The Cineplex has now become a red/blue battleground and movies are now political debates. Both the left and right tried to claim “Knocked Up” (while I’ll grant the movie does have a unique twist on family values, I just don’t think the conservative case is merited).

However, I actually think no movie unless it’s produced by Sean Hannity is truly partisan. Recently the right-wing has desperately tried to wave up And recently the right-wing has desperately tried to portray“Rescue Dawn” as a pro-war film. It’s supposed to show how strong and resilient American soldiers are. He’s a pilot! He’s fighting in a war! He’s a POW! He’s eating maggots to survive! Heck, there was even a fourth of July screening of the movie for the troops at Camp Anaconda.

And this, my friends, is not right. Personally I think this movie is a lot more complex than good old fashioned Democrat v. Republican. But you don’t leave the theater thinking “Wow, this sure is a Blue State movie” or “Wow, This makes me want to vote for Rudy Giuliani.” You leave the theater THINKING. The movie makes you ponder about Iraq, Gitmo, and all the atrocities that humans commit everyday. But most importantly it challenges you. So I hesitate to call it progressivism because I doubt that’s what director Werner Herzog intended.

But after seeing this movie I certainly feel all the more anti-war than ever. And that my friends, is a progressive victory.

Last random thought of the day (courtesy of Bill Maher).

Isn’t it funny that the only major Republican candidate who has only been married once is the Mormon?

A look at Stanley Kurtz's wack analysis at the National Review Online provides a clue:

Here we arrive at one of the central difficulties of America’s immigration debate. Mention immigration and many of us conjure up hallowed memories of our ancestors passing through Ellis Island — and of America’s stirring, centuries-long immigration success story. America’s melting-pot is unquestionably one of this country’s great historic triumphs.

Yet the reality of that achievement too easily blinds us to the fact that not all immigration stories end happily. In an era when the assimilationist ethos has been challenged by multiculturalism, when travel, telephones, and satellite dishes continuously link immigrants with homes half-way round the world, and when the cultural gap between immigrant and host cultures can turn into a chasm, we cannot take immigration success for granted.

Nor can pro-family Christians be properly accused of hypocrisy for thinking twice about promoting Asian or Middle-Eastern family values — if those values are radically different from their own. Polygamy? Cousin marriage? Extended clans held together by transnational arranged marriages? If anything these practices (encouraged by permissive family-reunification policies) are seriously undermining Western family values in Europe. Yet neither the pro-family lobby — nor anyone else in America — seems to understand the cultural disaster family-reunification laws have wrought in Europe.

Talk about ugly nativism.  The belief that immigrant groups must assimilate to (white) U.S. culture in order to achieve "success"  not only pervades conservative thought, but taints even the philosophies of socially progressive icons like Jane Addams.  But while Kurtz's horrified enumeration of brown people's scandalous family values stinks of racism, it also reveals something important: American reunification laws have always only formally recognized and validated a certain kind of family.  If you're a queer Argentinian who wants to 'reunite' with your lover in the States, sorry -- you're out of luck.  Our system is designed for the respectable, "real" families requiring preservation in order to thrive in communities conforming to the American ideal.  (One wonders whether assimilation to U.S. family norms means filing for divorce after a few years.)  Kurtz is concerned that the sneaky heathens will game the system, finding ways around the regulated marriage standards.  But for progressives, the system's setup is troubling in itself.

From the legacy of the Moynihan Report to legislation barring gay couples from adopting, the politics of the family remain rife with racism, sexism, classism, colonialism, and heterosexism. Where white immigration is concerned, heterosexuality (reproductive heterosexuality, really) figures hugely into our treasured legends of the "huddled masses," disembarking on U.S. shores with hope in their eyes and babies in their arms.  On the flip side, racist, alarmist strains of environmentalism have accused brown immigrants of breeding like rabbits and degrading precious U.S. ecosystems.  Both legends, and more, shape and are shaped by our heteronormative legal systems.  It's not all bad news: slowly, ideas about family are assuming more flexible and heterogeneous forms, which is great.  But we've got a long way to go.  As we oppose the attack on family reunification policies, let's be aware of which loaded fantasies we're marshalling in order to make our point. 

So 500,000 people were apprehended by the Border Patrol in Arizona in 2005, which made up 50% of the apprehensions nationwide - partially, because enforcement was heavily focused on California and Texas and left the stretch of Arizona's border badly underaddressed. It's the fastest growing state in the US (who knew?) and spends a great deal of its time and energy dealing with immigration when it should probably be responding to its severe water shortages and serious transportation problems. For a governor, immigration is especially frustrating - the state spends $357 million per annum to imprison undocumented immigrants for various offenses, which could be used to fund all-day kindergarten for every child in Arizona for two years instead. (I gathered that Janet prefers the latter.)

Even for people who are on the fence, I felt like she made a pretty convincing case. If immigration isn't addressed in some form or another this year, it's certainly not going to be addressed during an election year, or in the midst of all the political appointments in 2009, or the midterm elections in 2010. And if something isn't done, the states are going to do it on their own, which leaves the door open for fifty different policies that would basically create a total disaster for businesses, immigrants, the federal government, taxpayers, and citizens who don't want the southwest to turn into a crazy police state. That said, I get that it's a much bigger issue for the vocal 25% of the people who oppose it than it is for many of its supporters, that support on the left is watered down by the valid concerns of unions and other groups, and that that puts lawmakers in an odd position. The bill's not perfect, but it's better to work with something on the books than it is to throw up your hands and do nothing.

I also find it highly amusing that the various janitors and security guards don’t go on hunger strikes - just kids from the mom-got-me-an-SAT-tutor set.

Ooh — double zing! Impugning workers’ courage and tucking in a classic pampered-rich-kid jab. Never mind that most of the security guards (not janitors; this was a guard battle) risked their jobs fighting for recent unionization, and helped tip the scales in these negotiations by preparing to strike. Or that some of the hunger striking kids come from families that struggle to put food on the table. Although Harvard students are certainly disproportionately wealthy by national standards, our financial aid programs have improved in recent years to make room for many more students from low-income backgrounds. And — surprise! — those are the kids who tend to care about things like a living wage. Shocking, I know.

if you keep giving in to hunger strikes by economically ignorant, self-important, 19 year old hippies, then you will get more hunger strikes by economically ignorant, self-important, 19 year old hippies.

Ah, yes. ‘If you give a mouse a cookie…eventually you’ll wind up bankrupt. And beseiged by soliciting rodents.’

Care to offer any evidence of this strike-proliferation threat? It doesn’t seem to bear out historically. The last time Harvard students waged a major campaign around a living wage was six years ago, and they occupied a building. These kids just stopped eating to bring attention to the cause. And guess what? It worked. Not only were these tactics far tamer than their predecessors’, the idea that the hunger strike would inspire a wave of copycats is just laughably naive. For a population supposedly so keen on imitating victories, we seldom threaten to blow up Widener Library — the tact that won us our Black Studies department back in ‘69. Besides, anyone who’s spent time at Harvard college lately knows that when it comes to disruptive campus activism, there’s typically a whole lotta talk and not a ton of action. Few groups are organized and committed enough to pull off anything big, and fewer still manage to generate the kind of buzz that the Stand For Security coalition did. (Which is why news of the hunger strike even reached you in the first place, right?) No need to fret over Ivy League anarchy just yet, trust me.

There’s “depth of passion” for you - students who demand social change so strongly that they’ll accomplish it by any means necessary, man!!!…as long as it doesn’t result in a suspension, or being dragged.

Here’s a nutty ‘Lefty economics’ idea: seeking to minimize cost while maximizing benefit. Students wanted to attract attention to the campaign and symbolically highlight the terrible consequences of Harvard’s low wages. But they wouldn’t be much good to the cause if they got themselves kicked out of school. Hence the hunger strike, part of a series of other tactics including daily rallies, nightly vigils, phone lobbying, blogging, and targeted civil disobedience, all with the support of an enormous student group coalition. Sadly, it seems these meticulously planned efforts fail to meet your standards of activist martyrdom.

Phew. Seems I’ve gone and gotten all longwinded. Chalk it up to Harvard arrogance, I guess. Anyway, thanks for giving me the chance to reflect on our (successful) campaign. If you have any serious suggestions as to how we can best support the workers in our community, I would love to hear them.

On Checkraise:

As one of the Harvard Lefty Loonies (though not one of the hunger strikers), it warms my heart to see that folks I've never even met feel so connected to me and my cohorts. So connected, in fact, that they know all about our economic and political views: "Thats whats so pathetic about these kinds of kids;" "They proclaim," "They dont see," etc.

What do I "proclaim" about U.S. illegal immigration? Well, I observe that major businesses favor and facilitate it because undocumented workers are easier to exploit. As a native Californian, I'm aware that my state's service economy pretty much runs on undocumented labor. And I forsee no end to illegal immigration as long as the huge wealth disparities between the U.S. and Central American countries persist. As for harms inflicted on the middle class, I think if you see outsourcing as a problem threatening job security for white collar workers, then you should demand that the government enforce higher labor standards in U.S. corporations' transnational dealings.

As for Ilkka's suggested alumni worker fund, while we're at it, why don't we make faculty and administrators' health care services contingent upon alums' goodwill and generosity? Even if graduates could earmark their donations (which most of them can't -- you've gotta be a real big-shot), Harvard should still pay its workers a living wage at minimum, period. A living wage, people. The sky will not fall; the global economy will not crash. Then we can talk about going above and beyond with auxiliary contributions.

I'm genuinely curious, though: where do y'all get these ideas about Harvard lefties, anyway? How many have you actually met? Did you read something in the Crimson that rubbed you the wrong way?

Snark aside, it's certainly important to evaluate the successes and failures of the overall campaign in order to elevate our activism in the future.  I don't take these bloggers' criticisms very seriously because they're short on facts.  On the other hand, a lot of folks like Jess, who paid close attention to the campaign as it was going down, may have valuable insights.  It would be unwise, in my opinion, to rule out altogether the use of disruptive tactics in campus activism -- struggles involving enormous power imbalances nearly always require it.  Still, I think we could use some fresh ideas for the escalation period.  How do we gain popular support over time, so that when push comes to shove and more extreme measures are necessary, we can count on more solidarity than division?

on apathy:

In France I thought I would find rest. I found only a bad conscience. Every day the newspapers brought news of arrests and firings of friends of mine. Every fresh item of news depressed me more. I felt even more useless. I tried to fight, to stir up reactions of protest among those around me, to make them understand. It was wasted effort. The Parisians had their minds only on their evenings out, on the plays they wanted to see, on their vacations that had to be planned three months ahead of time. I found myself detesting them, despising all those French-men who sent their sons off to torture people in Algeria and cared about nothing but their little shops. [from the testimony of Charles Geromini, quoted by Fanon]

on protecting "our" way of life against "theirs":

Th[e] racism that aspires to be rational, individual, genotypically and phenotypically determined, becomes transformed into cultural racism. The object of racism is no longer the individual man but a certain form of existing. At the extreme, such terms as "message" and "cultural style" are resorted to. "Occidental values" oddly blend with the already famous appeal to the fight of the "cross against the crescent."

on the (im)possibility of a more humane imperialism:

The Frenchmen who cry out against torture, or deplore its extension, inevitably remind one of those sensitive souls described by a certain philosopher, and the label of "tired intellectuals" that their compatriots Lacoste and Lejeune attach to them is very pertinent. One cannot both be in favor of the maintenance of French domination in Algeria and opposed to the means that this maintenance requires.

on counting only "our" costs:

When the French intellectuals ... repeat in chorus "that there is at the present time a vast campaign of dehumanization of French youth," or deplore the fact that the French recruits "are learning fascism," one cannot fail to note that only the moral consequences of these crimes on the soul of the French are of concern to these humanists. The gravity of the tortures, the horror of the rape of little Algerian girls, are perceived because their existence threatens a certain idea of French honor.

On the dawn of the fourth year of the war of national liberation, ... the French Left was more and more conspicuous by its absence. Some took refuge in silence; others chose certain themes, which reappear periodically. The Algerian war must end for it is too costly (the Algerian war is again becoming unpopular, simply because it costs 1200 billion francs)... In France it is becoming less and less clear why the Algerian war must end. People forget more and more that France, in Algeria, is trampling popular sovereignty underfoot, flouting the right of peoples to self-determination, murdering thousands of men and women.

on the West "spreading" democracy:

For us Algerians, the triumph of democracy does not depend solely on the Western world since it is actually this same Western world that challenges its values.

toward a new humanism:

And what the West has in truth not understood is that today, a new humanism, a new theory of man is coming into being, which has its root in man ... The fact is that the Egyptian fellahs and the Indonesian boys, whom Western writers like to feature in their exotic novels, insist on taking their own destiny into their hands and refuse to play the role of an inert panorama that had been reserved for them.

on what every imperial power believes withdrawal will bring:

Apparently without effort, he [referring to Micheal Debré, then head of the French government] rediscovers the great principles of ultra-colonialism: "What will the Algerians do without us?" The settlers of the Mitidja used to say, and still say: "These vineyards, in four years, will turn into swamps." What Mr. Debré says is no different: "They want to give Algeria over to wretchedness, barbarism, and drown it in blood."

and finally, a rousing call-to-arms (addressed to a French citizen):

Don't push me too far. Don't force me to tell you what you ought to know, sir. If YOU do not reclaim the man who is before you, how can I assume that you reclaim the man that is in you? If YOU do not want the man who is before you, how can you believe the man that is perhaps in you? If YOU do not demand the man, if YOU do not sacrifice the man that is in you so that the man who is on earth shall be more than a body, more than a Mohammed, by what conjurer's trick will I have to acquire the certainty that you, too, are worthy of my love?

Except it was the best analogy! As everybody knows, Clinton was booed at last year's TBA for arguing that it was unwise to set timetables for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Since then, she's embraced a withdrawal date and voted against the supplemental bill that would offer additional funding for the war, but I think everyone still expected that Code Pink would be showing up and protesting her original authorization vote. (It was also like 7:30am, and they had really heavy muffins at the continental breakfast, so my perception might have been dulled.)

From reading the coverage of her speech, you'd think that she was crucified on stage. I actually thought WaPo and the Nation did a better job of covering the whole thing, because it wasn't as bad as most outlets made it seem. People definitely booed when she blamed the Iraqi government for dropping the ball on the whole reconstruction thing (which is no surprise, because that's totally asanine), but it wasn't close to a majority of the crowd, and they were pretty quickly drowned out by applause and cheering from supporters, a few of whom gave her a standing ovation. And there were a lot of people - myself included - who just kind of sat there and hoped that there wouldn't be a riot before we'd had coffee.

Obviously, it's dumb to blame the Iraqis for not cleaning up the massive devastation that we wreaked on their country, or for being unable to handle a sectarian conflict that wouldn't be quite so violent if we hadn't blown everything up and turned it into a war zone. But everything except for that paragraph on Iraq was pretty well-received, and I thought the majority of the coverage did a shamefully bad job of making that clear. I wasn't really all that thrilled with her foreign policy platform, but her delivery was better and more passionate than I expected (and her endgame was absolutely beautiful).

More than anything, I wish that someone had picked up on the tension between the people who were there to support Hillary's domestic platform - especially women's rights - and those who seized on her record on Iraq. Obviously, a lot of people felt strongly about both, but I was all prepared for a pointedly domestic agenda when Ellen Malcolm introduced Clinton by touting her credentials on women's issues and conspicuously downplayed the war. You wouldn't know that by reading the coverage of the Code Pink protesters, who were vocal about her position on the war and didn't have much at all to say about her domestic agenda. I guess I had hoped that with all of the media outlets covering the speech, someone would have focused on something other than the flare-up of boos, and at least covered something else that she addressed - like today's stem cell veto, for example - where she, the audience, and America were very much on the same page. I definitely wasn't ready to hop on board with Clinton after this morning, but I also walked away feeling like we're sidelining issues like global warming, poverty, healthcare, reproductive rights, and civil liberties by being so narrow-minded about what is and isn't a dealbreaker for 2008.