Dear Daily Cal

 

Dear Daily Californian,

For an editorial that attempts to stray from simple “dichotomies”, April 18th’s take on the Antifa (Antifascist) presence does little to impart any complexity into the recent riots in Berkeley. For all its early wholesome message that, “Kids, there’s no clear right and wrong here,” the Antifa are swiftly named the heroes for their brave efforts to “protect” minority communities.

Amusingly, the dissenting opinion shows more clarity than the former, that this fight after fight has not wavered anyone’s ideological commitments, and that polarization further perpetuates this violence because we continue to fail to understand the violence itself. I mean, what is there to understand when you self-righteously embolden yourself as the acolytes of free speech or the saviors of minorities against the encroaching threat of fascism? Alternatively, the majority opinion does little to affirm any skepticism in a movement named after “Antifascist” yet rather eager to brutalize dissenters with U-locks, and then attempts to argues that the presence of neo-Nazis and white nationalists within the protests should conclude any remaining speech advocacy amongst onlookers. Was it not the American Civil Liberties Union that asserted, after their defense of groups such as NAMBLA and Neo-Nazists, that thedefense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive”? Instead of this courageous slant against the violence, the Daily Cal editorial board doubles down, confident that the Antifa as a reactionary response to incendiary speech absolves it from its actions.

A more presumptuous conclusion is that not only should the Antifa be disassociated from its actions (not similar to when the Editorial rightfully associated Yiannopoulos to a history of “incendiary, useless harassment”), but that the “net consequences of its actions were that neo-Nazis and white-supremacist groups with violent rhetoric were denied a platform to speak in the city of Berkeley”. While this seems all dandy at first glance, it somehow insinuates that the incident happily results in the safety of minority communities; though I have yet to see how the feats of violence in Berkeley will defend immigrants from ICE, stall the present consideration of police practices that eventually fall under racial profiling, or the transgender communities in any way? Furthermore, in an earlier article by the Daily Cal, Sakura Cannestra reports that according to a campuswide email, the “damage inflicted upon campus property” during the Milo protest was, by no means, a small fee and “was estimated to cost $100,000”; the payment for this security enforcement on the behalf of the Antifa was not simply the refusal to allow speech, however repulsive it may be. There are clear, material costs to the violent protests; costs that don’t take into consideration  the average students’ payments and loans, the average Californian taxpayer’s contributions, or the federal funds we are using. If Yiannopoulos is to be considered not a “productive member of society” nor belongs here with his rhetoric, by the standards of February’s editorial opinion, then how do we go about Antifa-ing the Antifa?

A movement that splashed eggs on bystanders, including yours truly? A movement so brave in its protection of the communities that an alleged member of the Stein and Sanders camp was not only hounded for being on the “wrong side” but had his keys stolen and/or shattered on the floor whilst others cackled? A movement that has become conflated with ideologies such as communism and anarchism, which is amusing given the extraordinary amount of WWII rhetoric that few followers tend to interject? In short, what does anyone expect to “protect” when these security forces are massively decentralized to a fault, have little to say for the casual violence that falls upon bystanders or neutral parties, and then plays the role of the “valiant hero” or “downtrodden victim”  when the protest concludes with substantial damage costs, not including our valued reputation?

And if there’s ever an oversimplification, these are the heroes of the Bay Area? And all of this because a now jobless provocateur amongst others decided to hurt a few people’s feelings or march for their cause? Because that’s what it is. Hurtful speech. I don’t know what’s worse; having faith in the machinations of a group so devoted to the art of violent protest that their name seems no longer level-headed with their mission, or that minorities such as myself are considered so sensitive to the provocations that we have endured for centuries that we simply cannot function nor advance without crippling our liberal democracy in the process.

DNC, Democracy, and Deputy Chair – Oh My

You see, the genius behind this long-standing, strong position, it is that if the DNC chairman Tom Perez doesn’t want to enact Keith Ellison’s agenda that swarms every Democrat’s senses with fear and disgust – a $15 wage and universal health coverage, for example – then he doesn’t have to because clearly, he was chosen by the people who fund the political association.

The DNC has always been friendly to ideas outside the mainstream as a minority political party; it’s been three months since Trump has been office, right? Take the example of Representative Tusi Gabbard and how the DNC reconciled progressive ideals and Democrat ideals (and in a friendly way, too):

“Representative Gabbard, We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved.

You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign.”

Source: Podesta  Email, FW: Disappointed

If that doesn’t scream “unity” behind Democrat ideals, I don’t know what does. But I know what screams “hope” in light of a federal government flooded by the Republican Party in every level from the local to the White House: Keith Ellison’s emails. Substance and reflection. Perhaps.

Screenshot_323.png
I am not in the mailing list for the DNC, sorry…

I trust the DNC, without the guidance of those dime-a-dozen progressives, to weave Democrat legislation that will benefit the working class in the United States who complain of “representation”, or the humiliating submission to transnational powers who bleed American citizens in a race to the bottom with impoverished nations or the immense impact of lobbyists who act as brokers between special interests and the Congress. Especially refuse to yield to conflicts of interest that they keep parading in their site.

homeless-2090507_1280.jpg
Source: Josemdelaa, Link

Update, 1:15 PM: I have learned that Washington Post released headlines, “DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists.” Alternative news? Russian invasion? Third parties? Sexism?


This is a satirical piece; I am shit at satire, okay?

Reject Antifa –Domestic Terrorism

We must declare Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, the same movement whose darkly clad members raided a peaceful protest in UC Berkeley.

Fiona Quintero with 57, 403 supporters

bfbtcgcfduahsud-800x450-nopad

Petitioning the President of the United States and 1 Other

Declare Antifa a Terrorist Organization

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order…

READ MORE

Read More »

The “Muslim Ban”: The Joke of the Year

The New York Times reports that President Trump has announced executive actions, including the “Muslim ban”; this executive order, Michael D. Shear and Helene Cooper describes, “suspends the entry of refugees into the United States and directs official to determine additional screening”. However, this extends from the refugee situation as the order also halts the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely and “bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism”.

We shall review a small, rushed (** cough ** college student with calculus awaiting ** cough **) description of these seven countries through interventions, terrorism, etc.

Iraq:  Under the “invitation” of the Iraqi Government in 2014, former President Barack Obama led a military intervention in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an intervention that still extends to the present.

Syria:  Beginning in the March 2011, the Syrian Civil War has continued to preside over Syria with spillovers in neighboring countries: a struggle for power between the Syrian Arab Republic, the Syrian Opposition, ISIL, Rojava, and the organized CJTF-OIR.

Iran: Now barring US citizens from entry as retaliation, the Shia country is a struggling hybrid between a theocracy, a constitutional republic, and ‘Islamic Republic’. In an alleged ‘proxy war’ with the United States (or Saudia Arabia, depending on the outlet), Iran is believed to be backing the Houthis rebel forces aligned against the internationally-recognised government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi albeit Saudi-supported. Otherwise, Iran has not engaged in direct warfare with the United States and has cooperated to the point of reaching the famed 2015 Iran nuclear deal framework, an agreement that called off sanctions in exchange for measures that made nuclear facilities and uranium enrichment facilities only suitable for nuclear power and civil use. However, in a reckless move, sanctions against Iran were officially extended for another decade by Congress, with cosponsor of the H.R. 6297 including 6 Democratic Representatives and 4 Republican Representatives (Rant: as a Californian, I hate that a Californian Democrat cosponsored the bill… looking at you Representative Brad Sherman of the 30th District). Since then, bills have been introduced to impose nonnuclear sanctions with respect to Iran by Congressmen, including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Iran still remains in the State Sponsors of Terrorism, which also humorously continues to exclude Saudi Arabia. A country that has been escaped media criticism for its clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Sudan: This hybrid between a presidential republic and an Islamic Republic has been pressured by the United States and other countries toward ‘moderate’ positions. Moderate position does not include common liberties, such as the freedom of the press, as Sudan ranks 172 of 180 countries in terms of freedom of the press according to Reporters Without Borders. Hamas and the National Islamic Front continue to have influence within the country despite considered a general “cooperative counterterrorism partner” by the Country Reports on Terrorism 2013.

Libya: Key Democrats and Republicans supported US action in Libya through bipartisan resolution towards allied military action long ago, including John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer; the three officials and others were shared the common interest of at least a no-fly zone. Nicole Gauouette of CNN reports that the country has since then fallen into a spiral downward, with ISIS bases flourishing across the country, economic turmoil, and a reminiscent vacuum that for “rival government factions and associated militias”.

Somalia: TIME magazine and Daily Signal sheds light on the concern on Somalian terrorists with Abdul Razak Ali Artan as the 74th Somalian-American to plot terrorism.

Yemen: As mentioned before, this country has become the battleground of a ‘proxy war’ between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a fight between the Shia and Sunni powers. As of October 2016, the BBC reports, Yemen has been a victim of “airstrikes by a Saudi-led multinational coalition”, with the conflict and a blockade imposed by that coalition leaving “80% of the population in need of aid”. “Intervention” is a curious word for widespread and systematic attacks on civilian targets in violation of international humanitarian law, isn’t it?

why-would-you-do-thatGiven these details, why is that politicians will applaud the military intervention of these countries as humanitarian crises and protections of the West against the force of ISIS, but God forbid we ever bar them from entering our own country, the world is falling apart and racism has triumphed the one and only President Donald J. Trump? In fact, as sfrantzman says in his post, “Ctrl-F” in the official order, and you will see that none of the countries listed above are mentioned explicitly. Former President Barack Obama’s administration, or Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, chose those countries in their implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, a “kind of ‘Muslim ban’ before the Muslim bam” as sfrantzman hilariously points out. So which is it? Countries of concern, state sponsors of terrorism, or humanitarian crises? Pick your poison.

For more information (and inspiration for this post), watch The Jimmy Dore Show‘s clip surrounding the topic:

California (RVSP Now) – CA DNC Telephone Hall

I have received news that the California DNC delegation is holding an important DNC Chair conference call on Sunday, January 29 to discuss the latest developments in the race and hear your thoughts.

For those with a progressive alignment, look to the Justice Democrat’s platform and the criticism that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton received:

  • Passing a constitutional amendment and/or legislation in opposition to Washington corruption and in support of election reform. Look to the now endangered South Dakota Measure 22 that (a) required additional disclosures and increased reporting, (b) limited contributions and gifts to and from political action committees; political parties; and candidates for statewide, legislative, or county office, (c) prohibits certain State officials and high-level employees from lobbying until two years after leaving State government.
  • Re-regulating Wall Street and holding white-collar criminals accountable. One common solution often proposed by progressives is re-instating a 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation. Eskow of Friends of Bernie Sanders argues that the repeal of the four provisions took a role in the  2008 financial crisis and has created risky, less transparent banks that are “too big to fail”.
  • End corporate tax dodging; people must pay their fair share, and it is more than civil disobedience for corporations to rely on offshore tax havens. We, as a country, lose out of billions in revenue that could be used to supplement our schools, infrastructure, government, etc.
  • Defend free speech and expression and must not shut down ideas based on talking points, but oppose bigotry. Clinton staff often would cite sexism in the Sanders camp, and to this day, news outlets continue to demonize Trump voters rather than communicate. Make no mistake; President Donald Trump has used outrageous, disgusting rhetoric, but this “No such thing as a Trump voter” mentality is ridiculous. For more information, read near the end of my critique of Jamelle Bouie’s article There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter.
  • Ensure universal health care as a right, or at the very least amend the Affordable Care Act in a balanced manner. A recipient of popular public support within the country, England’s National Health Service provides healthcare to all permanent residents of the United Kingdom that is free at the point of use and paid for from general taxation, but allows for a private option for those willing to pay.
  • End unnecessary spending in war, nation building, and the Pentagon. Craig Whitlock and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post report that the Pentagon buried evidence of $125 billion in “administrative waste in its business operations”, undermining the myth that our defense is starving. This is beyond a partisan position; this is a matter of cost-effectiveness.

For more information on the Justice Democrats’ platform, click here.

However, if you have similar ideas or wish simply to offer input for the California DNC, check at this link here: https://www.facebook.com/events/236347136775558/. You not only could call into (855)-756-7520 Ext. 34324# at 7:00pm on the 29th, but register to be part of the would like to be a part of the event and have the system call you automatically when it begins at https://goo.gl/forms/Xc3QDfPMBKjGqErP2.