So I'm hesitant to feed this flame and give "The New Yorker" more press than it deserves for this behavior but the self-righteous elitism of the "The New Yorker" absolutely must be put in its place once and for all. Regardless of whatever drivel is in the article accompanying the above image, the image itself, which will carry much more weight and power than any words behind it uses the unearned luxury of tongue in cheek humor to set back the civil rights and political work of countless activists who have worked so hard to bring the truth to the American people and once and for all get a progressive individual into the White House. Obama is showing some dangerous swings to the right lately and many on the left are attempting to hold him to his promises but that's totally besides the point as far as this horrible image goes.
"The New Yorker" like so many other media outlets seems to be a little bit behind the times so allow me to catch you up here along with so many of your "leftist" colleagues. We live in a viciously racist, sexist, and violent empire. The United States has earned its place in history now as one the worst in the history of violent empires in fact. Two of the greatest civil rights leaders in the history of our empire were murdered by gunfire in cold blood for trying to bring change to the plight of African Americans. Every day women like Amy Goodman and men like Noam Chomsky toil hour after hour also trying to change this empire while doing the work that SHOULD be getting done by the horrendously over paid and over celebrated journalists at "The New Yorker."
The phrase "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" might seem appropriate but it really doesn't do this propaganda justice. The over educated elite crowd over at "The New Yorker" would claim to love the writings of William Shakespeare so let's use his work as an example. Shakespeare's characters never ever lie. There is no subtext in their words. No sarcasm. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. It's what makes his writing great. The folks not just at "The New Yorker" but at all of the elite media outlets out of NY, SF, LA and the like need to borrow a page from his book and learn what it means to be a brave and respectable journalist.
The truth is that there is a horrifyingly large number of people in The U.S. who DO view Obama in precisely the way depicted in the above image. What is "The New Yorker" doing to address the thinking employed by those individuals? Those are the folks who are in danger of shooting Obama before he even GETS to the White House. Oh but "The New Yorker" isn't talking to them are they? No they're just initiating a big circle jerk amongst the elite echelons of American knowledge and power so we can laugh at the stupid little racists. SNORE! What an easy job the writers at that magazine have! Time for "The New York Times", "The New Yorker", "MSNBC" and all of the other "leftist" pro corporate media to roll up their sleeves and join Amy Goodman in changing the United States. No more sidelined tongue in cheek humor that aims to let you off the hook for what you've done to contribute to this mess we have to clean up now! Time for real work.
In this picture, U.S. soldiers survey the Cambodian town of Snuŏl after it has been almost completely flattened by U.S. bombers.
This is part I of a documentary by John Pilger called "Year Zero" which I finally found on Youtube. The second installment of this documentary is just as astounding and horrifying as the first and is featured below this one. I would urge all documentary fans, all activists, and all Americans to view both of these in their entirety.
Here is an excellent documentary about Henry Kissinger called "The Trial of Henry Kissinger." Some of Henry Kissinger's worst war crimes took place in Cambodia in the late 60's and early 70's.
So lately I've heard the subject of Cambodia come up in discussion so many times that I decided that I was being instructed by some larger force to share what I have learned about Cambodia - specifically about the U.S. role in bringing about the conditions that the Cambodian people suffered and died under for so many years. Usually modern day discussions about Cambodia revolve around the travel stories of Americans who have enjoyed Cambodia as a modern backpacking destination. Now I don't want this entry to express judgment on Americans who travel to Cambodia. Shoot if I could afford it right now, the truth is I would love to see that beautiful country myself. However, I find myself wondering, how horrendous would my Government's crimes have to be in a nation before it became an unacceptable backpacking destination morally and ethically?
I thought this Blog post would be a good chance to review a few facts about what took place in Cambodia before the Kumer Ruge "surprisingly" emerged from the countryside to launch one of the worst campaigns of violence civilization has ever seen - or not seen.
Depending on whom you believe anywhere between thousands to several hundred thousand Cambodians were killed by U.S. Military action during our illegal invasion of that country. B-52 bombers, a totally indiscriminate weapon of mass death if ever there was one, totally leveled entire towns and cities.
Then, when the Kumer Ruge was at it's worst point of destructive power and behavior, coverage of these crimes in the West went to almost ZERO. Those demanding evidence of this please read the extensive writings by Noam Chomsky and others on Cambodia where the silence of the New York Times and other media outlets is exhaustively laid out for us to see.
Do we really think about that enough? What did we think was going to happen there after we bombed that country anyway? What did we do to rebuild that Cambodia? Did we pay ANY war reparations? What would happen here if several million people were bombed to death buy an invading force here in the U.S.?
These are really important questions because the truth is if we switched places with the Cambodians, given who we are, we wouldn't let them set one foot on our soil. You really think that if they had done that to us that we would be OK with them backpacking around Yosemite? Of course not!
Further, and much more importantly, John Pilger's follow up documentary above makes some very serious and convincing allegations surrounding covert arms of the U.S. Government and their behavior in Cambodia. And he's not the only one to have done so. He takes footage which seems to suggest that the U.S. not only knew about the Kumer Ruge but actually may have helped feed, fund, and arm that vicious army. Now before everyone gets worked up demanding evidence from me, I must urge all to consider that this is the CIA we're talking about. It's their JOB not leave evidence. We have to look for little tiny clues that they sloppily leave around. And we also have to consider the actions of the CIA in the rare cases where we the truth actually does come out.
How about Chile? Please I urge everyone to look at the ethics of the CIA's (and ITT's) behavior in Chile in the 70's. How about Iraq in the 50's when we helped Saddam come to power? How about Iran in the 70's when the CIA propped up the Shaw and helped arm their vicious police force? There are simply too many cases to list here however once you do consider these cases and the CIA's priorities and ethics as reflected in them, it's really very little of a stretch to imagine that the CIA did indeed fund and arm the Kumer Ruge.
If this is true then many Americans are complicit in the crime of genocide. And many still alive namely Henry Kissinger MUST be brought before a war crimes tribunal and severely punished for their actions. Not for the bombing of Cambodia although that would certainly warrant an extremely lengthy trial but much more importantly for supporting and arming the Kumer Ruge even after we knew what they were doing. That is a crime right up there with the Nazis and one that will not just go away because it's inconvenient for us to think about.
Fine, go backpacking there. Let's keep in mind though that it's only the infinite compassion of the Cambodian people and their lack of knowledge about who was responsible for what happened there that stops them from shooting us as we get off the plane.
The Cambodians, insofar as they do understand our role in their history, and having a largely Buddhist population, probably understand that gestures of revenge are pointless because Karma while being a tad slow is absoutely relentless and knows no borders and no patriotism.
I hope that this blog post and the videos in it give us all something to think about when pondering travel plans to Southeast Asia in the future. Any entrance onto Cambodian soil on my part that did not involve weeping and puking would feel wholly inadequate.
As our election approaches, the left has seen some great divisions expose themselves. I'm confident that these divisions can and will be mended behind what is becoming an increasingly likely Obama/Clinton ticket. However, I think it's important to have a frank talk about these divisions in order to move forward as a unified front. The number of women who supported and continue to support Hilary Clinton has been predictably quite large. Also, the African American vote for Obama has been predictably very strong as well. I myself have found the focus on Candidates' sex, race, and religion to be rather discouraging. I have witnessed several heated debates in which folks have argued and argued, in pondering Clinton and Obama's chances, over whether our country is more sexist or more racist. There's almost always a woman arguing the sexist side and some dude arguing the racist side. Snore! I couldn't find that chicken and egg argument more useless if I tried. Our country is sexist AND racist and instead of engaging in these constant half-cocked demographic analyses of candidates' chances the way "educated" Americans seem to love to we should be debating THE ISSUES and how each candidate stands on those issues. By focusing so much on a candidate's racial, religious, or sexual profile we allow the television's corruption of American politics to win the day and keep us dumb and uninformed little demographic robots. Like little mini Karl Roves. Mini Roves. Don't be a mini Rove! Be an ethical and free-thinking citizen!
So what does any of this have to do with Cindy Sheehan? Well as long as there is good reason to expend and demand female representation in our government - and there is - then why don't we take a look at a couple of important facts first. There already IS female representation in our Government. No it's not what it should be but it's there. Every single woman in congress of about 70 except for one, for example, voted to respond to 9-11 with bombs. That one exception was Barbara Lee and her vote will become much more significant as history is written but that's the topic of another post. There are many other women in congress like Diane Feinstein, Hilary Clinton, and Nansy Pelosi. These women are NOT STOPPING THIS WAR and they are NOT STANDING UP TO CORPORATE AMERICA. They are failing and worse yet they don't even appear to be very committed to these ideas.
Well if we progressives are committed to stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we really do care about keeping the troops alive then let's get behind a candidate who is really serious about making that happen. You want your anti-war package in the form of a woman? Fine! Her name is Cindy Sheehan. Show that we don't just want ANY woman in Government we want women who actually act on the causes that women care about. She can be San Francisco's representative in the House of Representatives and do just that! What an wonderful development that would be.
Cindy Sheehan has been branded by the mainstream press as an emotional hothead particularly around the brave protest she staged outside of Bush's Texas ranch. It's critical we see through this haze and realize that someone like Cindy will ALWAYS face that kind of treatment by the the corporate press. We must ignore this and listen to what she says and read what she writes. If we find ourselves agreeing with her words and yes with her passion then we are compelled to support her. For those of us who listen to KPFA and people like Amy Goodman on democracynow.org every day, we've heard plenty from Cindy. She's been an outspoken opponent of not only the current U.S. wars but also of the corporate corruption of the Democratic party. Label her an extremist all you want but we're in an extreme situation demanding extreme action. The fact that her words and ethics have come to seem so extreme compared to other candidates' says so much about what's happened to our country's politics over the past 10 years.
Well her headquarters is about 5 blocks from my house here in the Mission district of San Francisco so I for one will be poking my head in and seeing what help they need.
Check out her campaign at http://www.cindyforcongress.org
And remember what DJ Freak says. Don't be a mini Rove!
Alright enough politics. Let's get this place warmed up shall we?
There is an idea that we have when negotiating attractions to others that somehow there is that "special someone" that we're looking for out there somewhere. Whether we're looking for a wife or husband, a lover, a friend, or a friend with benefits, we are looking for those relationships that will be satisfying to us and feel right to us. Usually I think most of us tend to think that that "special someone" is someone who shares common interests, common life activities, common job goals, common sexual desires, common ethics and on and on. Animalistic attraction however, and yes we are most definitely animals, is far more complex. There are senses in our body including touch, taste, smell, and seeing which play a huge role in what revs our engines. These senses don't necessarily have anything to do with all those cerebral common interests I listed above. There may be a connection between the two but I don't think we will or even can understand it.
In fact, sometimes, we meet people who are TOTALLY different than we are who we can't keep our hands off of and with whom we share an incredibly hot and satisfying connection. People who work jobs for example that on any other day would make us gag! People who hang out with the STRANGEST crew is another example. Or perhaps we find ourselves attracted to members of a different race or perhaps someone who belongs to a religion with whom we strongly disagree. However, there's this smell she has that just makes me crazy and start gyrating. Or the way her incredibly hot stomach cascades down to the most luscious pair of petite yet curvaceous hips. Or there was this way he left his right finger to cascade over my forearm after we hugged. This raw and primal language we speak somehow makes all that other stuff fade away.
"Romeo and Juliet" for example. Look at that play. Romeo wasn't supposed to want Juliet. Everybody in that play would have been a lot happier (and dumber) if Romeo had kept his junk in his tights and had a homosexual fling with Mercutio or something. Now you could argue that Romeo and Juliet wanted to hook up because it was so forbidden. Forbidden acts can indeed be extremely hot but I think that Shakespeare was tapping into something deeper than that.
To be attracted to only people who are just like you or happen to be a member or your "club" is BORING. We look outside of our "circles" because we want to grow. We don't just yearn for physical contact, approval, pleasure, babies, connection, trust, love, and the like. Yes we want those things but what we're doing in the end is so much bigger. We're yearning to grow. We want to change and grow and become the best people we can and one of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest things we do to be those best people is to love and connect with our fellow humans. It's why we're here. To connect with other humans both sexually and otherwise and learn and grow with and through them is one of the most elemental desires that people have. Now there are bad desires that humans have like the one to go to war but the desire to connect in that way is a GOOD one. It's not just our instinct to create life that drives this either. It's often our desire to LIVE life too. That can come from what we might label a selfish place or it can come from a very giving one. Our decisions about who we feel deserves to experience this connection and growth with us can be fantastically complex.
So, in the end, we will of course continue applying whatever criteria serves us in choosing partners, friends, and lovers but we also need to realize that our bodies and our instincts are very, very smart. Our bodies speak a language that we must, to some extent, surrender ourselves to.
And that ladies and gentlemen is HOT.
So are there any hot smelling Bush supporting, corporate attorneys who feel like going on a date?
So I have this funny thing inside of me. Sometimes I like to watch stuff that makes me SO mad. Think of it like political S&M. I'll purposely watch Bill O'Reilly on Fox News just to make myself mad. Like hurting myself in my brain to make sure it's still working. Totally psychologically twisted but so is most S&M psychology when you get down to it.
The other day I decided to celebrate my new job by going on iTunes and buying some silly show or movie to chill out. But then when I get to the store I see this Aircraft Carrier documentary series from PBS. So out came the nipple clamps. I thought "ooooooh that's gonna totally get a rise out of me. Those naughty PBS SLUTS totally made an AD for the Navy under the guise of some brave objective documentary didn't they!"
So I watch this series and yup those clamps were TIGHT. It hurt sooo good. So I'll discuss my specific reactions below but upon watching several of these I immediately went over to see who I'd given my hard earned money to and it turns out to be none other than series Executive Producer MEL GIBSON. So I ran to the shower like that scene in "The Crying Game" and turned it on full blast all the way hot and started washing my mouth out with soap while yelling "nooooooooo! NOOOOOOO!!"
Ok fine I didn't really do that but that's how I felt.
Maybe the folks over at PBS are a little behind so I'm gonna help ya'll catch up here. We are at WAR and you guys just made a HUGE ad for the Navy and that is just so maddening because PBS stands for Public Broadcasting Station. PUBLIC. They're supposed to be broadcasting television that speaks in the PUBLIC's best interests. How does making an ad for the Navy serve the public's best interests? The folks at PBS need to be worrying about telling the truth about what's going on in our name not showing Navy Aviators picking up hot chicks in sunny Australia like some tourism promotion!
I think it is actually they who want their nipples clamped. They want me to pinch those clamps really hard and say "ooooh you've been bad Mel Gibson. You like it when I give it to you hard to punish you for being so bad don't you! You dirty little propagandist! Who's your daddy you little slut boy?"
Time to confess to Father Freak Mel. Tell me all those dirty thoughts so I can absolve you of your sins.
Once in a blue moon, the desert of American cinema experiences the rare and wonderful sight of an absolute downpour. The rain fills in the dry and lonely cracks of the sun baked ground and brings fresh life to what would have otherwise appeared completely dead. Such is the cleansing of the cinematic masterpiece "Into the Wild."
The thing I love about the arts being an actor as I am is it's such a great bullshit filter. I'm weary of using sports analogies excessively when talking about the arts but bear with me for a moment. In sports you can talk and talk and talk but at the end of the day you either get a hit or run the fastest race or you don't. So too is the plight of the artist. All the bullshit and verbal diarrhea fades away leaving only the performance of the artist standing for evaluation. Sean Penn may have issues with Hollywood and they with him. They may even hate each other. There may be all kinds of talk surrounding his personality and his history in the public eye and in the industry of film making but at the end of the day he hit a bottom of the ninth, game winning grand slam with this film and all the talk and gossip in the world won't change that.
I'll do my best to limit spoilers here. "Into the Wild" is based on the true story of Christopher McCandless who became estranged from his east coast family, changed his name to Alexander Supertramp, gave away all of his savings, burned what little money remained, and took off for the wild west in search of an elusive truth which evaded him to his very last days. His travels brought him to far off corners of our American culture and reveal the darkest and most beautiful parts of our country and its citizens. He faced many enormous self imposed challenges in nature and in society leaving us to wonder about what made this guy this way but more importantly to impatiently ask the obvious question, "What is this guy's PROBLEM???"
Many of us live our lives internalizing all kinds of lies. Lies to ourselves, lies to each other, lies from our Government, and even and especially, lies from our very own families. Most of us are able to find ways to cope with these lies either consciously or buried deep down inside. Usually by internalizing these lies, we allow small parts of ourselves to die. Alexander Supertramp was both unable and unwilling to do so. He was a martyr in the truest sense of the word. It can be maddening and quite upsetting to watch the downfall of a martyr suffering for our sins and the bravery Sean Penn brought to this film forced us not only to grit our teeth in anger and frustration at this young man's plight but much more importantly to cry a release of tears for the loss his humanity in all of its searing beauty.
This film is one of the rare cases where the movie is far better than the book. In fact the book and the movie while sharing the same "story" really have little to do with one another. The book is a reality book not unlike the reality TV we've become so accustomed to. The movie is a dark, brave, and tragic opera which challenges us to face our own humanity dead in the eye and ask ourselves what really is important about these modern fast paced materialistic lives we live - and also to ask in the immortal words of fellow martyr Jim Morrison in the film "The Doors", "How many of you people know you're alive?"
Notable outstanding performances in the film were offered by newcomer Emile Hirsch movingly and unpretentiously playing the lead Alex, Katherine Keener who brilliantly portrays a mother estranged from her son and who is touched deeply by Alex's plight, veteran Hal Holbrook who touchingly plays a former Army man who tries to adopt Alex, and Vince Vaughn who deftly plays a wild and free spirited rancher in North Dakota. Yes you read that right. This snobby actor is giving huge props to "Wedding Crashers" cheese ball Vince Vaughn. Again, Vince Vaughn's personality and resume are wholly irrelevant. He did an excellent job and deserves due credit for it. There are many other memorable performances in the film too numerous to list.
Also, for those interested in directing whether it be film, TV, or theatre, pay very close attention to Penn's use of music in this film. There are few examples of music adding to a film's impact while allowing it to breathe at the same time as much as this one.
Usually I try to avoid talk of Oscars in my reviews but the Academy's refusal to even nominate this film for Best Picture is a stunningly revealing omission. The violent and cynical nature of the admittedly well made and well acted "No Country for Old Men" earning it the best picture nod while "Into the Wild" was utterly ignored says so much about our culture.
Those who watch "Into the Wild" are compelled to ask so many important questions. Who are we as Americans? Why are we here? What do we do with the culture we live in? How do we extract truth from all of these lies? And is there room for love in all of it?
Yes there absolutely is room for love and there is room for compassion and a most heartfelt thanks goes to Mr. Sean Penn for reminding us of that.
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3
If there has been one word in 21st century discourse - one word which in its over and mis-use has caused more pain, more suffering, and brought more misunderstanding to the minds of the American public - that word is terrorism.
Can we even remember 7 long years ago when the use of the word terrorism was fresh to our ears? Its definition had been set in place already of course and the idea of terrorism was certainly not new but never before had its meaning been used by the left and the right to such an extent to convince Americans to go to war. And never before has the word terrorism been broadened to such an extent as to include any and all behavior of our enemies. Even the rare genuine military attack carried out by our enemies against our soldiers is now referred to as terrorism. The word has now completely lost its meaning so I thought I might try to re-focus our thinking on this word here for a moment.
Let's start way back at the source here so we can dissect the origins of this ideology.
Like all cancers in our national discourse the roots of this word go all of the way back to the era into which our country was born. Our sister revolution over in France produced the following statement by Maximilien Robespierrein the late 1700's, “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.” If you dig back into your history classes from elementary school, you'll recall that the French and Americans became critical allies in the successful negotiation of the U.S. revolution. Additionally, apart from France, many of the U.S. soldiers in our revolutionary war used many of the guerrilla tactics that now fall under the umbrella definition of terrorism. But they weren't terrorists of course. They were patriots.
So the idea is not new at all. In fact, in principle, the idea of terrorism undoubtedly goes all of the way back to the days when cavemen would club one member of an opposing tribe as publicly as possible to intimidate the rest into laying down their clubs. It's a tactic that's as old as war itself.
There are so many definitions of terrorism written by so many different governmental and non-governmental organizations that they are too numerous to list so I'll summarize here. The definition widely used and agreed upon basically says that terrorism is the deliberate use of violence targeting a civilian population to achieve a political, religious, or ideological goal.
Let's look first at the single greatest acts of terrorism in history under this definition. That would be the deliberate extermination of some 200,000 Japanese citizens in the dropping of the first and only nuclear weapons used in war over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Now most Americans wood shoo that example saying that the acts were justified because the Japanese were evil, it saved American lives, and that it ended the largest war in history. The Americans who dropped those bombs are never referred to as terrorists. Americans are far too removed from the realities of war to ever stomach the idea that we would use terrorism in war and if they do make the rare admission that we used terrorist tactics against Japan it's immediately followed by well thought out justifications. I've even heard some claim that because we dropped leaflets over those cities warning them of these attacks before we incinerated those innocent civilians that somehow that too makes those acts of terrorism totally valid. Incidentally, the oil slick bombings of Tokyo in that war killed just as many people and caused far more terror but those attacks are usually forgotten in the shadow of the nukes we used.
Notice that based on this thinking terrorism is not necessarily ALWAYS bad. We acknowledge in this argument that there ARE cases where terrorism is justified. Now we didn't have American citizens in refugee camps the way the Palestinians live (apart from the Japanese we imprisoned of course). We didn't have contaminated water causing cholera and other preventable diseases the way they do in Iraq. We didn't have special forces units bursting through American villages killing all in sight the way our forces do in Afghanistan. All we needed as a justification for terrorism was a military attack on a freshly stolen military base in Hawaii. The rest of the Pacific war was simply the Japanese defending their turf just like we would.
I could list almost countless examples of the U.S. Military deliberately killing civilians to achieve the goals of war but we'll save that list for another blog posting. For the moment let's just focus on the morality of terrorism as the word is used and how that standard is used to lower our enemies to the status of barbarians and savages.
There are some basic ideas that we need to establish first. The "terrorists" in "Al Qaida" and elsewhere are human. Again, because it needs repeating those terrorists are HUMAN. They are not aliens. They are not backwards butchers from the middle ages. They breathe air; they have babies; they hurt; they hope; they fight. Just like we do. They use the tactics they do because they have to. Just like when we attacked Japan.
Suppose for the moment that we decided that we wanted to send F-16's and Apache attack helicopters for free to the Palestinians instead of just to Israel. I know this is an outlandish thought but just tickle your brain with it for a moment. Suppose someone, not even Americans necessarily, somehow managed to sneak jets and helicopters into the camps of Palestine. Do we honestly believe that Palestinians would still strap bombs to their chests in Israeli pizza parlors? OF COURSE NOT! In fact there are rare instances where Palestinians are able to actually launch genuine military attacks on the Israeli military. And what do you think those Palestinian soldiers are referred to as in the media? You got it.
So, really this whole long winded post about terrorism comes down to one basic question and there's no way for me to state this part gently because it touches upon a huge idealogical conflict in our culture. Do you believe that Muslims, Iraqis, Palestinians and all the rest of the people we lump into the category of terrorists are genetically, culturally, or spiritually predisposed to kill themselves or to kill innocent civilians in order to emerge victorious in this war? If you do then go join the KKK or better yet go enlist in the military and put your money where your mouth is because your morals are no different than those of any other dangerous, fascist, and racist cult. Neither Christians, nor Jews, nor Muslims have any monopolistic claim on irrational thought and behavior. The Christians have been launching violent, bloody crusades for thousands of years now. The abhorrent behavior of the Israeli military has included horrendous war crimes which bring great dishonor to every single holocaust victim. And yes the Muslims have absolutely committed horrible crimes against humanity too.
It is the irrational sky god religions which cause these wars to continue so relentlessly NOT terrorism. Terrorism is the act of the desperate. It is the last tool any warrior reaches for because it is a dirty, nasty business and the victor of such an act has to live - or die - with that stain on their souls forever.
So if you're against terrorism and terrorists then you're against war and warriors and you have good reason to be.
So think about the disgusting racism and religious crusade behind the word terrorism every time you hear it now. Think about what that word might mean to you if you were from the planet mars visiting earth. Think about the terror produced by white phosphorous bombs or cluster munitions. Think about the terror caused by U.S. Marines deliberately killing 24 women and children in Haditha in that one rare case which actually came to light. Think about the terror caused by underground charges deliberately set by the Israeli military to knock Palestinian homes down in the occupied territories.
Terrorism is as old as war itself. Getting self righteous about terrorism while supporting war or "supporting the troops" is like getting mad at water for being wet once you've jumped in the pool.
Those who support this racist ideology are absolutely endangering our lives so the next time you feel lousy because your Thanksgiving dinner has erupted into a political meltdown just remember that the "terrorists" are going to attack us again. We're ensuring it. Despite the illusion of safety we enjoy in this American bubble, our lives are indeed at stake.
We're fighting a war on terror huh? Naaaah, I don't think so. Nice try though. Americans are a lot smarter than that. They're lazy and they're confused but I refuse to believe that we're that stupid.
So as a former political talker on my old radio show and as a political activist I take great interest in the events that take place in our country in terms of our political system.
I remember about a year ago, I observed the emergence of Barack Obama into our national consciousness with great cynicism. Even before examining his voting record or looking at the opinions of the latest Democratic offering I remember exclaiming "It will be a cold day in hell before anyone whose name rhymes with Osama Bin Ladin ever gets elected DOG CATCHER in modern post-9-11 U.S. politics let alone PRESIDENT."
So, allow me to be the first to admit that I was totally wrong on this count. Even if he doesn't win the Presidency he has smashed through all of my expectations and then some.
Then, as the Hilary - Barack stand-off developed and started to play out, I again treated Obama's prospects with great cynicism and doubt thinking, good lord when is this charade going to be over so that another pro-corporate Democrat (Hilary) can take her rightful place in the annals of slippery hypocritical Democrats many of whom have made our situation just as dire as Republicans have by offering false medicine to the disease we all know we have as a country.
So, as the Democratic nomination seems to be firmly in Obama's hands now I once again am proven wrong. What a lovely development it is in our political landscape that my most cynical predictions are now, for once, being proven wrong. Is it possible that a progressive, grass roots movement is taking hold in our insanely conservative country? Somebody pinch me please!
Before we get too excited about Obama's chances and his politics, and they are quite exciting in the context of our country, I think it's important to keep several very important factors in mind.
Obama's politics despite what I hear many say are, at least in words, indeed quite different than Clinton's. Hilary Clinton stood idly by during 8+ years of genocide in Iraq during which time over a million Iraqi citizens were needlessly murdered. She also sat idly by as record levels of arms shipments were sent to Israel, Columbia and elsewhere. Anybody remember operation Desert Fox? I thought not. How about the 200 cruise missiles her husband fired all over the globe in what must finally be recognized as a war crime? She is also now a huge favorite of the health care companies she claims to be one win away from "reforming". Additionally, her stance on not only the latest wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but on all U.S. foreign policy including Israel is horrendously conservative by almost anyone's definition. The practice that people have of calling her violent politics that of a "National Security mom" or "Soccer mom" is truly disturbing and shows that Americans are so desperate to get rid of Bush they'll say and believe ANYTHING. It also reveals disturbing sexual double standards that aim to further one group or another (women in this case) at all costs regardless of the candidate's ethics. As I wrote above, medicine like Hilary's in curing us of the Bush disease is not medicine at all. I'd personally rather die a quick death from such a disease then sit around suffering while ingesting placebo pills in the hopes that they might make me better.
Please remember that bombs do not burn at a cooler temperature if they are dropped by women. Children do not starve slower because an African American is holding back their food. The citizens interned in Palestinian refugee camps do not suffer less because Condoleezza Rice is Secretary of State. There are much larger ethical issues in play now besides whether our particular personal group is being represented nationally. We are not casting a television show here folks. We are electing a President whose actions have very real consequences for literally billions of humans not to mention countless plants and animals all over our polluted earth.
Recognizing the conservative nature of our Democrats is not easy for Americans. It can leave us feeling quite flustered and hopeless. That after all is the genius of our two party system. It's perhaps the most dangerous game of good cop bad cop the world has ever known. Our hopelessness, however, pales in comparison to that of the people who live in the countries we are so hell bent on destroying - sometimes even in the name of really great ideas like "freedom" or "democracy."
So, Obama's politics in this context are indeed a huge breath of fresh air. He has made some rather curious statements however. During a debate with Mrs. Clinton, he actually threatened to invade Pakistan. He didn't use the word invade of course. He said we would hunt down terrorists there. Well by now we all know what hunting down "terrorists" looks like. This was an unusual statement for him to have made. He was undoubtedly trying to look tough so as not to be lost and forgotten on the far off left. However, if these are the kinds of shifts in his ethics we're seeing during the campaign then what can we expect once he's in office? Only time will tell I suppose.
It's important to remember at the end of all of this that the President of our country does not operate in a vacuum. If my man Ralph Nader for example had performed some kind of miracle in '00 or '04 and somehow managed to win the Presidency what would have happened then? He still would have had the same congress to deal with. He still would have had the same right wing politics in our population to deal with. He would have had almost zero congressional or other Federal support with which to work. How much change could we have expected from such an administration? Sadly, despite Nader's views being more in line with Americans' ethics, very little change could have been realistically expected. This is all before Nader would have been impeached which would have taken about 7 minutes.
So in this context, Obama represents more change from a grass roots level than any candidate we have seen in modern U.S. history Nader included. He has undertones in his policies which have morphed in the past into downright conservative behavior from our Democrats but his rhetoric in any case represents some very exciting developments for our country. And Hilary will undoubtedly be his VP candidate keeping her safely out of positions of power.
Having said all of this, should Obama take this nomination as it looks like he will I want to state here publicly that his physical safety must be taken very, very seriously. The idea that an African American candidate is going to sweep into the white house while Mr. and Mrs. Whackjob USA sit idly by in their pickups armed to the teeth is extremely naive. JFK, his brother Robert, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, those 4 students at Kent State, and on and on and on. The list of Americans who have been murdered for trying to change this country, particularly African Americans, is a long and tragic one. Let's not fool ourselves for one minute thinking that we are immune from these kinds of events now.
In summary, it seems unbelievable that John McCain at the age of 112 could possibly have any remote chance of beating Obama in a National Election. However, it is the same conservative Americans who elected George Bush TWICE who stand ready to bring us the unbelievable once again. Let us pray to their god that they don't.
So, we must not let our guards down. We must press on more than ever in support of Obama for our sake and for the sake of all those who are impacted by our nation's policies.
For once, the lesser of two evils is actually not that evil.
I watched this movie for free on the internet thankfully since I would feel totally ripped off had I spent a penny on it.
There appears to be a new genre of films emerging. The Post 9-11 New York disaster film. Americans seem to love watching our most famous city getting attacked by all sorts of disasters and monsters. The psychology of this shouldn't be too hard to disseminate. It's like some sort of twisted therapy for people to watch New York getting attacked again and again. It's the same instinct that makes people want to stare at car wrecks or watch fights in the street.
Sadly, the lesson these films leave with people with is that the forces attacking us in New York and elsewhere are mythical and beyond our reality. The reality is far more difficult to swallow I'm afraid. The forces attacking us are not mystical or magical. They do not come in the form of monsters, tidal waves, or meteor showers. These forces are the result of something much closer to us and much more accessible in terms of dealing with them. They are human.
The predictable and mundane sex roles depicted in this film however were so boring as to make this social analysis of it far more high brow than it deserves. As far as camera techniques, the film could have been shot in black and white or in 3-D and it wouldn't have made any difference.
If you're in the mood for a good car wreck then check it out. Otherwise skip it.
