but I think he just likes me back. Einstein returned every bit of love and then some. He was special.

I've lived with dogs all my life; and I hope I'll always have them in my life. I've never had a dog like Einstein; and I wish he could have lived forever, 'scream barking' at me every time I got home from work.Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-67006363104131575782015-05-03T20:11:00.001-07:002015-05-04T12:57:44.828-07:00Istanbul

Blue Mosque

I decided to go to Istanbul because I turned 40 this year and had done little international travel. I chose Istanbul because I love history and am interested in the culture of a largely Muslim, yet relatively liberal, country. JC and I went in April – an ideal time to see tulips and enjoy mild weather.

The 12 to 13 hour flight on Turkish Airlines was one of the first direct flights from SFO. The airline had started flying direct a few days before. For such a long flight in economy, it was more comfortable than I thought it would be. The free booze helped.

The airport in Istanbul was easier to navigate upon arrival than upon departure. Once we had our luggage we exited to meet a large crowd holding multiple signs with people's names and, in some cases, the names of hotels. I found the guy with my name – he had about a dozen names – he handed me off to someone else, who walked us to the curb and, eventually, handed us off to our driver.

After battling through traffic and navigating narrow, cobble-stone roads, at times going the wrong but tolerated way, we arrived at our destination: the Hanedan Hotel. It was clean, with friendly staff, and close to the major attractions, but otherwise nothing special. It was evening so we cleaned up and quickly began discussing dinner: "Shit!" I said, "I left my backpack in the van." It was a nice backpack, but more importantly, it had my camera, my lenses, my ipad, my guidebook, and my prescriptions in it. The gentleman at the front desk made some calls and finally assured us – the driver had found my bag and would have it back to us by 9:30 p.m.

Hagia Sophia

Crisis averted, we set out to eat. The area of Sultanahmet we were in had tons of restaurants, though most are not considered very good. It also had multiple small hotels and hostels, and unfortunately, many rowdy 20-something, Europeans. Navigating through that drunken revelry, we finally decided on a place based on the guy outside trying to convince us to eat there. He was less annoying than the others. The Turkish wine was good, as was the mezze plate.

So we wandered out to see the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia, snapped a few iphone pictures, returned to our hotel, had my bag returned, and crashed.

The next day we took to the streets with a plan to check out the Blue Mosque. When we arrived, the line stretched out the gate and up the hippodrome, and worse, it was starting to rain. A handsome young man spotted our distress and helped us out: "The line is hours long to get in. It's because there are two cruise ships in town. Better to come back tomorrow after 4."

Then he started asking us questions: "Where are you from? Are you married? Can I take you to my shop?"

Basilica Cistern

"Uh sure." I was concerned, but we followed him. So our first full day in Istanbul began with a friendly sales pitch over complimentary tea. At least it got us out of the rain. We didn't buy a rug, though it was on our list as a possibility. But it was too soon. We thanked the shopkeep and headed back out.

Still stormy, we decided to escape underground. The Basilica Cistern was built during the Byzantine Empire to store water for various palaces. It has hundreds of columns holding up the ceiling, most salvaged. The most interesting ones stand on medusa heads. There's still some water and fish swimming around. Not the first postcard you would buy, but still pretty amazing.

Next stop out of the weather was the Archaeology Museums, where there are an overwhelming amount of artifacts from the region, some casually scattered about the courtyard. We could have spent several more hours there, but we were getting light-headed. So we set out to find a recommended place for pide.

After the miss from that morning, we thought we'd give the Blue Mosque another try. The line was considerably shorter by the late afternoon, though it was still about half an hour to get in. Very popular with tourists, but also a working mosque, tourists are shuffled in and kept in a limited area in the back. It's a big beautiful interior, but it's the exterior that really impresses. The courtyard provides some good views.

Despite our jet lag, we checked out two more old religious edifices that day. The Hagia Irene would have been more impressive if it didn't have a large net, helpfully catching pigeon droppings but unhelpfully blocking the view of the ceiling, draped through its interior. The Little Hagia Sophia was pretty, and in a quiet corner of the otherwise tourist-packed neighborhood. It was a nice way to end the day. Plus, there were rabbits, cats, ducks and dogs on the grounds.

There seemed to be a lot of animals all over the city, mostly cats and dogs. People would put out water and food for them, but they lived on the streets. They were surprisingly clean for stray animals. We noticed that some dogs had tags in their ears, but never asked anyone about it. An English woman would tell us days later that the tagged dogs had been vaccinated for rabies.

The next morning the plan was to take a tram to Eminönü and catch a ferry out to the Western Neighborhoods. At the ferry dock we asked a gentleman at the information desk about how to do that, and he encouraged us to take a bus instead. In retrospect it was good advice. It meant we spent the day walking down hill from sight to sight, rather than uphill.

Fresco at the Chora Church

The bus dropped us off a couple of blocks away from the Kariye Museum (or Chora Church) – our first stop for the day. Unfortunately a major part of the church was closed for renovations, but what remained to see was still beautiful.

We walked through a regular, non-touristy, neighborhood to get to the Fethiye Museum, (formerly Pammakaristos Church, then a mosque, now a museum – a common historic sequence in the former Ottoman Empire). The grounds were lovely and there were just two other people there, Russian tourists I think.

Continuing through the non-touristy neighborhood, which I found to be almost as interesting as many of the attractions within it, we then found the Church of St. Mary of the Mongols – atypical as it was never converted to a mosque and is not now a museum. It wasn't Sunday, so it was closed.

Finally at our last stop in this neighborhood: the Church of St. George. According to Wikipedia:

Since about 1600, it has been the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the senior patriarchate of the Greek Orthodox Church and [recognized] as the spiritual leader of the world's Eastern Orthodox Christians.
We may have seen said spiritual leader as a man in vestments with lots of security entered the courtyard just after us, and another visitor, seemingly in awe, walked up to him and kissed his ring.

The inside of the church was very ornate; an entire wall seemed to be covered in gold.

We made our way to the ferry station where we encountered a phenomenon I had read about in my guide book. As we walked along a park adjoining the Golden Horn, I noticed an older man with a shoeshine kit cross a busy road into our vicinity. He started walking in front of us and one of his brushes fell out of his kit. I instinctively picked it up to hand it to him, and as I was lifting it from the concrete, I remembered that my guidebook warned of this. It is supposedly a common trick to try and get tourists to pay for a shoeshine. He quickly tried to spark up a conversation and I sternly replied, while walking quickly away, "sorry, no thank you; we have to make our ferry."

JC thought I was being incredibly rude. But I explained it to him later. "See, I'm not a bad person."

Finally on that ferry we meant to take that morning; now going back towards where we started. We passed Eminönü to disembark at the Karakoy stop (not to be confused with Kadikoy). We rode the Tünel up to the Beyoglu neighborhood and the crowded Itsikal Caddesi or Itsikal Avenue; we then transferred to the Metro to get to Taksim Square. It happened to be the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide – or the day when it is commemorated – and there were some people with Armenian flags in the square, though my understanding was a ceremony was to take place later that night. Perhaps the authorities were worried about whether more of a protest was planned, since they had two large police tanks with water cannons driving about the area.

We walked down Itsikal and took a break on a side street for some Turkish coffee. We declined the shisha because we could smell the smoke all around us anyway; it smelled good, don't get me wrong, but I'm not big on filling my lungs with smoke regardless of the sweet, sweet flavor.

We continued. Checked out a Catholic church, and later made it to a church that interested JC – the Crimea Memorial Church. He's (historically anyway) Episcopalian, and this was an old Church of England church, so that's why. More animals – some ducks, which we followed, and then a turtle came out to greet us.

We checked out Galata Tower, a bit further down the hill. We were essentially going down the hill the Tünel had taken us up a couple of hours earlier. Finally at the bottom, we got on a crowded tram back to our home base.

The most famous, and probably most visited, landmark in Istanbul (I'm pretty sure) is the Hagia Sophia (the big one). It was built in 537, has a huge dome, and has been a church and an imperial mosque. It is now a museum attracting swarms of tourists. We were aware of this, as we'd passed it multiple times. Our plan was to get there before it opened.

It worked! We were among the first handful of people to enter the museum the morning of our 3rd full day in Istanbul. We spent 2 or 3 hours walking around and marveling at the enormous structure, the uncovered mosaics, the huge stone columns, and many intricate details. It's one of the few places with crowds of tourists I would return to upon a second trip to the city.

I can't say the same for the Topkapi Palace. You have to go, of course; and the grounds were beautiful, the harem stunning; but there were tons of people there – mostly part of tours (please, please, do not go anywhere in a big tour group, ever). People were from all over too; and there are very different standards of waiting in line in different parts of the world, it seems. Like, why take your place at the end of the line, when you can walk right up to the front? Also, my legs were sore and I was dehydrated; so I wasn't in a good place to begin with.

After all of that, we grabbed some dinner and I did some solid stretches back at our hotel.

Speaking of that hotel, we had free breakfast every morning – rolls, cheese, fruit, yogurt, olives, and such. And it was served on the rooftop, which had sweeping views of the Bosphorus and Hagia Sophia. We started day 4 with that breakfast and more stretches. Then headed to the Bazaar District.

We started at what I thought was the Süleymaniye Mosque. It had to be it, I thought, because it was huge, it had the tombs, the adjoining structures. It had, in my opinion, the most beautiful interior of the mosques we had visited. But then we walked out the other side and saw a Roman aqueduct. "Oh, I know where we are! This isn't the Süleymaniye Mosque. It's this other one."

Guidebook out and flipping through some pages: we were at the Sehzade Mosque – another big, imperial mosque, but not as famous or visited as the Süleymaniye. I still thought it was amazing and would not recommend skipping it.

We walked on to the real Süleymaniye Mosque. It was huge – it's the biggest in Istanbul – but, in my opinion, its interior was not as beautiful as Sehzade and its exterior not as beautiful as the Blue. The grounds were of more interest, however, and we ate lunch at a restaurant that used to be the Mosque's soup kitchen. Some older English ladies arrived and asked for wine. When they were told that there was no alcohol, because it was part of the mosque, they complained. Annoying.

Oh, and Johnny got a lesson in Islam from an imam. Apparently giving food and money to people who have neither is a requirement in Islam. So, we ended up giving a fair amount of Turkish Lira to people who approached us on the street. Many were refugees from Syria.

Continuing our day, we walked past the University and made our way to the Grand Bazaar. Maybe we'd find the carpet we wanted to buy. We also wanted a lamp, maybe some Turkish Delight. It was Sunday, but everyone was out and about and it seemed everything was open. The Grand Bazaar, however, was closed. The guidebook didn't mention this. Seems pretty important. Fine, we spent our money at lesser bazaars.

Day 5 was our last. What was left? We had checked off all the major attractions. We didn't get to see the Grand Bazaar, but shopping was not our main interest anyway. We could take a cruise up the Bosphorus, but we didn't want to miss going to the Asian side of the city. I had never been to Asia. So we hopped on a ferry for Kadikoy (not to be confused with Karakoy).

Kadikoy

That neighborhood is more of a neighborhood to experience, rather than a collection of sites to visit. We didn't have much time, so I can't say too much about it. We wandered about, ate some lunch, and were back on the ferry by early afternoon.

Back at Eminönü, where many ferries stop, we wanted to transfer to a ferry to get to Eyüp. We decided we would spend the last part of our last day there. When we got to the ferry, it had just left and the next would not come for an hour. Not wanting to wait, we hopped on a cab.

I'm pretty sure we beat the ferry. And, Eyüp was very cool. There were some tourists, but most seemed to be non-Westerners, perhaps because of how important the mosque and tomb there are to Muslims. Locals were enjoying a beautiful day, kids were running around, men were debating something or other. We discovered that there was a cable car up to the Pierre Loti Cafe. My guidebook mentioned walking up, through a cemetery, to the cafe; but nothing about a cable car. We were tired and it was warm, so we took advantage of the cable car.

At the cafe it was Turkish coffee for me and tea for JC. That was followed by a stroll downhill through the cemetery and many cats. Using transport to get to the top of hills and walking down was a technique that serves us well. And more stray animals – it was a continuation on a theme.

Back in the neighborhood adjoining the mosque, locals were out eating and shopping. We bought some scarves and caught the ferry back to Eminönü. We were lucky to get a tram that was turning around at our stop during rush hour, so it was empty when we got on.

That was it. The next day we were back on a 13 hour plane ride to SFO; our adventures in Istanbul were a memory.

Me at at the Blue Mosque

Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-37106590699981402892015-04-20T18:42:00.000-07:002015-04-20T18:44:20.869-07:00Why I'm Not Ready for HillaryFirst of all because it's April 2015 and the fucking primaries aren't until next year. We had like a 5 month break following the mid-terms before MSNBC started spending half their time talking about Hillary eating a burrito or whatever.

More importantly, I'm Not Ready for Hillary because I'm not ready to accept a candidate who may very well continue immigration policies that have meant record numbers of deportations under Obama and increasing reliance on detention in privately-run facilities. Hillary said of Central American children crossing into the country that they should be sent back, in contrast to a more compassionate stance by President Obama.

I'm not ready to simply cheer-lead for a candidate who is backed by Wall Street, and who's billionaire donors aren't concerned about her populist rhetoric because it's "just politics."

I'm not ready for a candidate who may be opposed to the recent Iran nuclear deal and for whom, "everything that she thinks and everything she has done and will do will always be for the good of Israel." This wouldn't be that surprising since she voted for military action against Iran when she was a Senator, oh and of course she voted for the war with Iraq.

She was also supportive of her husband's gutting of welfare and opposed gay marriage until 2013! And she's taken a bunch of other horrible positions that would make liberals start alarmist change.org petitions if done by Republicans.

So as a leftist, I'm just not ready for her. There is so much more important politics to engage in, especially this far ahead of any election. Our energy should be going into police accountability and the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement. The Fight for 15 is galvanizing low-wage workers and we should be organizing ourselves, if we are low-wage workers, and otherwise supporting this move towards a living wage. If Greece truly rejects austerity politics it will be huge, and we need to mobilize to support that turn to the left. California is still letting corporate water-hogs off the hook, and we need to push back ... and so on. I'm ready for all of that.
Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-18589675460899871492014-10-22T19:20:00.001-07:002014-10-23T11:17:18.666-07:00Leftists, Empire, and Military InterventionThere are some on the left calling for U.S. military action – not bombs necessarily, but at least weapons – in support of the Kurdish fighters battling the Islamic State radicals in Syria. There is a moral calculus involved, so I don't want to doubt their leftist credentials, but I, nonetheless, don't agree with them. We generally should not be supporting American empire in this realm – the realm of foreign policy, military power, and the military-industrial complex. Our top priority, by far, ought to be to oppose and hinder U.S. military adventures. Sure, there are competing objectives, and they should be weighed against each other, hence the moral calculus. But considering the power of the American military and the corporations that benefit from its dominance, as well as the decades of carnage committed by the U.S., I fall on the side of opposing American military intervention here.

I don't approach this from a pacifist point of view, and I don't believe that there could never be a reason for us on the left to push the United States to take some action related to foreign policy or even military action. I just think that anyone who understands the nature of American empire right now, and particularly in this region, should consider calling for U.S. intervention, even limited intervention, a bad idea 99.9% of the time.

ISIS is worthy of condemnation. That requires little explanation.

The Kurds defending Kobani seem worthy of support from the left. That is certainly true, and appears to be motivating some of the people calling for American military action. We are told that we should be listening to the Kurds, since they are the ones on the ground who best know what they need. That is also, of course, very true. But that ought not be the end of the analysis when the solution presented is to empower American imperialism. And empowering American imperialism is exactly what pushing for weapons or limited strikes would be doing. The left would be trying to push a multi-trillion dollar military-industrial complex – one that would be happy to supply arms to just about anyone as long as long-term profits are not threatened – to do just what we want and no more. We would be trying to lobby slimy politicians like Dianne Feinstein, who delights at putting a humanitarian facade on imperial adventures and would undoubtedly co-opt any successes the pro-intervention left has at influencing the debate.

But the pro folks have argued that historical examples demonstrate that success is possible or that opposing intervention would repeat the failures of the past.

David Graeber analogized helping the Kurdish fighters with defending the Spanish Republic in 1937.

If there is a parallel today to Franco's superficially devout, murderous Falangists, who would it be but Isis? If there is a parallel to the Mujeres Libres of Spain, who could it be but the courageous women defending the barricades in Kobane? Is the world – and this time most scandalously of all, the international left – really going to be complicit in letting history repeat itself?
But the important question for me would be, "what would have been the parallel to the United States of today back in 1937?" There was none. If the call is for leftists to go and fight against ISIS alongside the Kurds and independent of the American nation-state, as many did with Spain nearly 80 years ago, then he has a powerful argument. I would not be opposed to such a movement.

Kamran Matin used other analogies to bolster his argument:

Moreover, a cursory review of historical evidence shows that taking tactical advantage of specific geopolitical circumstances has been a common feature of most progressive movements. Much of the 'third world' national liberation and anti-colonial movements of the last century exploited Cold War rivalries between the USSR and the US. To this very day the Palestine liberation movement has received support from regional anti-democratic states such Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states. In Europe itself the Irish Republican movement received support from dictatorial regimes at loggerheads with the west, e.g. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi.
And perhaps this could work even today in that 0.01% of instances. But, there are no longer two global superpowers to play against each other. The U.S. stands alone as the sole global superpower and world's policeman.

Perhaps we could push this machine towards a crude intervention, and maybe that would be the thing to do in certain circumstances – facing down an out of control train where anything we can throw at it to slow it down or stop it would be better than letting it roll over all of us. But the leftists calling for this campaign want a circumscribed and limited intervention – and one that might even, somehow, undermine American empire before it realizes its mistake! Here, again, is Matin:

So the left should not, in fact cannot afford to, a priori rule out western military assistance for the defenders of Kobani. Rather, it ought to focus on the explicit terms and circumstances of such assistance, and the wider political project and movement that Kobani represents, and carefully examine the likely implications of the provision of such a limited assistance for a democratic left project in the region that would in effect undermine the objectives of the providers of the assistance.
No a priori rule here, just a reasoned weighing of the costs and benefits. But I'm not sure all of these analyses are based on a reasoned weighing of costs and benefits. James Bloodworth argues in The Independent that protesters opposing U.S. bombing might as well hold a rally for a massacre of civilians:

Meanwhile the Stop the War Coalition decided that, rather than join one of the many Kurdish anti-Isis demonstrations in London, it was more appropriate to protest against US airstrikes on Isis positions.

Considering it is those same airstrikes - in support of Kurdish fighters – that are helping to holding back Isis forces in Kobane, this is as good as to say that a massacre of Kurdish civilians is preferable to any US involvement in the conflict. Or to pursue this as a metaphor, it is a bit like protesting against the solving of a murder because you do not like the police.
Except this isn't just about not liking the U.S., it is about recognizing that the vast majority of massacres in the region have been committed by the U.S. military, and supporting these strikes simply empowers and emboldens that military machine. Certainly a massacre of Kurdish civilians would be horrible, but U.S. airstrikes are not the only way to avoid that outcome, nor do they guarantee avoiding that outcome. I would support actions to push Turkey from preventing fighters and/or weapons from joining the side of the Kurds. I would support a call to allow donations to various organizations fighting against ISIS that the U.S. has labeled "terrorist."

Whatever outcome a successful campaign to push American empire to take limited action in support of Kurdish fighters might have in relation to preventing loss of life and pushing ISIS back from some of its conquests, they would be dwarfed by the boost to American empire. And stunting American empire ought to be a priority for the left, especially considering its impact in the region over the last 25 years: wars, targeted killings, sanctions and other actions killing (conservatively) millions of innocent people; the propping up of vicious dictatorial regimes; the massive exploitation of resources; and, the growing number of permanent U.S. military and corporate installations that no other nation maintains in the region. For these reasons I believe calling on the US to do anything militarily to support the Kurdish fighters against ISIS ultimately does more harm than good. There are other actions we can take though, and I'm all for doing something. I'm not interested, however, in supporting the military-industrial complex or American empire, except in the most dire and rare of circumstances.Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-31844402727758217332014-09-10T21:29:00.002-07:002014-09-10T21:30:55.606-07:00Two "Progressive" Legal Organizations and Their Two Very Different National ConferencesAfter the latest Law for the People Convention (the name for the National Lawyers Guild's annual, national conference), I'm feeling pretty glad that the Guild is not the American Constitution Society. Don't get me wrong, I like those kids and there are a few joint members in both organizations, but there are some key differences between the two organizations.

Let's look at the two groups' 2014 conventions.

ACS says this on their website: "The ACS National Convention is the premier legal event of the year, attracting more than 1,000 of the nation's leading progressive judges, lawyers and policymakers." Leaving aside the fact that "premier legal event of the year" is just their opinion, I have to admit, they do get some big names. This year they had Sonia Sotomayor, who, as Supreme Court Justices go, is a pretty cool jurist, and obviously a pretty important person.

 The NLG's conference sometimes gets a lefty Congressperson to attend, like John Conyers, but usually, big name politicians and federal judges keep as much distance as possible. ACS had Conyers as part of its "honorary host committee," but it also had Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, and Nancy Pelosi on board. Despite our lack of big-name Democratic politicians, we still had over 700 people attend our conference. Not too shabby considering a big part of our plenary was a debate about whether to call ourselves an "anti-capitalist organization." The opponents won the day, but most, nonetheless, felt the need to declare that they, personally, were anti-capitalist.

 In contrast, ACS honored Roderick A. Palmore, executive vice president, general counsel and chief compliance and risk management officer, and secretary of General Mills. How he fits all that on his business cards, I'm not sure, but he has been a strong proponent of diversity in the legal profession, so it isn't as if his award was completely out of place. But the NLG would never honor him. We wouldn't. If his General Mills credentials didn't disqualify him, the fact that he is also a director of the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company would certainly seal the deal.

The NLG conference was a pretty unique event – a legal bar association gathering of lawyers, legal workers, law students, and activists. We listened to a keynote address from Karen Lewis, the Chicago Teachers Union leader and Rahm Emanuel adversary, who spoke passionately about supporting public schools and defending the rights of teachers in the workplace. We honored an immigration advocate who told a story about representing a mother and daughter who were tortured for hours at an immigration facility in an attempt to get them to admit that they were undocumented.

We did actually have one Supreme Court Justice now that I think of it – Fernando Vegas Torrealba spoke at a few sessions and was there for the full conference hanging out with Guild members he considers friends. He is the President of the Electoral Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, and has defended the reforms of the Maduro government, and the Chavez government before it. There was quite an international presence actually: activists and legal activists from Palestine, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Mexico, Iraq, Japan and elsewhere – most of whom discussed their work opposing U.S. foreign policy or fighting back against policies of their own governments, but policies directly, or indirectly, supported by the U.S.

The ACS conference didn't have any obvious international issues on its agenda. They did seem to have a lot of good panels that would have fit in at a Guild convention, at least by looking at the titles: The Privatization of America, Protecting Women's Reproductive Health Care in a Hostile Era, Seeking an End to Racial Profiling, etc. Still, much of their conference seemed to be focused on listening to politicians speak and organizing to get good judges on the bench. Not horrible stuff, but just not the kind of thing the NLG would spend a lot of its precious time on.

The NLG conference also included a lot of critical discussions on the criminal justice system, including Stopping the School-to-Prison Pipeline, Stopping Mass Incarceration, and a session on Political Prisoners and the Prison Industrial Complex. There were presentations and discussions on Indigenous Resistance to Resource Extraction, Sex Work and the Failure of Anti-Trafficking Policies, Pursuing Accountability for U.S. Torture, and Protecting Dissent. A bunch of topics that would scare away most General Mills' executives and mainstream politicians.

But the NLG's goal is, and has always been, to demystify the law and to bring it back to the people. So, a lot of our conference emphasized the connection between legal work and community activism. A lot of the speakers were non-legal activists – a Ferguson resident who was starting to film the cops, a counselor with the AFSC's Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, an American Indian educator, a Chicago Public School social worker, an organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, an activist whose work focuses on "dismantling the prison industrial complex," and a "Black trans activist and sex worker rights advocate." We also had a bunch of rad lawyers talking.

It was pretty inspiring, relevant and very much cutting edge (for a legal conference). I can't say the same thing for the ACS conference, but they have a different mission than we do. We both use the word "progressive" to describe ourselves, but our politics are obviously more left than theirs, and our relationship to power is more outside than theirs. We also see our role, as people with specialized legal knowledge, differently. By and large, the Guild sees itself as using the law as a tool for positive social change when possible, but recognizing that the law is also, in many cases, a hindrance to positive social change. We also see our role as empowering the communities directly affected by oppression, so when possible, putting legal tools into their hands rather than just treating them as clients.

This different philosophy is reflected in the NLG conference and becomes clearer when comparing it to the ACS event. I was energized at this year's Law for the People Convention in Chicago and am looking forward to next year's conference in Oakland, California. Particularly considering the high cost of air travel these days, I don't think I'll be attending an ACS conference anytime soon.Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-40555130831066119382014-09-06T20:14:00.003-07:002014-09-11T19:59:40.791-07:00ISIL is Scary, but the U.S. is Way ScarierHow does one adequately comprehend and confront the chilling and horrific killings of human beings like the beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff? It is the stuff of nightmares and horror movies. It hits right at our deepest, darkest fears about death. It is difficult for us to fathom what was going on in their heads as they faced their last moments or what would be going on in ours.

As troubling as their killings were, we should not use these tragedies to create more, and we should remember that gruesome killings are not the exclusive realm of a particular people or a particular religion. In fact, the U.S. and our allies are directly responsible for millions of James Foleys (in the sense that millions of victims of our foreign policies were innocent and had loved ones, hopes for the future, etc.); and we (the U.S.) are indirectly responsible for Foley's killing as well.

But millions of corpses can pile up and their deaths don't necessarily resonate as much (with many Americans anyway). There are a number of reasons why these killings may resonate more: They were unusual (beheadings), but also publicly posted in vivid detail on the kind of social media we're used to seeing celebrities or friends on – twitter and youtube (for Foley anyway, until they were removed). The men were also Americans, so for most Americans, they was familiar – "dudes" we could have gone to school with or who might have worked for the local newspaper a few years back. That all makes sense, but it isn't an excuse to care more about their deaths than others, or worse, to use their deaths to call for policies that would result in the killing of many, many more innocent people.

A beheading seems like one of the worst ways to die at the hand of another human being – and these were uniquely gruesome – done by a person covered in black fabric with a knife in hand as opposed to a guillotine or some other contraption that provides some separation between killer and victim. (Our ally, Saudi Arabia, beheads people as well, but their victims aren't white Americans, so let's not bring that up.) I didn't watch the video, and I won't, but I've seen some of the still images; images which are pretty chilling. The man in black could easily be the next horror movie villain.

The killings, vividly captured on video, were also distributed online. Foley's killing was posted to YouTube with crisp images and someone with an English accent (as I understand) speaking in the video. The perpetrator even had a twitter account which he used to post the video. These weren't grainy videos smuggled out of the mountains of Pakistan.

So they were creepy and palpable, but they have not made me support intervention in Iraq by the U.S. anymore than I did before – I'm opposed, particularly to military intervention. They also do not incline me to believe that the man in the video or the movement of which he is a part represents all Muslims, or that something about Islam makes these kinds of acts more likely among its followers than say Christianity does. If anything, this all makes me want to fight back against these tendencies even more – to oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East and to oppose Islamaphobia – because I know the same acts motivate others to do the opposite – to take advantage of these acts to do the opposite.

As the richest, most powerful nation on earth, there is probably a lot we could theoretically do to counter ISIS in a way that preserved life, promoted justice and secured religious freedom. But that ideal simply does not reflect the history of American foreign policy, particularly over the last few decades in this part of the world, and it isn't what our enormous military apparatus is set up to do or what military industries find profitable.

Just consider what we've done in Iraq over the past 25 years. The first war in Iraq killed a few thousand civilians and injured thousands of others, but it was just the beginning of a drawn out military and economic campaign against Iraq by the U.S. After Bush senior left office, Democratic President Bill Clinton gladly took the reins, maintaining no-fly zones and devastating sanctions. When asked about the estimated half a million children killed by sanctions in Iraq, Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, famously replied, "we think the price is worth it." When George W. Bush came to power, it was much easier, even if controversial, to justify attacking Iraq in part because of the prior decade of ongoing aggression against that country by the U.S. During Bush's war, even conservative estimates are that hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of others injured or who died from the effects of war. All of that bloody history is pretty f***ing scary. Why would we think that having the Pentagon intervene in the current situation would lead to humanitarian results?

Considering the state that we've left that country in – the millions of dead, their families and friends with their memories; the millions of injured, their families and friends who must care for them; the destroyed infrastructure; the political vacuum that we've tried to fill with this or that leader favorable to the U.S. – it is hardly surprising that a group like the ISIL (or ISIS) would take advantage of the situation. One wonders what would happen in this country under similar circumstances. Would racist militias become more organized and violent? Would Christian Fundamentalists begin to train fighters? There are plenty of backward elements in this country that could easily take advantage of such a situation.

For those who would use this act to continue to demonize Islam, one wonders why a beheading by someone who calls himself Muslim tells us more about Islam than the murdering of hundreds of thousands by someone who calls himself Christian tells us about Christianity, or the murdering and maiming of thousands by someone who calls himself Jewish tells us about Judaism. Despite the terror inflicted on the rest of the world by people who identify as "Christian," I still love my Christian brothers and sisters.

Those who cynically use a frightening and sad killing to push for wars of aggression by the U.S. or our allies are ignoring or downplaying the gruesome results of American war-making and foreign policy in the Middle East: the millions of innocent people killed had hopes and loved ones and plans for the future, just like James Foley and Steven Sotloff. If only their killings (those millions killed by U.S. foreign policy) resonated with more Americans in the same way, the urgency to "do something" might translate into a foreign policy that actually did something good.Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-43063214100636902762014-06-24T11:51:00.001-07:002015-07-24T08:20:21.618-07:00Open the BordersPresident Obama - a Democrat who the throngs of right-wing bigots defending freeloading ranchers in Nevada consider a socialist - has deported more human beings than any other previous president. Yet those same right-wing bigots, and the masses of mildly more moderate conservatives and Republicans, still believe (or want their constituents or television viewers to believe) that Obama coddles undocumented immigrants and would like to grant amnesty to millions. So, it doesn't appease the right and it is unpopular with a big part of the Democratic base, yet Obama continues to implement harsh immigration policies – policies that have a brutal impact on hundreds of thousands of people every year. Sadly, it is very possible that Republican leadership would try to outdo this administration, because why let a Democrat beat them on this issue. It is mind boggling. We ought to be moving in the opposite direction.

In recent months, thousands more kids have been showing up at our southern border than in previous years, many fleeing Central America. Obama has announced more detention facilities as a response, even though there are (at least) 250 facilities holding immigrants and the U.S. government detains hundreds of thousands of them in those facilities each year. In the meantime, children are being held in crowded, unsanitary conditions in Texas, while in other parts of the country they are putting them in makeshift facilities at military bases. Overwhelmed in Texas, where most of these kids are showing up, they are flying hundreds of mostly "families with young children" to other parts of the country "for processing."

The administration will also speed up legal processes so that these children can be sent away more quickly; this in a system already defined by coercive practices and a lack of due process.

Not everyone is "lucky" enough to get caught up in this horrible system. Many perish as they attempt to bypass the Border Patrol, walking miles in extreme heat or cold with little available food or water; or traveling in a cargo container or in a rail car, dealing again with extreme temperatures, but also with a lack of oxygen. We're now learning how many of these people, when their bodies are found, are dealt with in the United States: Their bodies may end up in trash bags buried in a mass grave.

We're the richest, most powerful nation on the planet (and in the history of humankind). This is the 21st century. And for some reason we are building walls, installing fences, using drones, and further militarizing our borders, with calls for even more. We are locking up thousands of people for the crime of not being born here. We are flying people out of this country to destinations all around the world, forcing them to live somewhere else, even when those people have lived here for most of their lives, and even when those people have children, or parents, or partners here. And refugees are dying along our Southern border because of these backward policies.

The media often describes all of this as our immigration system being "overwhelmed," which suggests that there is either no solution or that the solution lies in bolstering or modifying the current practices – more walls, more fences, more enforcement, less due process, more border patrol officers, etc. But there is a solution worth trying. One that is morally just and may not lead to the dire consequences imagined by the fear mongering anti-immigrant crowd. We can move towards more open borders. Why be overwhelmed? It's liberating to think it and, not coincidentally, it happens to be a move towards liberation for the millions of people who need to, or choose to, travel across borders.

There may be practical reasons why we shouldn't or can't simply open the borders over night (though I'd be willing to try it), but regardless, fewer restrictions on travel should be our goal, not more restrictions. Otherwise we are just moving more and more towards an unstable and cruel situation: a globalized world, where communication and capital can easily fly across borders, but where human beings are divided by higher walls and more authorities with weapons. We should be calling for more open borders and rejecting Washington's games of illusory paths towards citizenship, more border security, and more deportations. The alternative is unacceptable.Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-32632796611679692042014-04-26T20:20:00.003-07:002015-07-24T08:18:17.433-07:00New Yosemite Adventures

Looking down Yosemite Falls.

The floor of Yosemite Valley is about 4000 feet above sea level. At the top of Yosemite Falls, the elevation is about 6500 feet above sea level. It's a tough trail to the top, and a knee-jarring slippery descent, but JC and I made the round trip hike in about 5 hours. Solid hiking shoes and a walking stick helped; but the desire of accomplishment and the views' effect on the adrenal gland pulled us through.

So, there were actually plenty of people on the trail – not nearly as crowded as the Valley floor or the Mist Trail – but enough people to make the accomplishment seem less than extraordinary. A man of about 28 with an infant strapped to him was slower than us, but mostly because he stopped frequently to calm down his child. A teen girl with her younger brother marched past us down the trail wearing everyday sneakers. The boy slipped and the girl casually grabbed the hood of his sweatshirt and pulled him up; neither paused their forward progress. Still, it is not an easy trail (marked "strenuous" by the 2 sources on trails we had available), and several people we saw near the bottom abandoned the hike early on; others only went halfway up to see the stunning views of the Falls from a midpoint without continuing the trudgery of the remaining switchbacks to the very top.

A rainbow in the mist of Yosemite Falls.

Somehow this trail was built: there were stone steps in areas, evidence of blasted rock in others; and at the very top, clinging to the side of the cliff, overhanging the rush of frigid water and facing the sometimes fierce winds racing through Yosemite Valley, there is an observation area with a metal railing that appears to be little more than half inch pipe. It seemed solid, but I was not about to test it.

Climbing up to the top of Yosemite Falls was largely how we spent our 3rd day in the Park, besides stopping at the base of El Capitan for a beer and some soup for dinner. The prior day we traveled down the Wawona Road to Mosquito Creek and an unmarked trailhead. The goal was to find Alder Creek Falls – a waterfall not nearly as spectacular as those entering Yosemite Valley, but one that would easily be a feature in the region had glaciers not carved out Yosemite Valley over the last 3 million years. The highlights of this hike were seclusion and history. We encountered not a soul on our hike, unless you believe deer, birds, lizards and the like have souls. Plus, the last 3rd of the walk to the falls is along an abandoned, and largely disassembled, logging railroad. Various relics litter the area.

El Capitan was also our destination that early evening with a stroll to the base, looking up at rock climbers.

Looking up at El Capitan.

The day before that, we arrived at our cabin in the National Forest just outside Yosemite, which was beautiful despite being surrounded by the remains of a large, devastating fire that burned the previous year. Half the day gone to car travel, and being in the vicinity of San Francisco's water supply – Hetch Hetchy – we decided on a short hike downstream of the O'Shaughnessy Dam. The Poopenaut Valley Trail is short but very vertical. Walking down the trail often involves sliding down the trail; and the further you go, the more the hike back up becomes a concern. But on the valley floor along the Tuolomne River, you can relax for a moment in a peaceful meadow that few visitors to the National Park ever enter. Like the trail to Alder Creek Falls, we passed no other hikers.

Taft Point

Fast forward to day four – the day after our hike up Yosemite Falls. We weren't really up for anything super strenuous, but Glacier Point Road was open, after being closed earlier in the week because of snow and ice, so we headed up there for some moderate exercise. Unfortunately for me, I left my camera battery charging at our cabin, so I was left with only my phone to take pictures in one of the more picturesque parts of the Park. Still, I got some good shots, and took advantage of the mobile phone's panoramic option which was unavailable from my SLR.

It's not that I'm afraid of heights as much as I'm afraid of death. You're pretty far up at Taft Point and only one small portion has a railing. Much of the area along these cliffs over Yosemite Valley is just one unprotected dizzy spell away from a 4000 foot drop onto a group of tourists getting off their bus for the first time since the stop in Fresno. As I approached the edge I found myself wanting to get on hands and knees to minimize any chance of such an accident. But I really wanted to look over the edge, in part because the view was amazing, but also because it was something few people do, and something I wouldn't have many opportunities to do in my lifetime. Yosemite is an amazing and rare piece of earth, and this area around Glacier Point is a prime viewing spot.

Leading up to Taft Point are The Fissures – cracks in the earth that wedge into the sides of the cliffs and add another dimension to the anxious wonder of this part of the Park.

Beyond all of this, you can follow a trail – the Pohono Trail – around the edge of the cliffs and over the Sentinel Creek on your way to Sentinel Dome. The day before we had seen Sentinel Dome from the other side of Yosemite Valley above Yosemite Falls. I had hoped the road would open before the end of the week so we could climb to the top – to a height even greater than the top of Yosemite Falls. And indeed, as we moved closer to the Dome, we could look across the expanse and see a thin, zigzagging line along the left side of Yosemite Falls and several thousand feet below us. This was the trail we could still feel in our legs as we walked up a much less rigorous incline towards the top of Sentinel Dome.

Panoramic view from Sentinel Dome.

Finally at the summit, the reward was a 360 degree view of a half dozen wonders of the world (official and non-official): the snow-capped high peaks of the Sierra Nevada, Half Dome, El Capitan, Nevada Falls, Vernal Falls, and Yosemite Falls. The windy cold would normally lead you to go inside and get under a blanket, but being present here was just too incredible for worries about hypothermia. If I believed in God, I would think he placed this perch here on purpose for humankind to take pictures and post them to their blog and such.

That was the climax of this visit to Yosemite. We drove back down into the Valley after that and scrambled up the lower part of Sentinel Creek for a mini-picnic looking up at Sentinel Falls and marveling at the fact that we were way up there just a few hours ago. The next morning, any hope of one last hike was dashed by rainfall. By noon, we were eating bean burritos in the Central Valley and looking forward to reuniting with our dogs.

Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-71088051326233867432013-08-23T18:33:00.000-07:002013-08-23T18:33:41.958-07:00Jeffrey Toobin Went to Harvard!I see Jeffrey Toobin on T.V. sometimes, but I don't think I've ever read his stuff in print. He looks smart, but I'm starting to think he isn't really all that smart. He's been doubling down on the confusing notion that whistleblowers, like Edward Snowden, do more harm than good and should go to prison even if they spark debates that are good, important or whatever. His attempts to justify his position are kind of embarrassing.

In this column here, he leads with, LEADS WITH, this gem:

The assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy led directly to the passage of a historic law, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Does that change your view of the assassinations? Should we be grateful for the deaths of these two men?

Of course not. That's lunatic logic. But the same reasoning is now being applied to the actions of Edward Snowden. Yes, the thinking goes, Snowden may have violated the law, but the outcome has been so worthwhile.
THAT'S lunatic logic. It was the act of murdering MLK and RFK that upset people and led to new laws. Snowden revealed information about wrongdoing, and it was the wrongdoing he revealed that has upset so many people, not the act of revealing the information. If the CIA had poisoned MLK, Snowden would be the equivalent of the insider who revealed the plot, not the poisoner. Snowden did a service by revealing information and, now that we are aware of what he uncovered, we are demanding change.

It's not surprising that Toobin gets this wrong, though. If you believe what Snowden did is so very wrong, you might connect it to other very wrong acts, like, say, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Toobin seems to acknowledge that there is some benefit to having this debate about surveillance, but it is greatly outweighed, he thinks, by the bad stuff.

Like what?

What if Snowden's wrong? What if there is no pervasive illegality in the National Security Agency's surveillance programs?
I don't think that illegality is Snowden's main reason for doing what he's doing. The point is that what the U.S. is doing is wrong and even shocking. That's why people are upset - even people in Congress. If we're appalled about the powers the NSA has and how much data they've been collecting, but it is all technically legal, then maybe the law should be changed and reforms are in order. Yeah, sometimes that happens. It was the basis of Toobin's problematic analogy at the beginning of his article - something bad happens or is revealed and we demand changes to the law. I think there are plenty of people who argue that there has been illegality, even pervasive illegality, revealed by Snowden, including one of the architects of the Patriot Act; but even if not technically illegal, that would not negate the significant importance of Snowden's revelations.

What are the actual dollar costs of Snowden's disclosures?
You see, now the government is going to have to spend billions of dollars to rework its surveillance programs, maybe coming up with even more shocking and invasive programs that we'll never know about unless someone like Snowden comes along. But anyway, that's a hell of a lot of money.

Well why shouldn't we know that the government is reading our emails, or at least has the power to? If knowing that kind of information causes the government to spend billions to change things up, then that's the government's problem. As taxpayers, we should demand that they act transparently - that would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

Surveillance may be necessary but we ought to know the powers the government has and the scope of that surveillance (which is all that has really been revealed). No one has published the phone numbers of those being monitored, and no one has revealed the details of an active plot that the government is about to bust.

What did China and Russia learn about American surveillance operations from Snowden—and what will they do with this information?
Surely they tried to snoop, even if Snowden didn't turn anything over to them knowingly, so can you imagine what those evil empires might do with such sensitive information?!

He then goes on to wonder, ominously, if there might be consequences for the dissidents and political prisoners in those countries because of Snowden's information. Yes, one wonders how they might deal with their own "enemy combatants" or their own Bradley Mannings. Maybe lock them up for years without a trial or something crazy like that.

But come on. China and Russia? Since when did they join the "Axis of Evil"? Both countries have plenty of human rights problems, but last I heard we were doing lots and lots of business with both. And, as I allude to above, the U.S. has plenty of human rights problems of its own: we incarcerate more of our population than either China or Russia, we have Guantanamo Bay, political prisoners, we occupy other countries, we (I mean our leaders in Washington) are responsible for the deaths of (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of innocent people over just the past dozen years (probably a million +) - in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. And, oh right, we have a government that spies on its own citizens and collects voluminous amounts of information about us that we assume to be private.

But this is a nice way for Toobin to set this up - harkening back to the fears of decades ago, perhaps appealing to senior citizens who vote Republican: the U.S. = good; Russia/China = evil; Snowden hurt the good U.S. and may have helped the evil Communists. Sure, if he had traveled through most other countries he would probably be facing the same fate as Bradley Manning, or worse, perhaps he would have been taken out with a drone by now. But, but...Russia, China, billions of dollars, and all to uncover completely legal activities!

This is a huge stretch, particularly for someone who plays in the world of liberty and journalism. But this is a big deal and people don't like what they've learned. So, people like Toobin have to rationalize, demonize, and defend. Sad, because he looks like such a smart guy.Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-80532302376596699522013-06-15T08:56:00.000-07:002013-06-15T09:01:31.835-07:00The Government Needs a Really, Really Good Reason for Keeping SecretsJosh Marshall of Talking Points Memo thinks I'm a "doofus" and "really dumb." He also doesn't think leaks are always wrong, but, he says, regarding the military's need for "a substantial amount of secrecy," "when someone on the inside breaks those rules, I need to see a really, really good reason." My problem with his position is that I would hope that journalists (a term he uses to describe himself) would view their relationship to government secrecy in the opposite way: the government ought to have a really, really good reason for keeping secrets.

He spends much of his article debating a straw man – someone who believes there should be no secrets and every leak is a good leak. In this way he can position himself as nuanced and thoughtful compared to his reckless, imaginary opponents. This ignores the fact that the major players in the Snowden affair - including Snowden himself - have made clear that they understand the problems with certain kinds of leaks that could, for example, put human life in danger. Manning, too, has said that his actions were about shedding light on bad acts, not doing harm or trying to "blow the whole thing up," as Marshall writes.

Putting that fallacy aside, the problem with his position is that he, like the journalists that broke the Snowden story, believes there is a need to balance before releasing or publishing leaks, but he would give way too much weight to government secrecy. Even in the abstract that is an odd position for a journalist, but facts and context make his position pretty shameful. Neither of the recent whistleblowers are doing anything anywhere near as harmful as the acts they've uncovered, yet reading Marshall you might wonder if you missed the news about Manning revealing tomorrow's troop movements in Afghanistan or Snowden providng North Korea with a map of nuclear facilities. Marshall doesn't specify what great harm they've caused that would outweigh what he admits is the important benefit of some leaks - that they reveal "government wrongdoing and/or excessive secrecy." So both leaks clearly reveal a lot of both, there is voluminous evidence for that, where is the evidence of the harm Marshall is grappling with and feels the need to call others to task for?

He doesn't need much evidence because, to Marshall, government secrecy ought to be sacrosanct. He must not think the government (at least this government) engages in much wrongdoing; and it may surround much of its actions in secrecy, but he clearly doesn't find it all that "excessive." He goes out of his way to discuss his allegiance to the government, which in this context must mean the elements of the government who are in charge of the massive spying operation uncovered by Snowden and the war crimes and conspiring with dictators uncovered by Manning. Sure, he gives lip service to balancing, but in the end he reveals that his "balancing" really means that the people who reveal the worst crimes of our government will probably go to prison and probably deserve to and if they did any sort of public service it was greatly outweighed by the harm they did to the state with which he is aligned.

Some leaks are good, he explains, but government needs secrets, especially a government he identifies with, and besides, why should Snowden decides what gets released?

Who gets to decide? The totality of the officeholders who've been elected democratically - for better or worse - to make these decisions? Or Edward Snowden, some young guy I've never heard of before who espouses a political philosophy I don't agree with and is now seeking refuge abroad for breaking the law?
Why should some young guy he's never heard of decide? Well, why should Glenn Greenwald decide? And why should Marshall decide? He acknowledges that it is possible that some of Snowden's leaks should have been published, but doesn't explain which (a rather easy way out) and doesn't explain how journalists could ever get their hands on such information without someone in government "breaking an oath and committing a crime" and thus making a moral choice about what the public ought to know.

This calculus is a lot easier if you believe, as I do, that we all ought to know nearly everything our government is up to. Of course there are examples where revealing government secrets does more harm than good – whether you are a government insider or a journalist receiving that information. But Marshall's problem is that he seems to think that that is almost always the case – the government should have secrets and a whistleblower better have a damn good reason for removing that cloak of secrecy. In a democratic and free nation, however, the truth ought to be the opposite. The government needs a damn good reason to keep things secret. In the case of what Snowden has revealed and what Manning revealed, I'm still waiting for one.Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-30827273286070528022013-05-13T12:27:00.000-07:002013-05-13T12:27:45.580-07:00The Nationalist-Internationalist Gay Divide and Bradley ManningThe reaction to Bradley Manning being selected and then deselected as grand marshal of this year's San Francisco Pride Parade exposed a divide in the community of gays and our allies: a divide between those who generally support U.S. foreign policy and those who generally oppose it; between nationalists who may disagree with this or that decision by a particular president but generally believe in the good of American power around the globe, and internationalists who recognize the U.S. as an imperial power led by individuals and institutions who's goals are not in the best interests of most people – even most Americans – and who recognize the destructive nature of American militarism to people across the globe, gay and straight.

If you believe that U.S. foreign policy is largely guided by the goals of liberation and human rights, then Manning is right to be shunned since his action impeded that. If you believe that, human rights or not, U.S. foreign policy prioritizes keeping Americans safe, again, honoring Manning would be problematic. Even if you only think those things when your political party is in the White House, you still recognize the threat his action posed to your leader's agenda.

On the other hand, if you understand that U.S. foreign policy is neither about keeping Americans safe nor about human rights but about global dominance at the expense of human rights (and often making the world more dangerous for the average American), then you can and should rally around Manning.

He has brought to light much of the backroom deals and outright criminality of many of our political, civil and military leaders, not to mention those of oligarchs in other countries, removing a veil of secrecy that hid war crimes and shielded dictators. He is a whistleblower whose actions have contributed to the fall of repressive regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and helped spur on uprisings elsewhere. The facts he leaked have been used in countless news articles in many of the same outlets that also condemn him or ignore his plight. The benefits of his actions are really too numerous to mention here; and while I wouldn't call him a hero, I absolutely find his actions courageous and incredibly important.

Despite the fact that Manning is gay and possibly transgender, and despite the human rights perspective that his act was courageous, some in the gay community responded negatively when they discovered he was named SF Gay Pride's grand marshal. A handful of gay militarists launched a campaign against the selection, calling Manning a "traitor" and his actions "treacherous" and "a disgrace." Within hours the honor was rescinded and SF Pride board president announced as follows:

His nomination was a mistake and should never have been allowed to happen ...

...even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform -- and countless others, military and civilian alike -- will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride.

Bradley Manning protest at SF Pride board meeting.

That brought the divide between gay nationalists and gay internationalists to the fore. It also revealed a factual disagreement that mostly boils down to the same ideological divide. The factual assertion, as reflected in the statement from the SF Pride board president, is that Manning's leaking of information caused harm. Usually this idea has taken the form of: "his leak put soldiers at risk;" but I've also heard: "his leak made diplomacy more difficult making the alternative of military action more necessary."

If you believe that what the U.S. is doing around the world is wrong then it is clear that the people putting our soldiers in harms way are the leaders in the White House and the Pentagon, not a soldier who revealed some of the truth about our wars and foreign policy. The diplomacy angle falls the same way. If you believe our diplomats are conspiring with other regimes around the world, many unelected and unaccountable, to maintain U.S. hegemony at the expense of universal human rights, then it doesn't really matter that their job is made more difficult, and it is not accepted that the alternative is military force.

Furthermore, if you are a critic of U.S. foreign policy and you have a human rights perspective, then you likely dig beyond official press releases for your facts, and you know that there is no evidence that Manning's actions put any troops in harms way. You also recognize that the anger directed at Americans in some parts of the world has everything to do with what the people living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere experience on the ground and nothing to do with Bradley Manning. If anything, his actions demonstrated the problem with saddling the citizens, and even the soldiers, of any particular nation-state with the crimes of that nation-state.

As a gay man, an internationalist and someone who feels strongly that human rights are universal, I believe the conventional wisdom about foreign policy coming from Washington D.C. and the corporate media must be challenged. The destructive role the U.S. plays around the world is difficult to fathom, especially for many Americans who have never experienced occupation, the buzzing of weaponized drones over our homes, or the killing of hundreds of thousands within our borders at the hand of a distant, foreign power. Bradley Manning has played a critical role in revealing, to a broader audience, some of the crimes of our government – crimes committed against civilians, gay and straight. Furthermore, he did this brave act as a gay soldier of conscience. He deserves the honor of grand marshal at any parade honoring a history of struggle for human rights and ongoing liberation; but as a gay man working in an institution that, at the time, maintained a policy requiring him to keep his sexual orientation a secret, Bradley Manning certainly deserves to be grand marshal at gay pride.

I was happy to add my name to a complaint filed with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission against SF Pride regarding the Manning matter.Carlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-35896407639064735112013-03-24T19:14:00.000-07:002013-03-25T14:33:29.904-07:00Hate Against Muslims? San Francisco Gays Shouldn't Stand For It

One of the original ads.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative Hate Group (AFDI) has decided that riling up anti-Muslim rhetoric on buses and subway stops is an ideal way to stay relevant and maybe recruit some ignorant fools to their cause. In San Francisco, they are even trying to convince gays and our allies to hate Muslims. There is no reason why they should succeed with such a blatantly hateful message, but it doesn't take much to incite hate crimes and justify much worse. Gays and our allies have to take action against the presence of these disgusting ads on our buses. If Muni won't take down the ads, then other actions, such as the culture jamming that is already taking place, are in order.

The AFDI, apparently, feels it is critical to educate Americans about the dangers from extremists who identify as Muslim, like Osama bin Laden. Because, you know, Americans are just too accepting of bin Laden's views. That's silly and there is obviously no such need. AFDI's objective is to rile up hatred of all Muslims and defame an entire religion. Indeed, the ads they are mocking were fairly innocuous ads run by the #MyJihad initiative that showed average Muslims and their admirable self-improvement goals.

One of AFDI's reactionary hate ads.

After AFDI's initial run of disgusting response ads, and a lot of pushback in San Francisco, they decided that their newest ads should include some quotes about homosexuality by some people who call themselves Muslim and/or claim to speak in the name of Islam. There is no other purpose for such ads, but to attempt to demonize all Muslims in the eyes of San Francisco gays and our allies.

No one would debate that people can and do use religion as a twisted justification for hate and violence – whether against gays or others. This is true of all religions though. Yet you don't see the AFDI Hate Group running ads quoting the Westboro Baptist Church and warning of the dangers of Christianity or Christian extremists. No. They're bigots and prefer to target a religious minority already targeted by hate crimes, and overzealous law enforcement.

The AFDI's hate ads certainly encourage hate crimes. They also help justify and support killing, war, occupation and apartheid. That is the larger context beyond the mosque fires and assaults in our communities, as horrible as they are. Demonizing Muslims reinforces policies supported by some of our political leaders in Washington – war in predominantly Muslim countries, incarceration without trial at Guantanamo Bay, assassination by drone, support for friendly despots in predominantly Muslim countries, and tremendous support, including billions in tax dollars, to Israel with no accountability for crimes against Palestinians.

Earlier AFDI Hate Ads dealt with properly.

I think Muni should pull the ads because I don't believe these particular ads could be described as "political speech," and the substance of their message is only one demeaning an entire religion and everyone in that religious group. Of course I understand the risks involved in removing the ads. Our Muni system is already underfunded and the last thing they need is a major lawsuit. Though it is hard for me to believe they would allow ads from other hate groups, such as the aforementioned Westboro Baptist Church or the Ku Klux Klan, without a fight. Regardless, it would be an uphill battle in the courts. I'm also very sympathetic to arguments by many civil libertarians about the dangers of empowering the state to police hate speech when that same state may easily abuse such powers. I get all that. In some ways, perhaps the best case scenario is widespread civil disobedience. The hate ads have already received a fair amount of reappropriation, and in a city like San Francisco, we'll hopefully see much more culture jamming and thus much more popular education.

As a historic center of the gay rights movement, San Francisco has an opportunity to demonstrate that our gay rights agenda is not so narrowly focused. Gay, straight, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheist – we are a community for all and we'll tolerate everything but intolerance and hate.

*************************update

 The new gay-themed ads are set to run in April. Hopefully we'll see more of this: Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-36630571885600330462012-11-07T19:09:00.000-08:002012-11-07T19:36:34.046-08:00Obama, the Popular Vote, and the LeftIt's hard to not be delighted that so many bigots and right-wingers were horribly disappointed this week when Barack Obama won a second term, but it's still difficult for me to be all that enthusiastic about the Democratic President.

I know what you're thinking: "1. Don't be so cynical." "2. Do you have anything positive to say?" "3. Get with the winning team!"

1. I'm not cynical. I have a tremendous amount of hope; just not with the Democratic Party or Obama.

2. I think there were plenty of positive things to say about yesterday's election, from gay marriage, to marijuana legalization, to Puerto Ricans voting for statehood. Even in the defeat of Romney-Ryan and re-election of Obama I see some positive, but not what you might think.

3. No.

So as a critic of Obama and the Democrats from the left, my positive view about the presidential election comes from the fact that Obama 2012 won with less of the popular vote than Obama 2008.

For those saying he has a mandate, I don't see it. He certainly has less of a mandate than he had in 2008 when he won with more of the popular vote and his party had control of both houses of Congress. The only mandate that exists is the same that any president has who wins a second term - the other party knows they have to live with what will likely be a full 8 years outside of the executive branch and that might lead to more compromise, more shaking up of their own internal affairs.

For the left – those of us not aligned with the Democratic Party – this is positive not because our great socialist leader was re-elected, but because he actually didn't do all that great. In 2008 Obama ran on a far more progressive platform than reflected by either his governance since then or his 2012 platform. Obama 2008 was a sharp contrast to McCain/Palin and to the 8 years of Bush before. Obama 2012 mostly ran on killing Osama Bin Laden and a couple of other things mostly important to partisans.

He did run on Obamacare, but that program, still unproven, is a far cry from what he ran on in 2008. Back then he supported a public option and was opposed to an individual mandate – kind of the opposite of what happened. Plus, in reality, Obamacare was a Republican idea. Forcing people to buy health insurance was Romney's idea before it was Obama's.

He also ran on the auto bailout. It probably helped him in a couple of the swing states, turning enough states blue to make it look like a decent victory if all that matters is an electoral college victory. Still, it is a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of U.S. policy, and while Romney opposed the bailout, his running mate, Paul Ryan, voted for it. So it might have been good for a few Obama television ads in the Midwest, it was not exactly a great progressive victory distinguishing him from the other side.

Obama 2008 and his healthier groundswell of support in that election contrasted with Obama 2012 demonstrate that progressive, populist policies – the ones he ran on back then – can win elections. That's an interesting observation, but may not translate into anything useful if it isn't widely recognized and/or we don't keep that in mind as Obama seeks to reach a "grand compromise" with Republicans by cutting or limiting Social Security and Medicare, as his administration continues to murder people with drones and punish the people of Iran with sanctions (if not war), as his Justice Department ratchets up deportations and prosecutions of political activists, and all the other awful stuff that could be far more difficult to counter because it is a Democrat doing it and shut the hell up, the mid-terms are just around the corner.

Thinking back to the Clinton presidency, I can see how this scenario could be a bad one for the left, for workers, and for people who care about human rights. But I'm hopeful because I've seen what the left can do, even when a progressive like Obama is in power. We've seen it with the Occupy movement, the battle over unions in Wisconsin, and the teachers' strike in Chicago. The left is still here, and we aren't all obsessing over a glorious victory by Obama. Sure, things could go very badly, but a strong grassroots movement from the left during a Democratic presidency could be a game changer.Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-64314027521159988002012-09-05T17:11:00.000-07:002012-09-05T17:11:53.064-07:00Turn Off the DNCI don't watch the Democratic National Convention for the same reason I fast forward through commercials - facts matter much more than scripted entertainment designed to sell something - and at the end of the day, even if you know the product is rotten and people are exploited making it, that little voice in your head will still be hammering away: "why not just buy it? everyone else is. those cancer causing, artificial flavors are really tasty and probably won't affect your health any time soon." In fact, I think it is a real problem that so many of my progressive colleagues watch at all; Because it is difficult to not be inspired by some of the rhetoric, caught up in the occasional sincerity (which may or may not be genuine), and wrapped up in the importance of a major pep rally for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

Ultimately it is a show for one of two political parties holding major positions of power in our American empire - an expensive show for a political party raising hundreds of millions of dollars just for this one election and this one political office. To be clear, if someone put a gun to my head and said "which do you prefer, the Republican or the Democrat," the easy and obvious answer would be the Democrat, but I have no interest in cheering on either establishment political party. Yet that's what these shows are designed for: cheering. They are not unlike the political parades and party rallies in despotic countries, though with more polish to be sure.

Should I vote for Obama? Should I at least reluctantly vote for him? At least against Romney? Maybe. That is not what this post is about. It is about this Democratic National Convention that has suddenly excited some in the Democratic base who, just a few months ago, were soberly assessing the pitiful record of Hope and Change. Well-written speeches, no doubt. People at the table who would not be at the table at the RNC - yes, of course. Does that matter? Yes. What matters more? One million people deported. The 13 civilians killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen this weekend, and all the other innocent men, women and children killed by our reckless foreign policy. Employment rights for queer people. Civil liberties. Global Warming. Really big issues that affect millions of people – issues the Democratic Party is unwilling to or unable to deal with in any serious way. I don't expect perfect, but these are not minor points, and the Democrats have no incentive to do anything differently if everyone from the center on to the far left are going to cheer them on and give them a pass.

Check out the debates perhaps. Read some non-corporate, non-partisan, analysis of the political pep rally perhaps. But I wouldn't watch. It's too dangerous - even for me.Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-16459229627946046472012-07-03T10:54:00.002-07:002012-07-03T10:54:41.621-07:00A Nice Graphic About the U.S. Criminal Injustice System
Created by: OnlineCriminalJusticeDegree.comCarlos Villarrealhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-6887255.post-57490439577373175612012-06-01T20:48:00.000-07:002012-06-02T10:04:28.403-07:00No HeroesThis guy on cable news expressed skepticism about calling all American soldiers heroes and conservatives wanted to hang him for treason. But he was absolutely correct. I don't think we should call anyone a "hero" even if many people act heroically from time to time. So you object and ask, "fine, but will you admit that all American soldiers are heroic?"

"No," I would reply. Brave more likely than heroic. You have to be brave to risk going into a war zone, don't you think? But heroic? You need to do a bit more. Save someone's life, or leak classified information, something like that.

There's also a lot of hypocrisy involved in honoring the troops and calling them heroes. I don't think we should call them heroes, but I do think that veterans deserve excellent, free health care; the government that they purportedly served should not let them become homeless or put more resources into incarcerating them than ensuring they have what they need to stay healthy and support their families. But a lot of the chest beaters who believe the cable news host did not adequately venerate the warriors who protect freedom and the American way by signing up for the military and thus agreeing to land on a grenade to protect an American flag if need be, likely don't think much about these mundane issues like healthcare, mental healthcare or substance abuse treatment for veterans. Those crazy people who end up in prison aren't heroes after all, even if they developed mental illness murdering people for American imperialism.

Which reminds me of why I don't like calling anyone a "hero." I have as much trouble with that as calling someone a "demon" or "villain." It doesn't acknowledge the humanity in all of us. We are all capable of heroic feats (well maybe not Donald Trump) and we can just as easily succumb to bad behavior. We can become ill or fall on serious bad luck, but we can also rise to the occasion or find ourselves in a position of great privilege. Our circumstances play a big role in all of that, of course. Furthermore, we can do something heroic one day and something selfish the next. If the brave guys who killed Osama Bin Laden end up using food stamps in 20 years, are they still heroes (not that I think the guys who killed Osama Bin Laden are heroes necessarily - it is really an example for those folks who believe they are); what if they shoplifted some baseball cards from a Mom and Pop store in America's heartland when they returned to the U.S.?

So I agree with the guy on cable news – ChrisHayes – even though I think MSNBC hires too many white guys who hold uninteresting opinions. Enough with the hero talk. You joined the military, maybe with good intentions, maybe with bad intentions, maybe because some recruiter told you when you were 17-years-old that they'd pay for college, you'd get to see the world, and you'd never see combat if you just sign on the dotted line; good for you, but that doesn't make you a hero.

Also this:

Carlos Villarrealhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com