Griot Apparel - Brooklyn NY

...original writing & quoted material

FOUNDERS OF GRIOT APPAREL ANNOUNCE ENDORSEMENT OF
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN 2008 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

Background: 2008 will prove a watershed year in American history. The party of Andrew Jackson will nominate either a woman or a person of color as its candidate in the upcoming presidential election. 232 years after the country's birth, it is possible that this nation will for the first time elect someone who is not a white man to lead us. 43 white men have led this country since its inception, through good times and bad. All but one of them have been Protestants. The exception was Catholic and was assassinated. All the major candidates in the upcoming election are Protestant. Many have characterized this contest as one between hope and dynastic cynicism. Julia Cocuzza and Kevin Singh Selhi, two working-class, industrious and otherwise private individuals who created Griot Apparel, have decided to come out on the side of hope and therefore endorse the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. We hope he will be the party's eventual nominee.

During political seasons, citizens become inclined to see matters in binary terms. Reality is rarely so simple as binary distinctions, but much in this primary cycle has proven easily divisible into contrasting pairs.

Hope v. Cynicism
honesty v. faux populism
judgment v. race baiting
reasoned belief v. faith in experience
one person, one vote v. super delegates
Iowa, South Carolina v. Michigan, Florida
A one month record of $32 million in donations from 170,000 new donors
v. Squandered surpluses and dynastic power

The choice to us seems clear. We hope that all will take this endorsement at face value and with a grain of salt and eventually vote their own conscience. Also, to all y'all who have no interest in politics and are simply annoyed by our efforts at civic engagement: fret not. Just as you have no interest in politics, politics has no interest in you. And just as you are annoyed by us, we are equally (if not more) annoyed by you. But for those who want to see some change, even if you are frustrated with your limited capacity to catalyze it, here is your chance to exercise what little power you possess. Here is your chance to have your voice heard and your vote counted. So, democrats, we hope you'll pick someone who doesn't resort to personal attacks or empty promises. We hope you'll join us in supporting our best chance at some hope and change in politics. Please join us in supporting Barack Obama.

truth, costs, and the iraq war

Intro By Dropout/Postgrad

Griot Apparel is about integrating discussions of history into the mainstream of American culture. When history is current, it is often described as "political" in content rather than "historical" and this can create a perception of the subject as tainted. We don't subscribe to this way of describing things. History is a process and it unfolds gradually. What is current, will someday be past. Those who fail to realize this are not forward-minded, but backward. So we must look to the present from the perspective of the future and examine what actually exists around us in the same manner. With the information which the process yields, we can attempt to find a better way to proceed.

Occasionally, someone finds a way to discuss current topics in history in sobering, serious, and honest ways--thusly managing to avoid being characterized as an individual with an agenda, who is anti-American, or whose capacities to describe things "objectivity" are limited. It doesn't happen often that intelligent people get a fair shake, except perhaps in academic circles and not always there. When it does happen, the examples need to be placed before the public eye.

When people get together and find ways to talk truthfully about controversial matters, then this might be a courageous act. Even if the people having these conversations hold PhDs, their efforts can be made accessible to the public. Intelligence does not equate to elitism. There is nothing shameful in listening to people who are intelligent and have thought deeply about issues of deep importance, which effect us all. There is no reason to shy from intellectualism, despite current trends in national politics.

We are here pointing to the recent work of Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz, who won a Nobel for economics and was previously Chief Economist at the World Bank, now heads up the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University. Also contained within the reposting is a link to video of a panel discussion between Stiglitz (currently University Professor at Columbia), Rashid Khalidi (the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies and Literature at Columbia) and Jane Arraf (former CNN Baghdad Senior Correspondent).

Some might describe these individuals as elites for their intelligence, but it seems obvious that they have thought more deeply and clearly about how the challenges of Iraq will effect America in the long run than those who led us into this war and are today making decisions about how the United States will wield its influence there for many years to come. Maybe they've said something worth listening to.

Iraq's Price Tag By Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz

By Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz

At the annual meeting of the American Economic Association in January, we presented a new estimate for the likely cost of the war in Iraq. (On April 3, Stiglitz presented his findings to a Columbia University audience. Click to view the video of his campus presentation.) We suggested that the final bill will be much higher than previously reckoned -- between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, depending primarily on how much longer our troops stay. Putting that into perspective, the highest-grossing movie of all time, Titanic, earned $1.8 billion worldwide -- about half the cost the United States incurs in Iraq every week.
Like the iceberg that hit the Titanic, the full costs of the war are still largely hidden below the surface. Our calculations include not just the money for combat operations but also the costs the government will have to pay for years to come. These include lifetime healthcare and disability benefits for returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention for many of the 16,300 Americans who already have been seriously wounded. We also count the increased cost of replacing military hardware because the war is using up equipment at three to five times the peacetime rate. In addition, the military must pay large re-enlistment bonuses and offer higher benefits to re-enlist reluctant soldiers. On top of this, because we finance the war by borrowing more money (mostly from abroad), there is a rising interest cost on the extra debt.

Our study also goes beyond the budget of the federal government to estimate the war's cost to the economy and our society. It includes, for instance, the true economic costs of injury and death. For example, if an individual is killed in an auto or work-related accident, his family will typically receive compensation for lost earnings. Standard government estimates of the lifetime economic cost of a death are about $6 million. But the military pays out far less -- about $500,000. Another cost to the economy comes from the fact that 40 percent of our troops are taken from the National Guard and Reserve units. These troops often earn lower wages than in their civilian jobs. Finally, there are macroeconomic costs such as the effect of higher oil prices -- partly a result of the instability in Iraq.

We conclude that the economy would have been much stronger if we had invested the money in the United States instead of in Iraq.

Could we have fought the war in ways that would have protected our troops better and cost the country less? A Pentagon study apparently concludes that better body armor would have prevented many deaths and injuries. Penny-pinching in such matters during the rush to war has led to steep long-run costs for the nation and, tragically, for the individuals involved.

Even more fundamental is the question of whether we needed to spend the money at all. Thinking back to the months before the war, there were few reasons to invade quickly, and many to go slow.
Had we waited for the outcome of the UN weapons inspections, the value of the information would arguably have saved the nation at least $1 trillion -- enough to fix Social Security for the next 75 years twice over.

Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary of Commerce, teaches public finance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Joseph Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. The above is an abridged version of their op-ed that appeared in the Los Angeles Times (January 17, 2006), reprinted with their permission. It reflects the findings of Bilmes and Stiglitz's recent paper, "The Economic Costs of the Iraq War," which can be downloaded at www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/cost_of_war_in_iraq.pdf

art is experience

"To perceive, a beholder must create his own experience. And his creation must include relations comparable to those which the original producer underwent....Without an act of recreation the object is not perceived as a work of art."

"As long as art is the beauty parlor of civilization, neither art nor civilization is secure."

From the published version of John Dewey's lectures, delivered at Harvard in honor of William James in 1932

Dewey's Art as Experience is available from Amazon for $9.72

dick cheney loves torture

from the front-page of a year-old early edition of the Washington Post

White House Aims to Block Legislation on Detainees

By Josh White and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writers, Saturday, July 23, 2005; A01

The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.

Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

It was the second time that Cheney has met with Senate members to tamp down what the White House views as an incipient Republican rebellion. The lawmakers have publicly expressed frustration about what they consider to be the administration's failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This week's session was attended by Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) and committee members John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). Warner and Graham last week chaired hearings that explored detainee abuse and interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay and the concerns of senior military lawyers that vague administration policies have left the door open to abuse.

Neither Cheney's office nor the lawmakers would say exactly what was discussed at the meeting, citing a routine pledge of confidentiality. But Cheney has long been the administration's chief defender of presidential prerogatives, and at the meeting he reiterated opposition to congressional intervention on the topic of detainee interrogations, according to a source privy to what happened.