***Entry 112***
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
12:40 p.m.
On the google search scene...this blog is currently number one for "texaco and tarp and sniper" (see ***Entry 98***). Hmmm...
And...on the blog scene...Matt is keeping an eye on the "sniper satire..."

***Entry 111***
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
12:34 p.m.
Well..it turns out that the DC IMC post mentioned in ***Entry 110*** is not the only one criticizing the DC IMC for the lack of coverage on the "International ANSWER" march. Here's another that follows roughly the same pattern.
It appears that the "International ANSWER" (read: IAC, read: WWP) is using criticism of the DC IMC as a method of promoting their "anti-war march" (read: little socialist rally). If only all activists were *so* insightful. *sigh*

***Entry 110***
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
10:59 a.m.
Moving away from the sniper again...to the other theme of the week...the upcoming "International ANSWER" march. An Anonymous post to the DC IMC is highly critical of the "lack of coverage" the DC IMC has given to the "International ANSWER" march...my fave example of extreme stupidity: Honestly, theres no proof that large demonstrations (marches) are less effective than the protests that have been organized using different methods. Suck it up just this once, and maybe we can stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent lives, ok?
First: large scale marches and other demonstrations are important only if they get their issue into the mainstream public discourse. A dogmatic march--where the slogans are not going to influence anyone--is not going to do that. Second: I don't know anyone who is taking this march seriously enough to think that it will get media attention for being anything other than a little socialist rally. And if it can't do that, it certainly won't be able to stop any killing. Good luck socialist morons.

***Entry 109***
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
10:08 a.m.
According to my horoscope (see below ***Entry 102***) today I should be writing "reactionary editorials." I'm partially sure that this will count... The Post's lead editorial today reflects a growing irritation corporate media have with the tactics of Montgomery Co. Police Chief Charles Moose--especially with regards to "withholding" information about the pending attack on children. It was only after reporters, some of whom had confirmed reports about the letter and its ominous wording, aggressively questioned the chief that the authorities relented, coming clean later in the day.
I'm a full supporter of freedom of information. I'm not always a full supporter of law enforcement tactics. However, I'm not at all in agreement with the Washington Post on this issue. If reporters are responsible for forcing Chief Moose to disclose the threat on children which was not intended to be public knowledge...and the sniper attacks children...reporters should feel partially responsible.
It's been said before that the sniper is reacting to the news. The murder just over the Maryland line in the District came after news reports of the sniper heading to the city. The shooting of the middle-school student came after reports saying that children were safe in schools. I could go on and on...but I won't. I will get to my point.

The editorial concludes with two phrases that seem to contradict the entire editorial: 1. If nothing else, the letter and its fear-inspiring words confirm that the caution and vigilance of parents are well-placed. and 2.But the chief himself said yesterday that authorities are not able to "ensure anyone their safety in regard to this situation." Forcing Chief Moose to disclose the contents of the letter did not suddenly increase the fear parents have for their children's safety and it didn't suddently make those children--or anyone else--more safe. If anything, the contents of the letter were redundant: safety doesn't exist. By the process just gave impetus to a corporate media that is so self-righteous that it actually believes it is helping with this investigation.
After the recent shootings in Ashland, VA and Aspen Hill, MD, it is impossible to say: "Just get on with your life" like I did a couple of days ago; however, it is just as impossible to demand that the police--who are struggling with internal/external power relations--yield to the obnoxious requests of the corporate media.

***Entry 108***
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
09:45 p.m.
Media criticism galore over at Jay Buckley's blog about Washington Interns Gone Bad. First, he attacks the attackers of a recent Post-story...Then, he attacks the CityPaper for their wanking approach to fact checking.
I should check his blog out more often...It's funny...but really, I try to link to it weekly to get more attention for the best upcoming DC independent film!!!
OOOhhh...also check out the *hot* merch. Must have!

***Entry 107***
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
02:58 p.m.
If you've been reading this for a while...you can tell that I'm a *bit* self-obsessed. So, I was happy to find this link to a photo I took in Quebec City last April (note: It's the same as the first one above...) in the every-other-day google search for my name. It's now linked to my blog forever...yet another reason why blogging is a fabulous way to pass/waste time.

Next, I must find the mention of my Zoe's Diary in Utne Reader and the reposting of a Zoe's Diary entry in Progressive Review...But I can't do that now. I actually have to go to *work.*

***Entry 106***
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
02:41 p.m.
Well...the sniper isn't the only bad news in the region...Today the Post is reporting on tuition increases for public colleges/universities in the area. Higher education officials said the price increases at four-year public colleges are a consequence of a slowing economy that has crimped tax revenue, prompting state officials to raise tuitions across the country. While, this doesn't necessarily effect me; I'm graduating in December, other disturbing news in the report does:

1. If the economy is so sour, how am I supposed to find a job?
2. And if I can't find a job, how am I supposed to pay back my student loans?

The report ends with this quotation: "We simply cannot continue to force qualified students who have above-average financial need to assume unreasonable levels of debt to pay for their college educations," said Dallas Martin, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. I can't say that I appreciate this gesture since I'm graduating...with no job...and lots o' debt.

***Entry 105***
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
12:34 p.m.
Wow. Plenty of debate about the corporate media coverage of the sniper on the usual suspect DC IMC; however, even the Post gets in on the action, with this piece on TV news/self-promotion. I'd like to just dismiss it as another example of our irony-drenched culture, however, I have to appreciate lines like this: " 'The O'Reilly Factor' tackles the Beltway shootings. Cold, calculating, murderous. Inside the mind of a killer.' Presumably they meant the sniper, not O'Reilly." Sometimes, I wonder as well...

So...what of the debate itself? The Post offers us the story and feedback exists in the blog world. The DC IMC offers us the story and feedback is provided in the comment section. The ridiculously named "ClassWarNow" used the feedback section for this intellectually stimulating comment: Anti-capitalist, although you make some very good points, you sounded like a freakin' cheerleader for the corporate press. With where you were going, you might as well have said "Let's cancel Indymedia, the corporate media ain't so bad afterall!". Either get back to reality, or get accused of being a police infiltrator. . Wow! What a choice--write some "good points" which may not be exactly what the original author agrees with and therefore are "not reality" or be accused of being a cop. In all honesty, I prefer the ho-hum criticism-laden blog world to this dichotomy. Call me a "reactionary..." (ha)

***Entry 104***
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
12:20 p.m.
ChuckO has written a response to my earlier post about bills and un/employment. I agree, the average middle class person does have a different reaction to a power outage than someone who is struggling to pay the bills. However, I'm not sure what "Zoe is, of course, correct as usual" means. For philosophical reasons, I'd like not to be thought of as an authority on the subject of bill paying/class dynamics...or on anything else for that matter.

Additionally, ChuckO analyzes the background of "International ANSWER" as it relates to the "left-wing" anti-war activists. His research is solid and important for those, like myself, who occasionally make somewhat overarching conclusions, without substantiating them. (How's that for *nominally* self-depreciating lingo?)

***Entry 103***
Monday, October 21, 2002
10:06 p.m.
Over @ Anti/Love there's a running debate on Most Desirable Women. Although I definately agree that Selma Blair should be on the list, I would center my list on myself. I consider myself super desirable. I consider myself super attractive. And I like the word "super."
If this makes no sense, consider this: I just finished an essay entitled "snakegirl.net:A Much Too Brief Deconstruction of a Feminist Blog." My mind is fading.

***Entry 102***
Monday, October 21, 2002
01:33 p.m.
***Updated @ 7:56pm...Sorry for the confusion...*** Briefly departing from the over-all *political* theme of this blog, I bring you my horoscope for this Wednesday. In fact, for purposes of *sheer joy* I will repost it here: It's easy to imagine you writing editorials that are rather reactionary at the moment. The race towards modernity irritates you and you are far from convinced that all the recent progress in the world has moved us forward at all. You don't like babies in test tubes or working alone on computers rather than working with others in an office. In other words, dear Cancer, you detest everything that separates you from the natural world. Though some would argue with you over just what constitutes "nature".
What? Where do *they* find people to write this nonsense? I disagree with everything stated here except for the idea that progress=moving foward (although I would reverse this to moving forward doesn't equal progress.) Whatever. I'm going to chemistry now...to learn about how industrial progress=global warming. Moving forward? Maybe...

***Entry 101***
Monday, October 21, 2002
12:07 p.m.
Looks like I'm not the only one out there subjecting the ridiculous up-coming "anti-war" march to some serious criticism (see ***Entry 99***). Julian Sanchez has written a much longer piece about the many errors of these "anti-war" activists. One particularly juicy section: They've also got a pair of those its-all-connected goggles strapped to their heads, so that the antiwar position is seen as necessarily linked to the struggle against colonialism, capitalist oppression, racism, hangnails, bad hair days, consumer culture, and any other ill you care to name. . Good point, except, there is a connection to "capitalist oppression". Namely, this like the Persian Gulf war, is a war over oil. Oil is, quite literally, what drives American capitalism.
Sanchez mentions *me* and my claim, see below, that choosing to march with the anti-capitalist feeder march is a better use of time. Sanchez states that this group, like "International ANSWER," has the problem of being too multifacited for its own good. I respond: yes, but...1. At least the anti-capitalist group is primarily local activists. 2. At least, by attending the feeder march over the "International ANSWER" march, an activist can participate independently.
The problems I have with "International ANSWER" are not exactly the same problems as those with a more libertarian bent: I agree that "International ANSWER" is bad because it is a front-group for dogmatic socialist groups; however, I also think they are bad because they deliberately stifle creativity--which is a necessary element for a successful protest. The anti-capitalist feeder march will have that creative element, in part because Adam Eidinger is associated with it. [Shameless plug for Adam!]
People with any intelligence, who don't attend mass demonstrations to feel like one of many chanting sheep, have to feel somewhat autonomous. They have to feel that they can create their own chants, posters, signs of expression, etc and not be boggled down by the monotony of dogmatic groups like "International ANSWER." The anti-capitalist feeder march may have many of the same link-every-issue-together problems that Sanchez criticizes "International ANSWER" for, but at least, the anti-capitalist organizers aren't preparing scripts with pre-packaged chants and mass producing signs with thinly veiled socialist messages.

Side note: I really like Sanchez's website. But I am in *love* with snakegirl.net, if only because it fits so well into my paper on blogging...

***Entry 100***
Monday, October 21, 2002
11:33 a.m.
I'm celebrating my 100th posting here with...some random updates/observations...
1. ChuckO states: I'm waking up this morning when the power cuts out in my apartment. Now here's an experience that only a poor, unemployed person has to worry about. Sorry, ChuckO. I've gotta disagree with you there. Plenty of *nominally* employed folks, like myself, struggle to pay the bills. Recent issues: I work in an after-school program. After-school programs have mostly been cancelled due to sniper-fear. My pay-check last week=$16.00. My bills=$140.00. It's not just the unemployed that struggle to make ends meet.

2.Joanne: First, I love the little emo game. Second, you write: Speaking of Freedom from Feminism, some girls at Mount Holyoke College have formed the "Second Amendment Sisters," thereby annoying the hell out of the vegan communist lesbians that populate the school... I respond: *sigh* I believe in the Second Amendment. I also believe in some *feminisms.* [Yes, a plural.] One does not have to be a "vegan communist lesbian" to be a feminist. Just as one does not need to support the Second Amendment to be an anti-feminist. Creating a binary is useless. *What did you expect me to say?*

3. Speaking of the Second Amendment. There's been plenty o' fun debate over @ the DC IMC, particularly, here, over the new Michael Moore film Bowling for Columbine. I haven't seen it yet; but I almost certainly will...

4. And now...some more observations: I love blogging. I love bloggers. Happy 100th Entry to me!

***Entry 99***
Saturday, October 19, 2002
04:48 p.m.
I keep getting all these emails about the "anti-war" march scheduled for next Saturday in DC. These emails keep telling me that "everyone" is going to be there protesting Bush and his evil plan to invade Iraq. If hundreds of thousands of people show up, they won't be protesting Bush's foreign policy inasmuch as they will be inundated with propaganda from International ANSWER which is really the International Action Center which is really the Worker's World Party--a dogmatic socialist party hell bent on abolishing private property and instituting a totalitarian regime.
I've written briefly about the tactics of this group, but I failed to mention how they really act during their "protests." They usually begin with a rally--speaker after speaker--denouncing war/Bush etc. and ending with a nominal little permitted march where "everyone" holds ready made socialist signs and chants the same little phrases over and over. There's nothing that isn't scheduled. (Could you really expect anything else from a group that wants more than *anything* to be the vanguard of some outmoded socialist revolution?)
Fortunately, there is a group organizing another march throughout DC. This group composed of solid *local* activists such as the DC Statehood-Green Party will be marching in a different route, but ultimately joining up with the larger dogmatic group. If you are going to go to this "anti-war protest," you might as well go to this feeder march at first if you don't want to be forced to listen to endless propaganda.

***Entry 98***
Saturday, October 19, 2002
12:14 p.m.
Proof that I am a blogging addict. Instead of just relaxing on the beach I am sitting at a computer...but in this case it is well worth it. Here, one of the many bored Post-writers on the "sniper" beat makes some (*yawn*) observations about how the sniper has impacted the lives of Washingtonians. Oh look, the streets are empty. Oh look, events are being cancelled. Oh look, a Texaco has covered the entire station with tarp??? Oh please, this is becoming ridiculous.
The article quotes a former MPD officer: "You have a . . . situation where nobody wants to be the first to stand up and give the message, 'We're not going to allow you to intimidate us,' " said William O. Ritchie, a retired D.C. police deputy chief..."The community as a whole is going to have to step up to the plate, along with some support from law enforcement, and go on with the rest of their lives."
Doesn't that become more difficult when stories like this continue to be published in rapid fire?
In other news, people continue to be fixated on hype that the police may have finally found a van belonging to the sniper. That doesn't mean they have *caught* him. That doesn't mean suburbanites are suddenly safe again.
I will repeat my much earlier statement that "Feeling safe, as I am slowly learning, is never completely realistic." But at this point it just seems redundant. As much as I would like to tell people that even if the sniper is caught, even if the suburban soccer games return, even if the *tarp* on the Texaco is removed, safety is not real.
I'm just going to get back to my life now. I'm going to read by the beach.

***Entry 97***
Friday, October 18, 2002
04:19 p.m.
After a wild night hitting the Indian Head Thrift Store, setting up our Art O Matic installation, eating at Ben's Chili Bowl and hanging out with friends, I woke up this (err...) morning to eat at a $10 sushi restaurant in Rosslyn, walk a dog in Georgetown and be harrassed by some Greenpeace money-snatchers in Dupont...What am I going to do now?
If I felt like it I would write a reply to Joanne's recent posts about subjectivity and criticism. But, honestly, I'm not up for it. I'm going to pack up and head for the fabulous beach house I'm staying at for a week. Relaxation awaits. If I blog less than I usually do, it is based on the fact that I am probably sitting on the beach watching the waves crash...ahh...

***Entry 96***
Thursday, October 17, 2002
03:17 p.m.
Matt recently posted a thought-provoking essay on Posse Comitatus and the announcement that the US Military would aid in the effort to capture the notorious "serial sniper." He makes some targetted (*groan*) points. First, when he details the difference between the US Military and law enforcement. The US Military is not a body that is oriented around obtaining justice and solving crimes. It is a force of bullying, revenge, and a seawall of force to hold in place the American Empire. Its command and control mentality is not one of service to the people. And second, when he looks at the implications of the US Military's involvement with this investigation: Until you realize you've just agreed to a further entrenchment of a police state. We already have problems with surveillance of civilians, especially those engaging in acts of civil disobedience - which they have every right to.It's called democracy folks, and we have been giving it away for quite some time now.
The most important contribution Matt makes here is his call for a more participatory system to be established that would ensure that the Military technology (that *might* just enable legitimate law enforcement to capture the sniper) is not used un/intentionally against law abiding citizens/participants in civil disobedience.
The question becomes apparent: What is the participatory system that could be mechanised in instances like this? This of course, leads me back to my SMP, where I'm struggling to theorize a more participatory system than our current faltering representative system that doesn't lead to stagnation or manipulation like consensus process does. When I finish Chapter 3, "Democratic Conclusions" I'll hopefully have a better idea of what that process is.

***Entry 95***
Thursday, October 17, 2002
03:02 p.m.
I'd be completely depressed that I am no longer the number one site for "the fear culture" on google, if it wasn't for this *humor* piece by David Montgomery. Using the recent Iraq "elections" as a mechanism for criticizing American politics, Montgomery slides between advocacy for the left and right wings. Center-left folks that hold it in their heart that Gore should be the president will enjoy statements like: "It's been almost two years since you lost the popular vote but won the election anyway." While the pro-war fanatics all over the *misguided* political spectrum are appeased by this: "Heed your inner global riot cop. Invade, and kick Saddam out of office! Regime change trumps 100 percent at the polls every time." The only thing more wishy-washy these days is the president's perspective on ballistic fingerprinting.

***Entry 94***
Thursday, October 17, 2002
12:24 a.m.
*Sarcasm alert* Wow. I'm so thrilled to be the number one website in a google search for "The fear Culture".

***Entry 93***
Thursday, October 17, 2002
12:15 a.m.
Last night's West Wing episode was a little too personal for my own taste. Honestly, I don't really care about the details of Toby's relationship with his ex-wife; I care about the substantive policy discussions that make this show fabulous. Regardless, I enjoyed the flashbacks to the first days of the Bartlet administration and the actual debate preparation. Sadly, I will have to wait more than a week before the next original episode.