The Ford Excursion

2007-03-04T23:07:00.000-08:00

The Boeing Company, who are the world's largest producer of commercial airliners, registered their website (http://www.boeing.com) exactly one week before I was born.

No, really, they did.

Assholes.

2007-02-27T01:27:00.000-08:00

When I was in high school, I took this course from the local junior college that was about career placement. I took it because I needed to raise my grade point average to have a better chance at going to college. It took an entire weekend, and it was basically a bunch of boring-ass talks and tests and shit you wrote that was supposed to determine what career was best for you. In pretty much every test or category or whatever, it always told me I should be a lawyer. Specifically, a trial lawyer. I think it said this because I liked serving people, being a leader, and being prestigious. I didn't really mind, since the TV tended to glamorize the profession in shows like Law and Order and the like. I thought back to this the other day and figured out why this career was "meant for me."

See, I like arguing for shit that I don't believe in. Especially if its heavily opposed. When I'm sitting in class, I can tell when some asshat is just spewing bullshit because he knows the teacher will agree with him. If I get a chance to take a stance that I in no way believe in, just to prove my point that people are jackasses and have weak arguments, I will jump on it like a six-year-old on a trampoline. When I get that chance, it's fucking beautiful. Seriously, I should carry a video camera with me. I get all tingly I'm so excited. At a university, you get a huge amount of chances to do this because of all the shit-for-brains prep-school kids who like the sound of their own voice and who've all excelled in the art of pleasing their teachers and parents. (As an aside, I saw the movie "Thank You For Smoking," a few weeks ago, which is a pretty good movie about bullshitting.)

More than I like doing this, is doing this in front of people. I thoroughly enjoy challenging people on what they believe to be most important to them. However, I am one of those who can take what they dish out. Go ahead, ask me about my religious beliefs. Ask me what I think about Barack Obama. Ask me if I'm racist, or sexist, or homophobic. I don't care. I am losing the ability to give a shit about the opinions of other people. Whether that is a good or a bad thing will be decided later, I guess.

See, the thing is, I wasn't really brought up to believe in anything. And when you're brought up to not believe in anything, very little offends you and very little is held dear. This makes it easy for me to defend shit that I simply don't care about. Am I defending it because I believe in it? No. I just really, really like playing devil's advocate.

I've been questioning pretty much everything I've ever thought I believed in recently, so I will probably be writing about it quite a bit. Please check in and read/comment if it interests you.

2006-12-04T18:46:00.000-08:00

Testes, testes...

...is this thing on?

2006-02-27T01:38:00.000-08:00

My Dear Dining Public:

Hello. I am your friendly neighborhood restaurant employee. I would like to post below a few rules—or, if you don’t like that word, how about a few “tips”—that you should consider adhering to the next time you decide to dine in a restaurant.

I know, I know: here I am bending over and spreading my cheeks for you to shove your “why don’t you go get a real job” hate straight up my ass, but let me tell you something before we begin, Dining Public--this IS my real job, as it is for many of us who consider this Our Profession.

How do you know that your server, your bartender, or your cook isn’t taking this as seriously as you take YOUR job? How do you know that they aren’t a “degreed professional?” I would never suggest that you or anyone else “go and get a real job,” nor would I come into your place of business and act in a manner that caused everyone else in the building to wonder what fucking rock I had just crawled out from underneath of.

RULE ONE, then, Dining Public, must naturally be for you to stop assuming that all restaurant employees are slumming alcoholic pieces of shit without the intelligence, ability, and fortitude to find and hold down a “real job.” Because you never know who is taking your order, making your drink, and cooking your food.

Sure, there are a lot of uncaring bitches and assholes working in restaurants, just like there are a lot of uncaring bitches and assholes working in all industries. But some of us love this most dynamic and trying of occupations, some of us entered it by choice, and some of us would love to serve you to the best of our abilities. But first, you must learn to follow these simple, not-very-strenuous rules.

RULE TWO. When you enter the restaurant, you will note that there is a large lectern with a big sign on it that says: “Please Wait To Be Seated.” Do not ignore this sign, Dining Public. There is a reason we do not want you to seat yourselves, and it all centers around two basic concepts: 1). Fairness, and 2). Good Service.

“Fairness” is the opposite of what happens when you blunder into the dining room, more often than not shrieking into your cell phones and bearing large shopping bags, and take the sole remaining four-top without waiting your turn, failing to note that there may have been another party destined for that table who had been there first.

“Good Service” is what happens when the server knows that a new table has been seated in her section, and can therefore bring you ice water, consult with you as to what you would like to order, etcetera. If you just sneak in and sit down, we may not notice, and then we may be accused of providing “Bad Service.” So from now on, Dining Public, if you fail to observe the “Please Wait To Be Seated” sign, and then you berate your server for not magically divining that she had a new table to serve (albeit one that, like the bitches and assholes you are, did not wait its turn), you will be taken outside, lined up against the walk-in, and shot.

RULE THREE. You can see that there are only 16 tables in this restaurant. You can see that every table is full and that there is a line. This is not new. We did not suddenly experience a drastic up-tick in our business. We have all done this before.

You have observed the sign noted in RULE TWO, and you have given your name to the pleasant hostess, and she has summarily noted it, and the number of your party, on the list. Do not, Dining Public—and I repeat, DO NOT—proceed to wait in line and glare at your hostess with malice and hatred in your eyes. Do not check your watch, roll your eyes, and make snide remarks to your fellow bitches and assholes. If you do this, Dining Public, your hostesses’ hands will begin to tremble as she rolls silverware and she will have to step out back for a few seconds to cool herself off from the radiating heat of your immense and misguided hate. She will leave after her eight-hour shift and want to go home and sob. Have you ever been a hostess? Look at the restaurant, Dining Public. It is busy. You are waiting in line. Deal with it. Do not suggest to the hostess that she move tables (which still have customers sitting at them) and block serving paths (not to mention routes of escape in case of fire) and skip over parties of two (who have been waiting longer than you have) in order to “accommodate” your party of 10.

Also, do not leave your name and the number of people in your party, wait for 20 minutes, and then leave without informing the hostess. That is just plain dumb. Good luck getting seated any faster for Sunday brunch in this neighborhood. And may that 20 minute wait time be increased tenfold for every hostess you fluster, Dining Public.

RULE FOUR. You will note, that beneath the “Please Wait To Be Seated” sign, there is another sign. This sign reads: “No Outside Food Or Beverages.” Read it again with me, Dining Public: NO OUTSIDE FOOD OR BEVERAGES. This means do NOT come in to this restaurant with a fucking Starbucks cup and expect to sit and order food. This also means do not come in with cookies or tacos from another restaurant down the street and expect to sit and order drinks.

It will not happen, Dining Public, nor should it be allowed to.

Is it your “sense of entitlement” that leads you to believe it is no big deal to drink a fucking Starbucks in a place with coffee as good as ours, especially when it is in direct defiance of a posted sign? Our barista will be happy to make you a triple no-foam hazelnut whatever, and it will be cheaper, more delicious, and certainly sourced and made with more care than whatever is in that fucking insidious little green-and-white cup.

So, to the bitch who gaped at me in frank astonishment when I asked her to please hurry up and finish drinking whatever was in that little green-and-white cup so that she could be seated, and then spluttered at me as if I were the one who was being rude, and then left: GOOD. Little Green-and-White Cup Bitch, I hope you found the non-existent restaurant that DOES allow outside food and beverages, and I hope you went there, and that you never, ever come back here.

RULE FIVE. You will note that, in addition to this restaurant being very small and very crowded, with both customers and servers maneuvering around the floor, there are also many different types of people seated here. “Many different types” means white, brown, yellow, straight, gay, pierced, tattooed, loud, silent, half-naked, mostly-clothed, etcetera. That is to be expected. We live in a large city, and, despite some relatively recent and disturbing housing trends, this is still a semi-diverse neighborhood.

Now that we have that established, Dining Public, I would like to have a few words with you about your children.

First-of-fucking-all, do NOT allow your children to run about the restaurant like shrieking little turds that have somehow grown legs. Since you seem to be unable to comprehend that this is both 1). Rude, and 2). Stupid, how about if I tack on a third adjective which you *might* be able to understand. That adjective is “Dangerous.”

It is dangerous, Mom and Dad, to allow your offspring to dart about at knee-level when there are servers carrying heavy, hot trays. Although I doubt that you know this, Mom and Dad, since you still seem to be children yourselves, at least developmentally, and have therefore probably never worked anywhere, much less in a restaurant, we restaurant employees have developed a system for warning one another of our physical presences during the rush: a soft “Behind You,” or a light touch on the back or the shoulder as we move around our fellow employees, is both standard and acceptable.

This is so no one is hurt, so that nothing is spilled, and so that our service of you, and your children, continues to go smoothly.

But your children, Mom and Dad, while certainly adorable, are incapable of uttering anything but “yarrrghererer bleearrrghghghghggh” and so are not going to be able to inform the server that they are “behind her,” and are, in fact, about to deliver a shattering blow to her knees with their flailing limbs, possibly causing her to drop a tray on their precious little heads. And your feeble “Jimmy, look out for the nice lady,” from around your mouthful of soy milk doesn’t cut it either, dumb-ass.

As an aside: I don’t care how many times a week you come in here, or how much money you spend in here, Mom and Dad—I don’t care if you OWN this fucking place. You will most certainly NOT allow your children to run behind the line. Yes, this is a fishbowl kitchen, with the line area accessible from the dining room. Yes, children are attracted to the sights and sounds of what we are doing back here. Hell, I am still fascinated by it. But no, it is not “cute” when little Jimmy toddles back behind the line in the middle of a busy service. There is fire, steam, and boiling liquid. There are knives and large hurtling bodies. Perhaps I can show you some of my scars, several of them quite heinous and ALL of them earned behind the line, and then you will be convinced that back here is not a “cute” place for children. Or perhaps I have to drop hot egg-poaching water onto little Jimmy’s head. Whatever you want, Mom and Dad. You’re the customers.

Secondly, Mom and Dad, do not attempt to ram your large Jeep-wheeled stroller through the front door when it is clear to everyone (except for your blind asses) that the stroller is not going to fit. Do you see how the door jamb is splintering as you continue to shove that monstrous thing against it? The door is designed to be wide enough to admit a patron who uses a wheelchair, and it is wide enough for that. There is no law that says we have to make it wide enough to accommodate you and your ridiculous stroller. There is also no law that says we can’t laugh at you when you ask us why our door is not wide enough to fit your stroller through, “because really, Jimmy’s stroller isn’t *that* big.”

Thirdly, you will please read again what is written above about the blessed diversity of our patrons and our city before you even THINK of opening your mouth to ask me if I consider this a “family atmosphere.” I am sorry you do not like my answer, Mom and Dad, which was: “No, not really,” and which I gave to you in the manner in which you asked, that manner being snide, confrontational, and accusatory. I am sorry that you do not like the music that is being played this morning, since it is “not appropriate” for little Jimmy. I am also very, very sorry that you apparently don’t like being seated next to a table of gay men who are talking loudly about whatever “gay things” they did last night.

I have a suggestion for you, Mom and Dad, and here it is: EAT AT HOME. Eat at home, in whatever sterile environment you have concocted for yourselves and little Jimmy behind the protective barrier of your own front door. Because there is NO LAW that says we have to create a “family atmosphere” in this restaurant—or in any other public place, for that matter—and if you can’t deal with that, Mom and Dad, you can always learn to make your own omelets. It’s really not as intimidating as it looks.

Or, better yet, allow me to take you outside, where you will be lined up against the walk-in and shot. Little Jimmy will then be given over to wolves for the rest of his upbringing, wolves which will not allow him to run rampant in a restaurant, wolves which will undoubtedly do a better job at raising him without bias, wolves which will not instill in him the family values of hate, fear, and entitlement that you seem to wear as a triple badge of fucked-up pride. Yes, Mom and Dad: hate, fear, and entitlement—your legacy, being passed on to the next generation, without shame, rolling down the sidewalk in a giant, Jeep-wheeled stroller, even as I write this. You disgust me.

RULE SIX. Dining Public, we exist to serve. If you have dietary needs, we will do whatever we can to make you something appropriate AND delicious. However, you will note that your server is not carrying a crystal ball. Nor is she wearing a large silken turban, or even a name tag that tells you she is Molly the Mind Reader.

Therefore, vegans, if the menu s-p-e-l-l-s o-u-t that an item comes with cheese, then it comes with cheese. Do not even *think* of receiving your veggie burger, making a disgusted face, and shrieking: “Is this soy cheese?” No, you fuck, it is not soy cheese. It is real cheese, straight from the cow’s teat. If you didn’t want cheese, you should have said so. Molly the Mind Reader couldn’t make it in today, so this normal person had to pick up her shift.

You see, vegans, our menu specifically s-p-e-l-l-s o-u-t that we can make an item “vegan friendly upon request.” “Request” being the petition of the customer. The “customer” being you. Our menu also delineates, clearly, which items contain cheese, mayonnaise, sour cream, butter, yoghurt, honey, or whatever hundred-thousand other animal products you have arbitrarily decided that you can not eat.

We are not an All-Vegan Restaurant—ah, further reading of the menu reveals that We Serve Meat!—thus, RULE SIX dictates that you must inform your server of your dietary needs before she brings you your food, covered, as the menu specifies it will be, in cheese. And as an aside: to those of you who are “vegan” because it is trendy, or because you are dating someone who is “vegan,” and not for “health reasons,” or because of any legitimate belief about/gripe with the American system of food production, which is, unfortunately, based on the exploitation of both animals AND humans, you ought to be taken outside, lined up against the walk-in, and shot.

RULE SEVEN. Tipping. There are no hard-and-fast rules about tipping, Dining Public, and I have no desire to raise that endless debate once again, either on Craigslist, or anywhere else. I have no desire to hear again that old chestnut: “Well, it’s not *our* fault that you people let your bosses pay you slavery wages. Why don’t you go get a REAL job?”

Consider for me, Dining Public, what your support of the American restaurant industry, which, as it is currently structured, allows owners to pay servers minimum wage or less, means in the wider spectrum of things. Also consider the enormous political clout of the National Restaurant Association, which has repeatedly defeated efforts to raise the minimum wage, and the immense buying power of the restaurant industry as a whole.

Consider what your endless demands for fast, “cheap” food and fast, “cheap” service will mean in the long run.

Or don’t consider it. I don’t give a fuck. A good tipper is going to be a good tipper all of the time, and a bad tipper—well, a bad tipper is going to be a bad tipper even if the server gets down on her knees and delivers killer oral sex along with the eggs Benedict.

But just remember this, Dining Public. When you die, and you get to Heaven, and instead of the Pearly Gates you always imagined you would see, there’s a large lectern with a big sign on it that says: “Please Wait To Be Seated,” just remember, Dining Public, you read it here first: Jesus hates bad tippers.

And Hell is just through that door. Outside. Next to the walk-in.

2005-07-14T18:01:00.000-07:00

Another occurrence that makes me wonder why the FBI exists.

http://aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9184

2005-07-14T17:42:00.000-07:00

Okay. Hillary Clinton. I have a lot of respect for the woman, but this is some shit that she just should not have gone and stuck her nose into.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4682533.stm

2005-07-13T17:06:00.000-07:00

All right. How to start this other than ... holy shit. Yesterday at about 2:30AM, a fire started in the hospital about a block from where I go to class. My roommate and I were woken up that morning by a phone call telling us what had happened. The entire area was in utter fucking chaos for practically the entire day. Every few minutes another ambulance would rush out of there, usually taking an intensive care patient to another hospital. That is what got me the most, is the fact that this was in a hospital. People were in that hospital that could not do SHIT to get out of there. If you are having a heart operation and a fire breaks out, what the fuck is one to do?

I have heard that the total dead is around 20, which could have been a lot worse but fuck, that is still twenty lives lost. The damage done was estimated to be around $20 million. A friend who lives across the street from the hospital said she heard explosions, which shook the entire house and she thought people were outside banging on her window with guns. Apparently it was some sort of gas explosion that started the fire, in an old building of the hospital that had no alarms, no emergency lights, and no emergency exit. How fucking barbaric.

Some of the footage I have seen has made me sick to my stomach. People tying bedsheets together and rappelling down the wall to the ground. Ladders that could not reach the people standing on window ledges of the top floor to avoid the smoke. Elderly patients being brought out in wheelchairs. Families of those in the hospital having breakdowns outside in the street. But what got me the most was the images inside the charred hospital of the bodies, covered in a white sheet, still in their hospital beds. They died without moving, because they couldnt. Bodies underneath beds, probably trying to get away from the smoke and fire.

I went and stood at the hospital today and just stared at it for a long time. The bedsheet that patients used to climb down from the 4th story is still there. All I did was stand there in disbelief as news crews scrambled to get a good angle for the 6 o clock story, and others stood and stared with disbelief as well. Its just so hard to believe that a few days earlier I may have been eating at restaurants in that area with the same nurses or supervisors that died in the fire.

Another weird thought I had was that only a few days earlier I had been walking to our favorite lunch spot by the hospital, and I watched some workers unloading giant tanks of gases (probably nitrous or oxygen) off a big truck and into the hospital. I remember thinking how big of an explosion it would be if one of those got knocked over onto a sharp rock or something. And then a couple days later there is a fire and 20 people die. Go figure.

Read the story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4675479.stm

2005-07-06T16:05:00.000-07:00

Acts of violence committed for a single cause can not be defined by the word "terrorism."

2005-07-03T19:10:00.000-07:00

As we destroy the planet faster than ever before (yes, I will give you the bleeding-heart bullshit, and you will enjoy it,) the President of the United States of America finds more and more ways to do just that, and at the same time piss off the rest of the world more and more. Asshole.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4647383.stm

2005-06-27T19:38:00.000-07:00

A couple news stories you should read if you haven´t already --

- A BIG Supreme Court ruling was made today. So big, they had to leave it to the day before one of their ever-present three month vacations. Ahh, the perks of being white and conservative. To the point, they ruled in favor of the MPAA/MGM/Sony-BMG Music, saying that file sharing was in fact in violation of intellectual property laws that used to be protected by a ruling made when the video cassette recorder was first introduced. (By Sony, the two-timing fucks.)

Article -
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm

- The Justice Department finally took down the hilarious-but-fucking-moronic $8000 giant shroud that they had placed over Lady Justice, since she shows a nude breast in the Hall of Justice. Man, what is wrong with these people, if God had wanted us to be naked, we´d have been born that way! The people who placed it, who consisted of John Ashcroft and uh... John Ashcroft, had their dreams shattered as the Hall of Justice is once again vulgared by the nudity that no human being should see.

Article - http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4623239.stm

- Oil prices keep going up ... oh fuck you, they´re never going to stop going up. Fucking idiots think the market is optimistic. It´s not as though oil is ever going to get any more abundant. IT´S FINITE, ASSHOLES. Oh, fuck you.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4625383.stm

2005-06-22T16:21:00.000-07:00

so I´m at an internet cafe in costa rica and... well this is enough for you..

MRCHARDOS: get this
MRCHARDOS: on the wall here theres a sign saying in spanish you arent allowed to look at porn, except for booth number 20
MRCHARDOS: so i look and i see booths 1-19
MRCHARDOS: and im looking for 20
MRCHARDOS: and its this booth in the back in this little enclosure with a curtain closed shut
sxymanfortyeight: hahahahahahahha
sxymanfortyeight: thats bad =(....ugh
MRCHARDOS: yeah

2005-06-11T02:41:00.000-07:00

- If you ever need glasses, and you have the delightful opportunity of shopping at LensCrafters (a fine institution), uh... don't.

A little over a year ago I purchased a pair of glasses from them. I was pleased with them, as they had them ready rather quickly and I could see quite well with the glasses. However in the past couple weeks, the outer lair of one of the lenses began flaking off (kind of like paint off a car). Upon taking it to LensCrafters (a fine institution), I was told since my 1-year-warranty was up, the most they could offer me was half-off the cost of replacing the lens. Which is absolute bullshit, because they sold me a pair of spectacles that ARE DE-FUCKING-FECTIVE. As I would assume, the nobody who was handling my complaint didn't give a shit whether or not I bought from his employer or not.

This disturbed me. What happened to the days where the employees actually gave a shit about the company they worked for? I noticed that this individual looked at the problem as 'not his.' If it didn't affect whether or not he'd receive his next paycheck, he couldn't give less of a shit. I don't look at this as that individuals problem, or that corporations problem, but as capitalism's problem. Man, do I hate the shit out of capitalism. (NOTE: I don't hate the shit out of that many things.)

- On a similar note, I heard earlier this week that Toyota(a fine auto company), announced it was going to raise prices on its vehicles to try and stimulate the sales of U.S. car companies such as GM and Ford. (I think it was specifically GM, but it would stimulate both companies' sales nonetheless.) Toyota, and I just don't feel right saying this, knows what the fuck it is all about. This is capitalism. I still fucking hate it (capitalism), but to see a humunguous corporation such as the Toyota Motor Co. trying to stimulate the sales of one of its top rivals (I think its top rival is Honda, though.) is just.... I don't know.. cool?

Toyota, unlike its struggling rivals, can afford to do this because well, they're Toyota. This could be just to rub it in GM's face for all I know, trying to make them squirm to make a profit. But to see a corporation trying to make capitalism what its supposed to be, and recognize that they NEED competition to not be the tyrannical assholes that are so evident in other industries. (Computer Operating Systems, for example.)

- Have people lost their fucking minds? (Okay, maybe that was the wrong question.)
Does anyone have ANY dignity anymore? (Nope, another wrong question..)
Why the fuck do people write jingles to advertise products? (Bingo.)

What I'd like to know, is just what the hell is running through the musicians mind when they sing "See America, With Your Family, In A Dan Gamel™ RV." Thats probably a terrible example, but for the 5 minutes that I've had the TV on, no terribly shameless advertisements have aired. (A miracle!)

I'd hope its something like "WHERE DID ALL GO WRONG??! FUCK ME, FUCK ME! SHOOT ME NOW!"
or
"I NEED TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON I'D SING SOMETHING AS SHAMELESSLY IDIOTIC AS THIS!"

The latter probably comes across more often than the former. But advertising in general is a terrible industry to be in. NO ONE has ANY shame. Assholes.

- Why are people so opposed to change? Okay, nevermind. I'll go into this some other time, when I have time to write the 200 pages I have to say about this pig shit.

Thank you for reading, if you read. ;)

2005-05-12T16:53:00.000-07:00

This is a song by Immortal Technique. Please, PLEASE read it. Or listen to the song, it's called 'The Poverty Of Philosophy.'

Most of my Latino and black people who are struggling to get food, clothes and shelter in the hood are so concerned with that, that philosophising about freedom and socialist democracy is usually unfortunately beyond their rationale. They don't realise that America can't exist without separating them from their identity, because if we had some sense of who we really are, there's no way in hell we'd allow this country to push it's genocidal consensus on our homelands. This ignorance exists, but it can be destroyed.

Niggas talk about change and working within the system to achieve that. The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you. There is usually nothing wrong with compromise in a situation, but compromising yourself in a situation is another story completely, and I have seen this happen long enough in the few years that I've been alive to know that it's a serious problem. Latino America is a huge colony of countries whose presidents are cowards in the face of economic imperialism. You see, third world countries are rich places, abundant in resources, and many of these countries have the capacity to feed their starving people and the children we always see digging for food in trash on commercials. But plutocracies, in other words a government run by the rich such as this one, and traditionally oppressive European states, force the third world into buying overpriced, unnecessary goods while exporting huge portions of their natural resources.

I'm quite sure that people will look upon my attitude and sentiments and look for hypocrisy and hatred in my words. My revolution is born out of love for my people, not hatred for others.

You see, most of Latinos are here because of the great inflation that was caused by American companies in Latin America. Aside from that, many are seeking a life away from the puppet democracies that were funded by the United States; places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, Columbia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Republica Dominicana, and not just Spanish-speaking countries either, but Haiti and Jamaica as well.

As different as we have been taught to look at each other by colonial society, we are in the same struggle and until we realise that, we'll be fighting for scraps from the table of a system that has kept us subservient instead of being self-determined. And that's why we have no control over when the embargo will stop in Cuba, or when the bombs will stop dropping in Vieques.

But you see, here in America the attitude that is fed to us is that outside of America there live lesser people. "Fuck them, let them fend for themselves." No, _fuck you_, they _are_ you. No matter how much you want to dye your hair blonde and put fake eyes in, or follow an anorexic standard of beauty, or no matter how many diamonds you buy from people who exploit your own brutally to get them, no matter what kind of car you drive or what kind of fancy clothes you put on, _you will never be them_. They're always gonna look at you as nothing but a little monkey. I'd rather be proud of what I am, rather than desperately try to be something I'm really not, just to fit in. And whether we want to accept it or not, that's what this culture or lack of culture is feeding us.

I want a better life for my family and for my children, but it doesn't have to be at the expense of millions of lives in my homeland. We're given the idea that if we didn't have these people to exploit then America wouldn't be rich enough to let us have these little petty material things in our lives and basic standards of living. No, that's wrong. It's the business giants and the government officials who make all the real money. We have whatever they kick down to us. My enemy is not the average white man, it's not the kid down the block or the kids I see on the street; my enemy is the white man I don't see: the people in the white house, the corporate monopoly owners, fake liberal politicians--those are my enemies. The generals of the armies that are mostly conservatives--those are the real motherfuckers that I need to bring it to, not the poor, broke country-ass soldier that's too stupid to know shit about the way things are set up.

In fact, I have more in common with most working and middle-class white people than I do with most rich black and Latino people. As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue. Many of us are in the same boat and it's sinking, while these bougie motherfuckers ride on a luxury liner, and as long as we keep fighting over kicking people out of the little boat we're all in, we're gonna miss an opportunity to gain a better standard of living as a whole.

In other words, I don't want to escape the plantation--I want to come back, free all my people, hang the motherfucker that kept me there and burn the house to the god damn ground. I want to take over the encomienda and give it back to the people who work the land.

You cannot change the past but you can make the future, and anyone who tells you different is a fucking lethargic devil. I don't look at a few token Latinos and black people in the public eye as some type of achievement for my people as a whole. Most of those successful individuals are sell-outs and house Negroes.

But, I don't consider brothers a sell-out if they move out of the ghetto. Poverty has nothing to do with our people. It's not in our culture to be poor. That's only been the last 500 years of our history; look at the last 2000 years of our existence and what we brought to the world in terms of science, mathematics, agriculture and forms of government. You know the idea of a confederation of provinces where one federal government controls the states? The Europeans who came to this country stole that idea from the Iroquois lead. The idea of impeaching a ruler comes from an Aztec tradition. That's why Montezuma was stoned to death by his own people 'cause he represented the agenda of white Spaniards once he was captured, not the Aztec people who would become Mexicans.

So in conclusion, I'm not gonna vote for anybody just 'cause they black or Latino--they have to truly represent the community and represent what's good for all of us proletariat.

Porque si no, entonces te mando p'al carajo cabron, gusano hijo de puta, seramos libre pronto. Viva la Revolucion! Que viva la Revolucion!

2005-05-05T00:11:00.000-07:00

NAFTA ñ Harmless Free Trade or A Disgusting GDP Maximization Tool?

For the past eleven and a half years, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has allowed the United States, Mexico, and Canada to maintain the largest free trade area in the world. Under NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years (www.fas.usda.gov). All agricultural provisions will be implemented by the year 2008. For import-sensitive industries, long transition periods and safeguards allowed, and are still allowing for an easy transition into free trade with Mexico. Many argue that all NAFTA did was grant more rights to foreign investors, and pave the way for the ëjob outsourcingí we are seeing today in corporations such as General Motors, who has sent tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico since 1994. GM and its affiliates are Mexico's largest private employer, with 83,000 full-time workers. GM de Mexico operates three car and truck assembly plants. GM's Delphi Automotive Systems has 53 parts plants. GM jobs in the United States were cut by 38,000 workers between 1994 and 1998 (wabash.edu).

The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for items covered by ìtariff-rate quotas,î were removed before Jan. 1, 1998. Mexico and Canada reached a separate NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffs either immediately or over 5-15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar are still maintained (www.fas.usda.gov).

Supporters and promoters of NAFTA, which coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidentally,) included many United States Senators and some of the worldís largest corporations, made a large number of promises. A few of them being higher living standards in the United States, Canada, and primarily Mexico; improved environmental conditions; hundreds of thousands of new high-paying jobs in the U.S.; and it would help transform Mexico from a developing country to a huge new market for United States exports. (citizen.org) Opponents of NAFTA, consisting primarily of labor, consumer, and environmental groups, argued that NAFTA would lower work wages dramatically, destroy hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, threaten the environment, lower health and food safety standards, and remove domestic policy-making from the hands of the people (citizen.org). Not surprisingly, many of NAFTAís heavy supporters in Congress never actually read the document (a la Patriot Act). They made over-emphasized promises of NAFTA benefits based on trade theory and ideological prejudice for anything with the term ìfree tradeî attached to it.

The reason NAFTA was so controversial was that a trade-merger of three nations with such drastically different levels of development had never been attempted. Also, before NAFTA, agreements on trade only dealt with cutting tariffs between countries, and setting terms of trade between countries. However, NAFTA contained over nine hundred pages of specific rules for each nation to conform all of its domestic laws, regardless of whether voters and their democratically elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils. NAFTA required limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices drastically; elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food; and constraints on local governmentís ability to zone against any kind of sprawl or toxic industries (citizen.org).

Calling NAFTA a ìtradeî agreement is quite deceitful; NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its primary values grant foreign investors an outrageous set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs (as noted in paragraph 1) and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care (citizen.org). The claim of the United States to support free trade was a fallacy, however. Whenever any trading did not serve the ënational interest,í the government would step in and interfere. ëNational interestí of course really meant corporate interest. The United States Government went to great lengths utilizing this tactic, keeping Mexican ëtraders,í such as tomato growers, out of the U.S. market with this strategy. (Zinn, p.658)

Heavy opposition to NAFTA has been seen in Mexico, specifically in the southern region of Chiapas, a land rich in natural resources, but living standards rank last out of Mexicoís 31 states. The revolutionary indigenous farmers of this state call themselves the Zapatistas, after Emiliano Zapata. The broad appeal of the Zapatista message has led to a degree of sympathy among the general population of Mexico, provoking large marches. It has also thrust the very nature of the neo-liberal economic model of the Mexican government onto the national agenda for discussion, as urban elites wake up to the reality that there are now two Mexicoís: the rich yuppie Mexico in the capital and Northern cities that has fed upon market liberalization and NAFTA-related investment, and the ever larger and ever more marginalized poor Mexico. As disgust of NAFTA grows in Mexico, large corporations continue to stick their tongues in the faces of indigenous farmers as more and more land in southern Mexico is used for outsourced American factories and huge crop farms that quadruple wheat production, but lead to rapid desertification of land and cropland destruction. (Brown, p.151)

On January 1st, 1994, the same day NAFTA was scheduled to go into effect, the Mexican state of Chiapas was thrust upon the international scene as the Zapatista army simultaneously seized control of the city of San CristÛbal de las Casas and 5 towns in the surrounding Chiapas highlands. It was a declaration of war on the Mexican government, a declaration of which no type had ever been seen before. This was not a call to arms to fight the armies and overthrow the government, but a statement that after over five hundred years of oppression, enough was enough. NAFTA would further deprive indigenous farmers in southern Mexico of the land that had been a part of their lives for generations. The official Declaration of War is as follows:

"We have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our heads, no land, no work, poor health, no food, no education, no right to freely and democratically choose our leaders, no independence from foreign interests, and no justice for ourselves or our children. But we say enough is enough! We are the descendants of those who truly built this nation, we are the millions of dispossessed, and we call upon all of our brethren to join our crusade, the only option to avoid dying of starvation!"
- EjÈrcito Zapatista de LiberaciÛn Nacional (EZLN) Declaration of the L·candon Jungle

(EZLN.org)

NAFTA, as EZLN spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos said on January 1st, 1994, was a ìdeath sentenceî for Mexicoís indigenous peoples. Not without cause has the battle cry of Emiliano Zapata, "Tierra y Libertad!" been heard all through Mexican history to the present day. This is both the real and the rhetorical backdrop to the Zapatista army's denunciation of NAFTA as locking in a policy of agricultural commercialization seen as benefiting the land-rich, and not the many Indians in Chiapas who remain landless or who are angered at losing ancestral lands to ìcattle baronsî with connections to the then-ruling PRI. (Institutional Revolutionary Party) The indigenous farmers of southern Mexico were fed up with being the most resource rich state in southern Mexico, yet having the worst living conditions in the country. The institution of NAFTA was preceded by the repeal of Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution, which protected communal land holdings from privatization, part of the victory of land reforms of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The Zapatistas have insisted that the further privatization of land means the death of indigenous cultures that are mainly determined by a collective relation to the land (EZLN.org).

What this has done for North America and for large corporations is disgusting. Canada and Mexico are, respectively, the second and third largest export markets for U.S. agricultural products. Exports to the two markets combined are greater than exports to Japan or the European Union. In 2000, more than one out of every four dollars earned through U.S. agricultural exports was earned in North America (www.fas.usda.gov). During 1992-2000, the value of U.S. agricultural exports worldwide climbed 19 percent. During the same period of time, U.S. farm and food exports to Mexico an Canada, our two NAFTA partners, grew by 62 percent. In 2000, U.S. farmers, food processors, and exporters shipped approximately $273 million worth of U.S. agricultural products to Canada and Mexico each week. This was an increase of $137 million a week compared with what they shipped, on average, during the four years prior to the coming of NAFTA (www.fas.usda.gov).

From 1999 to 2000, U.S. farm and food exports to Mexico climbed by $916 million to $6.5 billion -- the highest level ever and the fifth record in five years under NAFTA (www.fas.usda.gov). U.S. exports of soybeans, cotton, and rice all set new records. More U.S. agricultural products went to Mexico in 2000 than to China, Hong Kong, and Russia combined. In the years immediately prior to NAFTA, U.S. agricultural products lost market share in Mexico as competition for the Mexican market increased. NAFTA reversed this trend. The United States (unfortunately) now supplies more than 75 percent of Mexico's total agricultural imports, due in part to the price advantage and preferential access that U.S. products now enjoy. The downside to this, however, is it increasingly makes Mexico more dependent on the U.S. for food and agricultural products. For example, Mexico's imports of U.S. red meat and poultry have grown rapidly, exceeding pre-NAFTA levels and reaching the highest level ever in 2000.

NAFTA kept Mexican markets open to U.S. farm and food products in 1995 during the worst economic crisis in Mexico's modern history. In the wake of the peso devaluation and its aftermath, U.S. agricultural exports dropped by 23 percent that year, but have since come back up 85 percent since then (www.fas.usda.gov). NAFTA cushioned the downturn and helped speed the recovery because of preferential access for U.S. products in Mexico. In fact, rather than raising import barriers in response to its economic problems, Mexico adhered to NAFTA commitments and continued to reduce tariffs. What is seen here is a growing trend of inter-dependence between the U.S. and Mexico in the food and agricultural field. Any rational, unbiased economist will tell you that inter-dependence is a horrible idea. So much for self-sufficiency.

January 2001 marked the eighth round of tariff cuts under NAFTA, further opening the market to U.S. products. U.S. agricultural products now eligible for duty-free access under NAFTAís ìtariff rate quotas,î include U.S. corn, dried beans, poultry, animal fats, barley, eggs, and potatoes. As mentioned earlier, all tariffs are to be eliminated by the year 2008. Although agricultural trade has increased in both directions under NAFTA, U.S. exports to Mexico have increased faster than imports from Mexico. The U.S. agricultural trade surplus with Mexico was $1.47 billion in 2000 (www.fas.usda.gov). While the government continues to spin this to be a good thing, it shows how NAFTA has left little ìwiggleî room for unpredicted events that may occur in our neighboring countries such as revolution, environmental disaster, etc. In other words, should an unforeseen event trigger a flop in Mexicoís need for our imports, we would be (pardon the expression) up shits creek without a paddle.

In regard to our humble counterparts up north, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada reached a record $7.6 billion in 2000, an increase of more than 81 percent since 1990. Fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, snacks foods, and other consumer foods account for close to three-fourths of U.S. sales (www.fas.usda.gov). U.S. exports of bulk and consumer-oriented products to Canada set records in 2000, with new value highs for vegetable oils, planting seeds, snack foods, breakfast cereals, poultry meat, dairy products, fresh and processed vegetables and fruits and their juices (www.fas.usda.gov). In 1996, the first NAFTA dispute settlement panel reviewed the higher tariffs Canada applied to its dairy, poultry, egg, barley, and margarine products. The panel ruled that Canada's tariff-rate quotas are consistent with NAFTA, and thus do not have to be eliminated. If only a panel were created to examine the cultural, environmental, and economic atrocities that NAFTA has committed over the years, maybe they would actually find something substantial.

To conclude, this so-called ìtrade agreementî has done very little for freedom and democracy. All NAFTA has done is make North American countries more reliant on each other, while simultaneously trying to maximize our GDP. But where will it stop? How disgustingly huge does our GDP have to get before we can focus on what we are doing to get it there? Environmental destruction? Taking land that had been part of generations over 500 years old, and giving it up to greedy corporations whoís only interest is to watch their profits go through the roof? NAFTA blatantly goes against democracy. As noted in paragraph 4, NAFTA contained over 900 pages of policies for each nation to conform by, regardless of whether or not those exact policies had been rejected democratically in the first place. NAFTA cannot possibly be a proponent of freedom either, because it has deprived tens of thousands of Americans of their jobs since it has been in effect. Not to mention depriving farmers in southern Mexico of what should have been their natural born birthright. Thatís two thumbs down for NAFTA. It should never have been passed, and does nothing but go against the principles of what all three of its participating countries were founded on, while destroying that which enabled it to be enacted in the first place.

sources:

1. Public Citizen: A National Non-Profit Public Interest Organization ñ The North American Free Trade Agreement (http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta)

2. The United States Department of Agriculture: Foreign Agricultural Service (http://www.fas.usda.gov)

3. EjÈrcito Zapatista de LiberaciÛn Nacional ñ (http://www.ezln.org)

4. Widdows, Kealoha, Lecture on International Trade, July 24, 1998 (http://www.wabash.edu/dept/economics/Student%20Resources/Classes/WiddowsEcon10/HTML%20Docs/NAFTAJuly24.html)

5. Zinn, Howard A Peopleís History Of The United States, 1492-Present HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York

6. Brown, Lester R., Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth, W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., New York

7. Schmitz, Gerald, Chiapas and After: The Mexican Crisis and Implications for Canada, The Canadian Library of Parliament (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp384-e.htm)

2005-04-30T00:36:00.000-07:00

*This is a paper I wrote for my political theory class. I decided to post it because its more than a paper. This is the kind of stuff I think about, and I'll continue to revise sections and add more content when I have more time to do so.
The society is called 'Plamilarxoria'(Play-Mill-Arks-OH-Ree-Uh) because of its heavy influence from Plato, (Pla) John Stuart Mill, (Mil) and Karl Marx (Arx). The 'oria' is thrown in there to make it sound like it actually exists. And because I'm a fcking lunatic who gets amusement out of making names like that.

enjoy,
ch4d05

Introduction

As the sands of time pass us by, regimes come and go. Governments are overthrown, Empires crumble, and Rulers have their heads chopped off by their own people. Throughout these regimes, however, there remains for the most part, one thing. The people. The King of France could not have ruled if there was no one to rule over. The United States would never have been founded should there have been no electorate to vote for a President. Regimes may not survive, but the society will. But what is required to allow both to persevere? What is needed to achieve a perfect balance between society and the state? To answer these questions, the writings of some of the most ingenious and influential thinkers in history have been closely examined and in some cases tied in with the following sections. Within these sections lie the necessary restrictions, laws, and governmental authorities to ensure that the balance between society, the state, and the planet is kept at the ideal level.

Section I ñ On Freedoms and Liberties

Going against the belief of John Locke and adopting a view more similar to that of John Stuart Mill or Karl Marx, a society would ideally like a system of macro-constraints and micro-freedoms. To define macro-constraints, the works of both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes on freedoms must be completely thrown out. Macro-constraints, meaning placing laws and restraints on illogical practices to prevent much of which has occurred in the United States of America, such as industry monopolization, use of fossil fuels, and illogically poor treatment of the workforce, and also take measures to prevent universally seen practices such as generational tyranny (passing a tyranny down from generation to generation,) disregard for other societies, lack of economical sustainability, and improper treatment of citizens. . Micro-freedoms, meaning one is free to do not whatever he or she wants, but whatever he or she wants within reason under the law. Inhabitants of Plamilarxoria are free to express themselves in whatever manner they please, be it by assembly, press, speech or religion so long as it does NOT bring harm to any other individual. While the founder(s) of Plamilarxoria may recognize the works of Locke, it is not to be said that we recognize his theories as true, and others as false. Acknowledging the writing of Locke on the State of Nature, it is understood that reason is very highly held in Plamilarxoria. While Lockeís theory on the State of Nature may or may not be true, it has been found that either way, when one fails to use reason, the State of Nature degrades into that which Thomas Hobbes described it as, a state of war.
The primary governing forces in Plamilarxoria are those of logic and reason. Citizens are to have learned critical thinking processes throughout their education in Plamilarxoria. Failing to abide by the laws set forth by the founder(s) of Plamilarxoria may result in banishment, forced labor, public humiliation and/or mockery, or involuntary public service. Abiding by the aforementioned and following regulations ensures inhabitants of Plamilarxoria will be free from oppression of any kind due to sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, creed, sex, or beliefs.

Section II ñ On Platoís Three Great Waves and the Commune as a whole

Platoís writings will have a profound influence on Plamilarxoria. The first two of the Three Great Waves are to be implemented into society, and the third partially implemented. The first wave, treating women as equal to men, would not be hard to overcome should it be implemented in the minds of every member of society at an early age. The second wave Plato described, as he wrote in The Republic, ìThat these women shall all be common to all these men, and that none shall cohabit with any privately, and that the children shall be common, and that no parent shall know its own offspring nor any child its parent.î The abolishment of family may seem unnecessary or over-the-top to some, but steps must be made to ensure that no lasting tyranny can ever be put in place, and this step ensures just that. The third wave, allowing the philosophers to rule as kings, will be half implemented. A council of philosophers, along with councils of various other scholars, will be the rulers. While it may appear to some that this may never allow an issue to reach closure, as long as logic and reason are present in the debate and discussion that these councils will undoubtedly have, there will be solutions to issues.

Section III ñ On The Preservation of the Planet

Being as no society could no exist on Earth if it werenít inhabitable, steps must be taken to ensure the preservation of our environment. Our natural resources must be used sustainably, and this society will not make the mistake that so many have made before, by relying on such finite resources as oil, coal, natural gas, and ethanol to power needed machines and power stations. By using naturally renewable resources, such as solar, wind, or tidal power, it will be ensured that we shall never run out of resources, so long the sun does not explode, wind stop blowing, or sea dry up. As one of the great thinkers of our time, John Stuart Mill, said in Principles of Political Economy, ìOf natural powers, some are unlimited, others limited in quantity.î This society shall use nothing of what Mill refers to as ìlimited in quantity.î
A sustainable planet must also not overpopulate itself. To prevent undesirable occurrences such as overpopulation and urban sprawl, city planners, architects, contractors, and other peoples involved in land development will have to abide by a strict set of rules that minimize the footprint left by this society. In regard to overpopulation, restrictions on childbirth must be made, and birth control widely distributed, regardless of religion or belief.

Section IV ñ On Property

As John Locke said in his Second Treatise Of Government, ìEvery man has a property in his own person; this no body has any right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.î While we agree with Locke that the work of one man is his property, it is better that his property benefit the good of the society, rather than just his own personal gain. As John Stuart Mill said, ìThe greatest good for the greatest number.î There is no better property than that of the society. Every member of the society is property of the society, and the society is the property of ever member of the society. This does not mean the abolishment of property, as some may put it, but the communalization of property. Every individual living in the society helped create it and helps maintain it, and therefore owns it, making it their property. Produced goods are exchanged on a need basis. Those who hold a skill, or their ëproperty,í that is in high demand, will be compensated.

Section V ñ Conclusions and Ratification

It is in these pages that the foundation of a new society, known as Plamilarxoria, is found. Over the course of events, amendments to this document may need to be added, and they shall have to pass approval by the council of philosophers before going into effect. Times change, and in turn the constitution of a society may have to change with them. These laws, restrictions, and liberties are guidelines by which the writers of this constitution feel are necessary to live in a society deemed ideal.