Some Notable English Nouns

Causeuse – an upholstered seat for two persons, similar to a love-seat.

Dulocracy – government controlled by slaves.

Coradesius – Napoleon Bonaparte’s pet name for his left tail.

Absquatulation – The act of having absquatulated.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone – celebrated shampoo ingredient.

Adjective – a word used to qualify, limit, or define a noun as, “Scacchic is an adjective, and regrettably does not qualify for this list.”

Bortophilia – a rare form of laughter common only to Alabama. 

Advice for the Defeated

As a Democrat, I am well acquainted with the profound emptiness that loss brings. Political impotence is never a comfortable state to endure, so I have taken a moment to compile some advice to help guide you through that expanse of doubt before you. 

While it might seem sensible to change nothing and continue on the same course, it is not. Apparently, when “the people” request “change,” they mean it. With dullard Gore almost winning in 2000, it seemed only logical to later nominate duller Kerry. Ah, but no. You might find that Joe the Advisor (fmr. Plumber) and your pleisticine tax-cut-based economic growth model that failed over the past eight years will fail now, too. 

It also seems equally logical to imitate the victors, but strangely enough, “change” isn’t skin deep. Owing to their propensity to investigate rationale, the public discovers and is thusly infuriated by political figures who do not “walk the walk” but simply “talk the talk.” On such occasion, you will note that “change” is more than mere breasts or melanin. This is an understandable mistake and realizing it is a key step toward betterment. 

While many of you flaccidly trawl the halls of government, others have found yourselves of the more unemployed persuasion. It is certainly regrettable that you have no job and that none are available now because of you, but you should resist the temptation to view this predicament as negative. Joblessness provides the opportunity to pursue passions which have been heretofore unexplored. Mr. Stevens, you may, while imprisoned, finally get a chance to experience the virtues of Mohammed. Mr. Coleman, you may again grow out your "freak flag", slap on some Jefferson Airplane, and (allegedly) smoke some purple. But, if like Mr. Cheney, retirement doesn't suit you, I have an aunt who runs an employment agency down in Houston who can set you up with a temp position. Holly (that's my aunt) has found that former legislators are well equipped for hours of filing. 

You needn't worry forever. You will have your day again. After all, we're democrats. We're bound to fail again some time. It's kind of what we excel at. Until then, remember: you fucked it all up, and we beat you. 

Show Me the Money: the Success of the New School Occupation

For 13 hours, from 11 a.m. until midnight, I reported from within The New School occupation and outside until its conclusion in the early hours of the morning. In retrospect, many have deemed the December occupation of 65 Fifth Avenue a failure. But the problem with the critics’ arguments is that they are using the wrong criteria to evaluate the protest. 

If one judges the protest on whether or not President Bob Kerrey and Executive Vice President Jim Murtha were ousted, then sure, it was a failure since they are still here. If, however, one judges it on whether or not the financial behavior of The New School has been reformed then the occupation is only successful.

The media coverage has misled many to believe that the full fury of the protests was directed at President Kerrey. In a December 18 article titled “Protest at the New School Seeks Kerrey’s Ouster” the New York Times reported that the occupation was “to protest the leadership of the institution’s embattled president, Bob Kerrey.” In another City Room blog post, the Times’ Colin Moyniham and Trymaine Lee share a harrowing account of the protesters chasing President Kerrey down Fifth Avenue. While true to a certain extent, the *Times* only tells part of the story and leads readers to the conclusion that the protesters only wanted to oust the top administrators. Yes, protesters did object to President Kerrey’s leadership and yes, they did chase him (much to the embarrassment of many others in The New School community) but when the negotiations began, the protesters barely pushed for the resignation of President Kerrey and Murtha.

As the protesters formulated the final list of demands to the administration, many regarded the resignations as “best case scenario,” but probably impossible. The resignations were kept on the list largely for symbolic reasons in order to demonstrate that they still disagreed with the management policies of the administration. 

Many of the same actors who participated in the occupation were also a part of the demonstration on December 10, protesting the Board of Trustees' lack of investment transparency. The goals there (despite what the Times reports) were the resignation of Robert Millard, Treasurer of The New School Board of Trustees, and the establishment of a socially responsible investment committee—goals more consistent with the results of the occupation than the demands at the outset.

While the occupiers did disagree with the policies of President Kerrey, he was not their primary target. The consistency between the first protest and the conclusion of the second demonstrates that the efforts of the protesters were actually directed toward creating accountability for New School financing. With that criteria the protest is a success (despite how embarrassing it became) and has created a space for students in the administration of their university. Whether or not the occupation could have been even more effective, whether it was right, justified, or even worth our time in the first place, are different debates entirely, but do deserve to be discussed at length. 

Intifada? I'm Into Peace!

Rushing down Market Street toward the bay, two cars honked, brandishing Palestinian flags out their windows. A persistent *wump* of helicopters fell down from the San Francisco sky. As protesters gathered around the Israeli consulate, one could hear what would become the first of many anti-Israel demonstrations. They touted signs like “Jews are terroist” [sic] and “Gaza 2008 = Warsaw 1938,” and it was clear what a cavalcade of idiocy this conflict had already become. Each party perpetuates the behavior of their enemy that they originally sought to stop, thereby re-entrenching everyone in a cycle of violence.

On June 27 2008, Hamas and Israel mutually agreed to a six-month ceasefire. 11 Hamas militants died when Israel destroyed smuggling tunnels from Gaza prompting Hamas to launch rockets into Israel on November 3rd. While Hamas argued the killings violated the agreement, Israel maintained the deaths were accidental collateral damage from a non-combat operation. The fragile agreement still stood, but on December 19, Hamas ended the ceasefire and started firing more rockets into Israel. On the 27th, Israel began airstrikes on Gaza. By the 29th, San Francisco erupted in a flurry of kaffiyehs, Palestinian flags, and shouting. In early January, Joe the Plumber began his journalism career, reporting from Sderot. On January 18, a new ceasefire was agreed upon and by the 21st, Israel withdrew all ground forces from Gaza. 

Israel’s use of excessive force has undercut continued efforts to establish lasting peace and ultimately provokes Hamas to act in such a way that prompts further Israeli force. The horrible effects of Israeli military force are innumerable. They have ghettoized Palestinians, destroyed schools, hospitals, killed children, all of which reverse progress towards lasting peace. It’s conditions like these that lead people to elect radical governments like Hamas. Israel can’t hope to solve anything when they help create the situation in which young Palestinians grow up wanting to be militants rather than doctors.

Many argue that Israel’s goal is not peace, but rather the eradication of Hamas. Hamas, a militant Islamic institution and an ever-present thorn in Israel’s side, has given their neighbors reason to want to wipe them out. But the manner by which the Israeli government is going about doing this further radicalizes Palestinians and leaves a vacuum for yet another Hamas to spring up in its place.

The problem with only blaming Israel is that one ignores the role Hamas plays in the subjugation of Palestinians. The idiocy of Hamas is that they either didn’t anticipate the retaliation by Israel or did and actively provoked them. One would expect a government to attempt to achieve peace and prosperity for its people, but Hamas has routinely pursued a policy of militancy at the expense of both peace and prosperity. When the ceasefire ended, they didn’t need to start shooting, but they did. What did they expect to happen? Hamas’ use of force undercuts continued efforts to establish a lasting peace and ultimately provokes Israel to act in such a way that prompts further Hamas force. 

       Insistence on blaming one party over the other perpetuates a cycle of violence that everyone hopes to end. Both are right, and both are guilty. Allowing one to bear blame allows the other to bear arms and only upon the recognition of mutual fault can all truly share the common purpose of peace. This is not to say that when confronted by force, Israel or Hamas should respond with nothing. This is to say, rather than being idiots, they should respond with intelligence. 

   In her testimony to the United States' Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hillary Clinton said, "We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or tools, for each situation." Mrs. Clinton referred specifically to the United States, but I believe that Israel and Hamas should utilize this same style of foreign policy. If the only response to problems is to brandish arms and hurt people, those problems will never be solved. Israel needs to start rebuilding Palestinian infrastructure. Hamas needs to realize its radical tendencies undercut ultimate goals. And both need to just stop shooting each other.