Nancy Pelosi Is No Feminist

Nancy Pelosi is no feminist.  Despite how much liberals and self proclaimed “progressives” will elevate her and celebrate her, Pelosi is a traitor to the cause of feminism.

Pelosi showed the world that she and the old guard of the democratic party are agents of the patriarchy when she encouraged Katie Hill to resign.

Katie Hill, a bi-sexual congressperson, resigned recently because of a wave of online bullying from the right wing.  Hill is going through a divorce and her ex-husband has been posting revenge porn in a series of nude pictures of Katie Hill which have been making their rounds on the internet.

Her ex posted these photos to get back at Hill for sleeping with someone else. In addition to the photos, Hill had an affair with one of her female staffers.  Democrats and Republicans alike are calling this an abuse of power, and Democrats and Republicans alike hyper scrutinized her and bullied her into resigning.

Pelosi was one of these bullies.

Pelosi said that Hill is doing the right thing by resigning, because “We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the congress.”

This is coming from someone who still regularly meets with Bill Clinton.

Hill did technichally violate ethics rules by having an affair with a staffer, yet we have a wave, some would call it an epidemic, of republican men who have affairs and ignore subpoenas, but instead of going after them Pelosi shames a member of her own party into resigning based on some outdated tropes about sex!?  The rules against having affairs with staffers is outdated garbage. You can’t control people’s sexualities with arbitrary rules. People in close quarters (dorms, offices etc) end up fucking, DEAL WITH IT! I could care less who and how congress people fuck as long as it’s consensual.

What kind of feminist enables slut shaming and sex negativity?  What kind of feminsit enables revenge porn? What kind of feminist refuses to stand with a bi-sexual woman being bullied out of her job?  What kind of feminist enables patriarchal forces by refusing to go after the estranged ex husband who is posting nude pictures WITHOUT CONSENT!?

No kind of feminist, that is who.

By asking Hill to resign Pelosi did two things: 1. Perpetuated the sex negative cultural norms that are inherent in our society, norms that are intent on controlling womens sexualities.  2. Pelosi demonstrated that liberals are selective with their solidarity and lack an intersectional lens when it comes to fighting oppression.

Our society’s out dated sexual tropes and fear of sex exist only to control women, period.  What we have here is a case of slut shaming, and what is worse is Pelosi, a so called feminist, is enabling it!

A true feminist would never tolerate an act of revenge porn, nor would they ever turn their back on a queer person being bullied, nor would they ever enable slut shaming.

Pelosi literally did all three.

What I find especially infuriating is the idiotic loyalty so many liberal “feminists” have to her.  They think she is some sort of beacon of hope to women because she occasionally gets snidy with Donald Trump.  Well, she at least does that when she isn’t giving him a standing ovation at his speeches.

Pelosi was one of the people to applaud Donald Trump’s state of the union when he said, “America will never be socialist.”  Call me nearsighted if you must, but I think anyone who applauds Donald Trump, a rapist, at any point should have their feminist cards revoked.

Liberals need to stop “yas Queen”-ing Pelosi.  Pelosi is not standing up for feminism and she never will.  Pelosi would rather protect her crappy, unpopular party from scandal than stand in solidarity with one of the most oppressed identities in her party.  That is one of the most infuriating things and one of the things demonstrating how out of touch Pelosi is, there is no actual scandal here. Most people don’t give a crap who politicians sleep with anymore as long as it is consensual.  She didn’t call for Bill Clinton to resign in 1998, why is she encouraging Hill to resign?

I do not care that Hill took naked photos, it’s 2019, we all have smartphones, if you haven’t taken at least one naked photo then i feel sorry for you.  Live more!

Further, Hill engaged in a consensual affair to escape a loveless, abusive marriage.  I see no scandal in that. So long as we have a president who is a rapist, and facing accusations of raping teenagers with Jeffery Epstein I might add, then I see no scandal in anything Hill did.  I see a scandal in how the democratic party handled the situation.

It doesn’t matter if you love Pelosi, it cannot be denied that by encouraging Hill’s resignation Pelsoi perpetuated and defended the sexist cultural constructs and institutions which perpetuate the patriarchy.  By not standing with Hill Pelosi has revealed how liberal “feminists” are selective in their solidarity.

You cannot call yourself a feminist if you protect the same institutions that enable patriarchy. By enabling slut-shaming, revenge porn, and refusing to stand in solidarity with a bullied bi-sexual woman, Pelosi has protected patriarchy.

Nancy Pelosi is not a feminist, period.  Liberals need to pick better heroes.

A poem for Liz Warren

Roses are red.

Violets are blue.

To the shame of this nation.

Warren gave Trump a standing ovation.

Love Them or Hate Them, You Need to Learn Robert’s Rules

Disclaimer: I try to avoid talking about internal DSA matters on this blog. Usually I save these articles for DSA specific publications. However, this topic comes up so much in my life that it would be bad for my mental health if I didn’t speak up on this.

Article upon article has been written about them and DSA members debate about them constantly.

Practically every single DSA member has an opinion about them.

Some love them, some hate them.

Some will say they are the only way to run a truly democratic meeting. Some say it has too much jargon, others see no problem with the jargon at all.

Everyone in DSA, has an opinion about Robert’s Rules.

But whether you love them or hate them, the DSA has an obligation to make our members the most effective organizers we possibly can, therefore the DSA is obliged to teach Robert’s Rules to all of its members through workshops, classes, and yes, by using them in general meetings.

No matter how you feel about Robert’s Rules there is one simple factor that is continually overlooked; knowledge of Robert’s Rules makes one a better organizer.

This does not mean that to be a good organizer one must use Robert’s Rules in every single meeting they run, that is a false equivalency. It means that teaching our members Robert’s Rules prepares them to organize outside the realms of DSA and therefore increase the odds that our members can go outside of our organization to bring more people into our campaigns.

We at DSA want to increase our membership AND we want our members to go into their own communities to organize for the cause of socialism. We want them to become active in their unions, their churches, and other organizations which are ripe for radical organizing.

We also want our members to run for office, do we not?

Well, if you don’t want to teach our members Robert’s Rules but still want them to go into these communities to build socialism, here are some realities you must face:

Most unions use Robert’s Rules in their assemblies.

Most churches, when at convention, use Robert’s Rules.

Most social organizations, such as Toastmasters and even homebrewer associations, use Robert’s Rules.

And literally, every single level of public office, from city council to congress, uses Robert’s Rules.

I understand the need to make Robert’s Rules more accessible to DSA members, I even understand the disdain some have for them because of its bulky emphasis on dated jargon. If we are going to use them in DSA meeting spaces then we do owe it to our members to prepare them for that fact. We owe it to our members to make our meetings accessible, any emphasis on Robert’s Rules should be on the procedural structure they offer, not on the jargon which can be dense and off-putting.

It is also fair to expect most people you are meeting with do not know Robert’s Rules very well since our education system does not bother to teach basic civics. However it is unfair to our members to enable their ignorance on a topic that is so inherent to modern civics. Letting them sit with this ignorance of what is the most universally used parliamentary procedure will only hold them back from being more participatory in the community institutions where they could potentially radicalize.

A common argument against Robert’s Rules is that they are too easily exploited to use for sabotage. Some will refer to the DSA convention and how Robert’s Rules was being extorted to slow procedure so that certain factions could push their agendas. People who make this argument also tend to push for the idea that we should create an alternative to Robert’s Rules.

However, who is to say that the people who develop this alternative system wouldn’t then use the new rules to their advantage? Isn’t it more undemocratic to use a system only a few comprehensively understand than one that is universally applied and accessible? That is the argument of the anti Robert’s Rules side yet I find it much less accessible to use a new system created by a handful of people and will only be applicable to certain meeting spaces than a system that is used so universally. Further, I can think of no greater undemocratic advantage than being the one who both writes and understands the rules.

Rewriting the rules does not change the fact that anyone who understands the rules can then use them unethically. That is the problem with rules in general, the people who know them the best will always have the advantage. Creating an alternative to Robert’s Rules will not change that fact. If anything it will make the lack of accessibility to DSA procedure even worse because knowledge of the rules will no longer be universally accessible, it will be in the hands of the few who create the new system.

I concede that I do think finding an alternative to Robert’s Rules is possible, however it is a grandiose task that I think in the long run distracts us and perpetuates the issues of excessive procedure. In other other words, this attempt to create a more accessible system actually just makes matters more complicated. The task of creating an alternative that is as comprehensive as Robert’s Rules is daunting. What is easier, teaching people some already existing jargon or developing a whole new system and teaching and implementing that system? I argue the former is easier. Also, even if a new system is created there is no way to prevent its use for exploitation. Knowing the rules always puts one in a position of advantage, even if you change them and make them less dependent on jargon.

However, as stated at the beginning of the article, learning Robert’s Rules isn’t just for the benefit of running DSA meetings. We hold our members back from going outside of DSA to organize if we don’t teach them Robert’s Rules.

When we use Robert’s Rules in DSA meetings it is not just to maintain order it is to teach and prepare our members for attending and participating in meetings outside of DSA. If we want our members to radicalize their unions and churches, or to be in a position where they can run for public office with confidence, then we must teach them Robert’s Rules.

People should also understand that learning Robert’s Rules and supporting their use are totally separate things. Understanding something and supporting it are not the same. You do not have to love Robert’s Rules, but that will not change the fact that you are at a serious disadvantage if you do not know them, and this disadvantage WILL be used by the capitalists against you.

We must teach our members Robert’s Rules, and we cannot just teach them through classes and workshops. I am a former teacher and I sincerely believe that the best way to learn is through practice, so we should use Robert’s Rules to give our members that practice.

Robert’s Rules is not just about keeping order, their use in DSA spaces will make members better organizers because it will prepare our members with information they can use to their advantage.

You can hate Robert’s Rules for whatever reason, but if you are against teaching it to DSA members then the fact is you are against seeing fellow DSA members organize outside of the realms of DSA. We can’t send our members into the realms of organizing without every possible tool at their disposal, and whether you love them or hate them, it cannot be denied that Robert’s Rules is a very common tool.

It also cannot be denied that one who knows Robert’s Rules has an advantage when in meeting spaces that use them. The DSA should be intent on giving our members every advantage possible.

The importance of learning and teaching Robert’s Rules can be summed up in a quote from the late South African president and skilled parliamentarian Nelson Mandela, “One cannot play chess when one only knows how to play checkers.”

Comrades, we owe it to each other, to our community, and to ourselves to learn how to play chess.

We have a world to win, and a chess game to play for it, it is time to learn the rules of that game so we can win.

This Screen

There is something less romantic

About the way you read my poems.

You hold not the paper I scribbled my soul on

But a screen.

I write these words on a screen and send it to yours.

This screen.

These screens connect us,

So why do are we so alone?

Why is isolation the firs price we must pay

To make our bosses rich

And to keep our landlords lazy?

How many coups, how many deaths

Just to keep the battery running.

How many hours, minutes, and seconds each day to we stare?

This screen.

This screen.

This damn, fragile screen.

Update

Blog posts will now be ever Monday and Wednesday.

Monday will be articles. Wednesday will be poems or fiction.

Friday there will be posts only available on my Patreon. (You can join for as low as $1.50!)

Thanks and Solidarity Comrades.

Impeachment, The Right Thing To Do Being Done For The Wrong Reasons

Donald Trump is an embezzler, fraud, national security threat, and a rapist.

Multiple women have accused him of harassment and sexual assault, including his own ex-wife and a thirteen year old victim of Jeffery Epstein.

In 2016 multiple contractors hired by Trump have shown than Donald Trump never paid them for their labor.

Let us not forget the crime against humanity that is happening at the US-Mexico border and in the concentration camps.

He has also fired multiple cabinet members for petty, personal reasons, compromising the federal government by denying agencies proper leadership.

Pelosi and liberals scoffed at the idea of impeachment for the majority of Trump’s first term despite all of this. Impeachment was argued to be “impractical,” or worse their was this naive faith that the Mueller Report would find something punishable in Trump’s 2016 conduct.

Yet when it comes to light that Donald Trump attempted to smear Joe Biden, the undemocratically self selected candidate being forced down our throats by the capitalist liberal establishment, suddenly liberals are up in arms.

Or at least they want us to think they are.

Peter Daou, the former Clinton surrogate who has become enlightened and gone #toofarleft, tweeted that what we are seeing is a “botched impeachment.” There is little to no evidence being gathered from these proceedings and the odds of any criminal convictions coming from it become slimmer and slimmer with each fruitless testimony.

Despite the record of crimes against humanity and sexual assault, Trump will most likely suffer zero consequences from impeachment. What is worse is that Daou is probably correct, Trump will be able to tote his acquittal in the 2020 race as a victory, a victory practically being handed to him by Nancy Pelosi.

Impeachment is the right thing to do to stop Donald Trump, but it is being done for the wrong reasons, and by doing it for the wrong reasons Pelosi and the Democrats are giving Trump free fodder because they will lose the impeachment.

Trump would have a much harder time explaining himself for why he tortures migrant children or why an Epstein victim is accusing him of rape. Anyone can explain away digging up dirt on the Bidens though.

I support impeachment, but I am not holding my breath that anything good will come from this one. I want to see impeachment happen so that women and migrant children can have justice, not so the Biden’s are protected.

Impeachment is supposed to at least inconvenience Donald Trump, but the bastard seems to be doing just fine.

Peter Daou is right. This impeachment is botched.

Rambling Depression For Holiday Conversation

What goes up must come down

Especially egos.

Check the ego, kill the ego.

This is what buddha taught.

Or is this more gibberish from a mad mind?

Is it the lies we tell ourselves that make our opinions?

“Don’t talk politics this holiday.” Is the credo of the people

Who don’t want you to look in their closet.

You won’t just find skeletons in their,

You’ll find their klan hoods to.

Say my name!

Some of you may recall, Fox News doxxed me in August of 2019.

In a segment dedicated to harassing the DSA and myself, Tucker Carlson seemed to have an affinity for my name.

Tucker Carlson said my name, “James Jackson, from Sacramento,” at least 10 times in his 20 minute segment about me.

He did this the same week that there were two public shootings in one day, but whatever, he wanted to talk about me, that’s certainly respectful of the situation. (Insert Eyeroll Emoji Here!)

Truth be told, I think the only reason he gave me a whole segment of his show is because he loves saying my name, and I can’t blame him. James Jackson is a damn good, strong name, much better than Tucker Carlson.

No disrespect to the other Tuckers in the world, but “Tucker Carlson,” is a generic and uninspired name. James Jackson is the kind of name that lives on through history. It is a name that will be remembered, especially when it is the name of a writer. I honestly can’t imagine a more meaningless existence, a life that is less important to history, than the life of a cable news pundit.

Have fun saying my name Tucker, it will be in the history books long after your existence is forgotten thanks to the fact that no one actually loves or has ever loved you.

So Tucker, say my name!

James Jackson from Sacramento.

El Mundo Con Evo! How His Interview With Jon Stewart Changed My Life

I am sure by now you are aware that there has been a right wing coup in Bolivia against Evo Morales, the nation’s socialist and first indigenous president.

There is little more I can say about this that has not already been said. I am not an expert on international relations, nor am I an expert on Latin American culture.

What I am is a socialist who believes in international solidarity, and that is thanks to Evo Morales.

Picture this: I was fifteen years old, I had already earned a reputation as an “activist” at my school because I was quite vocal about my hatred for George W Bush and rich people, which opened me up to the taunting of a right wing student body at my school.

I knew that Bush was evil, I also knew that the Democrats were being cowards for never even attempting to impeach him. This was around 2007 and the Democrats were pathetic to me. Democratic “leaders” were still not defending gay marriage and most had still yet to come to terms with the fact that invading Iraq was a mistake. I also knew that Democrats who hated the poor had no business calling themselves “Democrats.” I was taught by my parents that a “Democrat” was supposed to believe in social programs and would never cut them.

I called myself a Democrat, but deep down I knew that these pro-corporate, anti-poor Democrats did not represent me.

While I was an activist, politically speaking I felt very alone.

I knew I believed in more people owning what I called “the wealth” and having more democracy, but I had no word for what it was I believed in or what I even meant by “wealth.” Combine that with the backdrop full of my teenage right wing bullies, and you get an idea of how alone I felt. Confused, isolated, angry, and alone.

Then one night, when I was taking my solace in the humor of Jon Stewart as most on the left were keen to in those days, he had on a guest that was different from any of the others I had watched on the show.

It was Evo Morales, the newly elected president of Bolivia.

I was enthralled with that interview. For one my eyes were opened for the first time to the realities of imperialism and white supremacy. When I learned that Morales was Bolivia’s first Indigenious president I was shocked, naive as I was, I thought that by now most leaders in Latin America were indigenous or of indegenious desent.

This was not all. Evo talked about the programs of his nation, how they are reclaiming wealth and redistributing it, and how his government was fighting multi national corporations and protecting the environment.

I was only 15, but when I heard what he believed and fought for I realized that he spoke for me more than any Democrat at the time ever had.

This was how I realized that I was a socialist!

After that interview I dove deep into the red rabbit hole. From Evo Morales, I found Marx, from Marx I found Lenin, this would eventually lead me to Occupy, to Anonymous, to Bernie Sanders, and it all eventually led me to the DSA, where I am now a chapter co-chair.

All of this was started by an interview with Evo Morales on a comedy show.

The man had a level of integrity that I found inspiring, and what is amazing is after 14 years he still has that integrity. In an attempt to prevent violence he conceded to another election, despite having clearly won the first time, and when that did not appease the right wing’s blood thirst he conceded power all together, all in the hopes of saving his loved ones and party members from violence.

This is the power of socialists, the power of integrity.

I can trace my socialism back to several things, my upbringing, my family history, my experiences growing up surrounded by annoying over privileged white boys, but I owe it most to Evo Morales.

One thing he said in that interview was so simple, but it stuck with me for so long.

When Jon Stewart conceded that in America, the election system is pretty much “rigged” against the idea of a poor indigenous farmer from becoming president. Evo, with a simple yet genuine reply, said, “If it’s rigged then something needs to be done to change that.”

So simple yet so true, something needs to be done!

Watch full video here.

So Often We Are Told

So often we are told

“It’s human nature.”

“It’s always been like this.”

“There is nothing I can do.”

You’ll cringe at a meme but not at these words?

Does jaded fear and hopelessness

Not shiver the spine of the unhumbled optimist?

It does.

So often we are told things that are not true.

There are no poetics here,

I am just tired.

Tired of hearing it,

So tired.

Warren’s Redeeming Quality

I realize that I have become a relatively harsh critic of Elizabeth Warren lately, but I feel that is the point of a primary, you need to go hard for your candidate and my candidate is definitely Bernie. As a socialist, I prefer to only vote for other socialists when I get the chance.

However I do have to give credit where credit is due, to any candidate. I did so when Kamala Harris scrutinized Joe Biden for his racism and I must do so now with Warren.

While I still do not entirely trust Warren, I will admit she is my number 2 after Bernie. I have one simple reason why, second to Bernie she is the most pro-union out of the other Democratic candidates.

However, there are staunch differences between Sander’s and Warren’s unionism. Warren believes in what I call the “good relationship” model of unions, meaning she believes in allowing people to organize but that a good relationship can also be developed between the union and management. This model can help workers gain modest protections at the workplace but inevitably perpetuates capitalism and cronyism.

Bernie’s unionism is a unionism by and for the worker. Bernie’s labor platform gives much more incentive to democratized and co-op workplaces. However what can be said of both candidates is that they have been on the picket line for multiple strike actions. Both are supporting the UAW strike against GM, Warren was vocal in her support for Stop n Shop’s striking clerks, and let us not forget Bernie’s recent visit to the Chicago Teacher’s Union.

There are further questions to be answered. It has been alleged that Warren has crossed a picket line at the Las Vegas Palms casino multiple times. Considering how Warren has a track record of changing the tone of her message based on her audience, it would not be suprising if Warren was one day pro-union and the next pro-management.

Let me conclude by saying this is neither an attack nor an endorsement of Warren, I am still very much in support of Bernie. I do however think that Warren is the only other candidate who has genuinely gone out of their way to recognize unions. While I disagree with her on many things it is important to see how vital the support of labor has become once again in elections. With democratic candidates fighting it out for the support of labor, the working class has a chance to realize their class power if they use their votes to their advantage. Labor has the best chance to be heard by either Warren or Sanders, no other candidates take the working classes seriously.

20 Years In Hell

20 years in hell.

6 months in purgatory.

Our was it just 1 month in county jail?

Time means nothing when your in shackles

Even though it is all they give you.

The filth and grime on the bottom of my bare foot replaces

any dignity I had.

And the cold, do not make me mention the cold,

Just the thought chills my corpse,

Not my body, I am no longer alive in this place.

They call it prison, but it is actually a morgue.

We are not people, we are corpses, and the cold preserves us.

Hell is only hot in the summer, usually it’s cold.

20 years in hell.

3 strikes your out.

20 years in hell.

The Defense of Theory

Many will say that they are not “interested” in reading about socialist theory and that they would rather just “take action.” Many of these people forsake political education in order to express themselves solely through direct action. But direct action without purpose or analysis is not direct action, it is masturbation.

The argument against theoretical discussion is usually one revolving around the premise that organizing from “lived experiences” and “action” are more revolutionary than reading.

This reasoning is not only flawed, it is right wing and a symptom of capitalism.

Let me begin by saying that direct action for the sake of direct action is a waste of everyone’s time. Symbolic gestures and protests have their place but any protest, be it symbolic or insurrectionary, must have a clear and achieveable demand. (Close the Camps! Pass a Green New Deal! Fire Racist Killer Cops! Contracts Now! Divest from GeoGroup! etc.)

Direct action that is purely “symbolic” and ideological with no clear, achievable material demand is not to the benefit of the working class, but a way for do nothing ultra-lefts and over privileged liberals to validate themselves and their own identities. Protests that are done for the sake of doing them are insults to the working class. Protest that is done with an objective goal gets the goods. Protest for the sake of protest is not protest, period.

Further, the reasoning that “lived experiences” are more important than reading or discussing theory is inherently nearsighted because it differentiates learning as something to not be considered a lived experience.

Is reading not a lived experience? Is learning not an experience? Have lives not been changed because of conversations, forums, and thoughts? The act of reading and discussing theory IS a lived experience and should be considered just as important to organizing as is blocking an intersection or arranging a picket.

I also maintain that if you want to organize your community and build alternatives to capitalism, you need to read and learn from past attempts. Past revolutions, the Paris Commune, the creation and collapse of the Internationales, the Occupy Movement, the Black Panthers and so much more, we need to look at the movements, trends, and organizations of the past and present and study them so that we may better study ourselves!

One cannot spend all their time merely discussing how to organize, it is true that some get caught up more in the theoretical than the practical but that is not an excuse to never bother to learn or discuss theory. One must also not make the mistake in thinking that showing up for every single protest is actual organizing. One must never put street theatrics ahead of the pursuit of material gains but rather must always utilize them for the sole purpose of making gains.

It is true that the best organizing comes through lived experience, and I maintain that reading and learning is a form of lived experience. Leftists who decry theory perpetuate the anti intellecutalism perpetuated by the right wing. Leftists who just want to act and not process that action are perpetuating the reactionary nature of a capitalist society. We cannot build alternatives to capitalism if we are constantly stopping everything we do to react to it. Theory is the analysis of action, it always has been and always will be.

Reading theory is just as much of a lived experience as anything else and is therefore integral to organizing.

Reading is a lived experience, to say it is not is to be anti intellectual, to be anti intellectual is to be reactionary, to be ractionary is to be capitalist. Therefore if you are anti theory, you are in fact pro capitalist.

%d bloggers like this: