What I don’t understand is how people could still vote against their own economic interests. I can understand how religious mentality would work — it’s clear now that, in some states, the gay marriage ban was a bigger draw for voters than the war on Iraq — but to vote for a party that has screwed the working class every single time boggles the mind.

Take Ohio, which lost more than a third of the country’s jobs since 2000, for instance:

Eight counties had unemployment rates above 9.0 percent during September. The counties with the highest rates, other than Morgan, were: Coshocton, 13.5; Meigs, 12.7; Muskingum, 12.6; Perry, 10.8; Monroe, 10.3, Vinton, 9.8; and Adams, 9.5 percent.

Morgan County, with a whopping 15.8% unemployment rate, voted for Bush 56-43. And so on: Meigs (59-41), Muskingum (58-42), Perry (52-48); Monroe (55-44 for Kerry), Vinton (55-45), and Adams (64-36).

At least Cuyahoga County, which lost 63,000 jobs in the last four years, voted for Kerry 67-33.

Somewhere along the way, the left forgot class. I’m a professor of Asian American studies, but I can’t help thinking that identity politics may have played some part in this: a focus on identity that had, alas, little to do with the white, Christian conservative population — an alliance with whom may have been more easily accomplished by turning the spotlight onto class inequalities. The big size of the left’s umbrella is certainly one of its virtues, but tactically, this year it may have been its undoing — especially galling with a president who has been so brazenly pro-corporate power. (Though what kind of alliance one can make with supporters of, say, new senators Tom “death penalty for abortion doctors” Coburn or Jim “no gay teachers” DeMint is hard to say.)

Oh well. Yesterday Romeo was telling me about the parents of a former classmate of ours, who apparently voted for Bush because (they believed) he would grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants. As I said, my mind is still boggled. But then I live in a city that voted 83-15 for Kerry.

(I fully apologize for my earlier “fucking morons” comment, though ignorance clearly was a factor in Bush’s win. But enough about “moron;” how about “asshole?”)

Popularity: 1% [?]

Fuck. Tonight I’m drinking myself numb.

Damn you Wonkette, The Daily Koz, and Slate for keeping my hopes up. I was happy this afternoon. But those damn early exit polls. The 6:00 one gave two points to Kerry in Ohio and Florida.

Called up almost everyone saved on my cellphone to vent: Jeff, Alice, Jens, Nerissa, Romeo, undeserving recipients of my wrath.

Bush as president for another four years is bad enough. The worst part: that all these fucking morons actually voted for this monster.

Okay, I’m angry and drunk, and I’ll regret this in the morning, because I’ve thrown any objective discourse out the window. But still: motherfucker.

Anyone who bothers to comment with a nyeah-nyeah: fuck off.

Popularity: 1% [?]

As I was driving to the childcare center to pick up Izzy, I was suddenly overcome by a feeling of doom. The time change had made the sun go down earlier, and my usual drive was now accompanied by the sun setting in the Pacific.

It didn’t help that I had been listening, on repeat, to David Bowie’s “Five Years” — something suitably apocalyptic — or that we’re discussing the Vietnam War in my Asian American Studies classes tomorrow. (It also didn’t help that I was also in the middle of a Halloweeen trilogy of horror films: Shaun of the Dead on Saturday, 28 Days Later on Sunday, Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight.)

Whatever the feeling was, it was certainly dread. The election will probably get ugly. We may not know who will win until next year. But what is perhaps most chilling is that a good half of the American people would still vote for someone who is undoubtedly the worst president in American history. Bush and his cronies are frightening, yes, but the fact that ordinary people like you and me still believe him and support him and think he is guided by God is probably even scarier.

So when I saw Izzy I gave her a longer squeeze than usual, and I felt a little better.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I can’t find the original article anywhere online — the Daily Tribune‘s archives seem to be down, and the other Philippine papers aren’t carrying the story — so I’ve decided to post the whole thing here (since it’s circulating via e-mail anyhow):

IN THE AFTERMATH OF RP PULLOUT IN IRAQ
US to deport 300,000 Pinoys
By Michaela P. del Callar
Wednesday, 07 28, 2004
Daily Tribune

The US squeeze is on, despite denials from American officials and their claims of a continuing strong relationship with the Philippines. The United States is expected to intensify its crackdown on illegal Filipino workers following Friday’s deportation of 89 Filipinos, a ranking Foreign Affairs official said yesterday.

They were sent back home for various offenses ranging from over-staying, assault, car theft, fraud, extortion and drug-related cases. They served time in jail before being sent back to the Philippines, authorities said.

“We expect more Filipinos to be deported,” the official, who declined to be named, said.

There are about 300,000 Filipinos in the US absconders’ list.

A source said US Immigration officers have already informed Philippine officials they will be deporting Filipino absconders every three to four months.

The DFA source hinted broadly that the recent deportation of Filipinos could be the US government’s way of retaliating against the Philippine government on account of President Arroyo’s decision to bow to the Iraqi terrorists’ demands to withdraw the Philippine troops from Iraq, a move that has been criticized by international allies as well as the international media, all whom claimed that the precedent set by Mrs. Arroyo was dangerous and placed the coalition forces in Iraq in greater peril.

The DFA official also questioned the timing of the deportation of the Filipinos, which was done a few days after the 43-member contingent was withdrawn from Iraq.

Earlier, BusinessWorld reported that a US commodity loan, in the amount of $20 million that was expected by the Arroyo administration failed to push through, as US agriculture officials were said to have refrained from forging a memorandum of agreement that would have allotted the Philippines $20 million under the US Public Law 480, owing to Washington’s disappointment over the pullout of Filipino troops from Iraq.

Although Philippine authorities downplayed this US loan removal, saying the country can do without it, its absence presents a serious loss of funding for projects reportedly get their budget from the PL 480 commodity loan program since beneficiaries of the PL 480 program can either augment their local inventories of rice, corn and wheat or use sales proceeds to fund agricultural projects.

The Philippines and other developing countries compete for benefits under the program, whose terms include a payment period of 30 years and a 1 percent annual interest.

It was also admitted by the incoming Agriculture Secretary Arturo Yap that the removal of the US commodity loan would mean additional budgetary pressures for the government.

The Cabinet-level Investment Coordination Committee on July 13 approved the signing of the loan document for a $20-million commodity loan to cover about 41,000 metric tons of rice. The Philippines last year got $40 million worth of surplus commodities under the program.

“We will have to look at other sources (to fund the projects). At this point of a high deficit we have to catalogue ODA (official development assistance) projects and evaluate foreign-fund sources,” Yap was quoted as saying.

The Tribune also recently reported US officialdom was mulling over the idea of issuing a travel ban against the Philippines on grounds of a serious terrorist threat against American nationals and business establishments, allegedly based on intelligence reports, which would serve as strong message from the US government to the Arroyo administration of its “displeasure” over Mrs. Arroyo’s decision to pull out the troops in Iraq, bowing to the demands of the Iraqi terrorists. The Philippines is now seen as “the weakest link” in the global war against terror by the international allies.

Diplomatic sources also intimated to the Tribune that the Arroyo administration can kiss the promised helicopters for the Philippine Air Force goodbye, as they are not forthcoming, as a result of the Philippine pull-out.

The same sources pointed out that the word they have been getting is that there would also be US visa restrictions implemented and that even personalities closely identified with the Arroyo administration, including police and military generals and their families may be denied visas.

It was not clear how the US Embassy can deny Arroyo officials visas, especially if they travel with a red passport, on official mission, or a blue diplomatic passport.

Further sanctions that may be imposed, the sources said, could cover restrictions on particular exports or imports, a denial of US assistance and aid as well as a denial of loans and, if need be, investments. The sources also told the Tribune that US officialdom is “not happy at all” at the defiant stance Mrs. Arroyo has been taking, and was especially “pissed” with her statement made in her State of the Nation Address last Monday, where she said if she had allowed the hostage Angelo de la Cruz to die, his death “would not have changed Iraq for the better.”

International allies have placed the blame on the Philippines for the upsurge in kidnappings by terrorists, which they publicly say has placed the coalition forces and the Iraqi interim government in more danger. The terrorists have also used as example the Philippine pullout of troops as a means to get the governments of the kidnap victims to either break their ties with the US-led coalition forces or cease doing business in Iraq.

The criticisms from allies have not stopped. The latest scathing remarks on the decision of Mrs. Arroyo to bow to terrorists’ demands came from an editorial published in the Asian Wall Street Journal, entitled “Putting the world at risk.”

AWSJ pointed out that her giving in to the demands of the Iraqi terrorists emboldened them to take more hostages.

“Mrs. Arroyo seems sadly oblivious to the consequences of her folly. On Friday, she only made matters worse by arguing that the Philippines should be considered a special case because it has more workers — an estimated 1.5 million — in the Middle East than any other nation. According to her logic, those large numbers give Manila the justification to cut and run, while other countries are left to cope with the consequences.

“The President’s insistence that her actions were ‘driven by the supreme interest of the Filipino people’ showed a warped sense of national priorities…They are all at greater risk, now that Mrs. Arroyo has shown the terrorists how profitable it is to hold a Filipino hostage.”

The humanitarian mission was pulled out from Iraq, about a month before the expiration of its tour of duty on Aug. 20 to heed to demand of Khaled Ibn al-Waleed Brigade in exchange for the freedom of Filipino De la Cruz. De la Cruz was freed a day after the Filipino troops left Iraq.

The Philippines has drawn sharp rebukes from the US as well as Australia for bowing to the demands of terrorists.

After the pullout, the US said it will review its relations with the Philippines. US Ambassador to Manila Francis Ricciardone went back to Washington for “consultations” with US officials on the matter.

Australia, on the other hand, criticized the Philippines for being weak. It also blamed the Philippines for the latest terrorist threat against Australia.

And here’s a press release in response from the Support Committee for the Cuevas Family:

Advocates of Recent Filipino Deportees, the Cuevas Family, Call for the End of Unjust Deportations as Filipino Deportations Increase Post-Philippine Troops Withdrawal

Contact: Robyn Rodriguez (510) 209-9428.

Union City, CA–Only a few weeks after the tragic deportation of the Cuevas family of Fremont, California another 89 Filipinos were deported last Friday from the United States.

Philippine officials report that an estimated 300,000 Filipino immigrants are being targeted for deportations from the United States. Some even suggest that deportations, as indicated by the most recent mass deportation of 89 last Friday, might be a retaliatory measure on the part of the U.S. against the Philippines’ withdrawal of troops in Iraq. The troop withdrawal led to the release of Filipino migrant worker Angelo de la Cruz who was held hostage by an Iraqi group.

According to Robyn Rodriguez, immigration scholar and convener of the Support Committee for the Cuevas Family states, “Though it is likely that increasing deportations are linked to the Philippines’ troop withdrawal, the reality is even when the Philippines was staunchly allied with the United States earlier on in this war, the Bush administration was already targeting Filipinos for deportation. Since 9/11, the U.S. government has indiscriminately criminalized and demonized all immigrants, regardless of national origin”. Rodriguez continued, “Immigrants have been scapegoated in the name of ‘national security’ in an attempt to draw attention away from the United States’ international isolation in its global war on terror and the government’s failure to effectively deal with economic recession at home”.

Advocates of the Cuevas family are calling members of the Filipino community to continue the fight against unjust deportations. Executive director of Filipino Community Support (FOCUS), a community based organization in San Jose and coordinator for the National Alliance for Filipino Concerns (NAFCON) states that, “We have to continue fighting against the unjust deportations of our community members. Our experience in the Cuevas case proves that we need to continue to build our collective power in order to demand for the immigration reforms we deserve”. Mendoza continued, “We can draw inspiration from the struggle to free Angelo de la Cruz in Iraq. ‘People Power’ can work. Angelo was not freed because of the Philippine government’s humanitarianism; he was freed because the Filipino people rose up and pressured the government to intervene on his behalf”.

The Cuevas family, supported by nearly 200 organizations and over 3000 petitioners, campaigned for personal legislation from first Senator Feinstein then Senator Boxer to allow them permanent residence in the U.S. They had been living in the country for nearly 20 years when they were ordered to depart. Despite widespread support and media coverage, neither Senator supported the family. Yet, shortly before their departure, Senator Feinstein released a public statement noting her support for another immigrant family.

Cuevas family advocates are joined by Philippine-based organizations like Migrante International in calling for justice for Filipino immigrants in the United States. Meanwhile, Cuevas family advocates support Migrante and its allies’ call on the Arroyo administration, and all “war on terror” coalition members, to recognize and prevent the grave human costs suffered by all migrants, like the Cuevas family and Angelo de la Cruz, in this time of war.###

Comments?

Popularity: 1% [?]

I can’t believe it’s really happening. Though the whole operation is still shrouded in ambiguity, a direct consequence of the government-imposed news blackout — are they all returning, and is it going to be by July 20? — it looks like Philippine troops are indeed being pulled out from Iraq.

To be sure, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is doing this to save her ass as well. Activists in mass rallies, politicians, newspaper columnists — I include the Philippine Daily Inquirer‘s strongly worded editorial here as an example — all called for withdrawal from Iraq.

My dad (we were all debating this over breakfast) swore up and down that there was no way the Arroyo government would “concede to the terrorists” — by the way, it’s “conceding to reason,” as one journalist put it — because the Philippines had too much to lose. But loss of contracts and military support aside, I argued, don’t mean anything to the public right now; if an instant poll could be taken, the overwhelming majority of the Filipino people would vote for the withdrawal of troops to save the life of one man. And so, it seems, Arroyo has done.

But as Congressman Teddy Casino of BAYAN put it:

She seems to think that it would be far easier to explain to the U.S. her action on the hostage situation than to appease an angry public in case Angelo dela Cruz dies.

(It isn’t every day a former classmate of mine — and former fellow UPLB Perspective staffer — gets quoted in the New York Times.)

So I’m not going to be celebrating any moral victories here, or championing the Philippine government’s “taking a stand” against an unjust war. Already Arroyo’s congressmen are busy worrying about appeasing Uncle Sam. (“You do understand why we’re doing this, right, Daddy?”) Still, it’s worth it — for now — to see the Coalition of the Willing get their knickers in a bit of a twist.

Comments?

Popularity: 1% [?]