Friday, February 25, 2005

Demarcation

They're marking territory
with a border of shell fragments

bone blood graffiti

memory

on the latest wall of US. Ours. Theirs. Those People.
Over There. Them. Acts of. Genocide? Bickering over dictionary.
Definitions. Not for the sake of saving what is. Said. But what is.
Implied.

Watchwords are fearless
soldiers forever marching on
digging trenches in the minds
to win more hearts for war. All the same
to those busy
writing history
one razed building
one war
crime

at a time.

Is it a matter of money? Political expediency?
The war against ______
Codifying the RIGHT to victimized primacy
so that you don't ever forget
which side you're really on?

The grand realization that your literary litany isn't flag
enough
to cover the cost
but what's one life to "the bottom line"
How is a last breath measured for a profit
according to global capitalist economics
by people who forgot everything they swore to remember
the last of the last time(s)
preface fought and lost
to pretense.


(Watched "Hotel Rwanda" last night. Wished for words to make any sense of the lack of reaction and the see no evil approach that would really explain the lack of reaction. This was all I could come up with. Fragmented sentences and irritation. A wordless stupor. There is always the promises of never again and of protectionism and humanitarianism and these promises almost always follow the words "last time." Why?)

Monday, February 21, 2005

Dream Classes in a Human Rights Minor

Currently there are people working to design and implement a human rights minor at Boise State University. One of those people asked me what my dream list of classes would be. I'm sharing this here because I'm really exited about the prospect of seeing these become reality rather than just dreams of mine. I'm also posting it here in hopes of feedback. Those marked with stars (*) are the ones that I am most interested in not only taking as a student but hopefully one day teaching. So without further adieu...


MY Dream Classes for a HUMAN RIGHTS MINOR: (this is the short list by the way, I have a required dream book list that I'll post at a later time) Feel free to post some feedback to this.

Introduction to Human Rights Theory and History : This would be a nice fall/spring sequence ideally or taken simultaneously modeled after the intro to gender studies courses. I think it would be really wise to approach this with a whole year to build a solid foundation for the more advanced courses. I really think the theory and history need to merge or be taught as compliments to one another because without the history you can't really understand the need for the theory or its application.


*Social Movements and Revolution: This could be a regular "core" course taught by different people covering different times/revolutions or geopolitical arenas, examining social movements and revolutions: what works, what "fails," why do they occur, etc etc. Ideally, this would be a very flexible course because it could be taught from a literary perspective, as a colloqium between soc and history, political science and history and so on. It could also be taught as two seperate courses which might be useful given the wide range of social movements and revolutions to choose from.

*Marxism and the HUMAN Economy: Applying Marxism to the "trade" in human beings and humans as increasingly mechanized labor.
You could ground the class in Marxist theory and examine the historical evolution of trade in human beings from slavery and the servitude of children to the status of slavery today. It could also be useful as a comparative analysis of "the human economy" from a "third world" perspective and from a "first world" or Eastern/Western perspective, i.e. to show how slavery still exists as a global phenomenon and how global capitalism and debt bondage perpetuates it.

*Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention: This too could be a survey course...as in examining case studies and asking how does genocide occur, how many deaths constitute genocide, is war a necessary and successful intervention and deterrent and are there ways to prevent genocide from occuring again or it could focus on a specific case or region where genocide has occured (or IS occuring) to examine/analyze and attempt to answer these same questions.

*Law, "Justice" and Human Rights or Legislating Morality: Examining the ways in which the laws in this country (or in Europe vs. America or even internationally) have been used and abused and reformed to both violate people's human rights but also to secure them. This course also addresses the issue of "hate crime" legislation, racist laws, law as "rights" or "privileges" and further exploring the difference between civil rights and human rights.

*Law, War and Human Rights: I really really want a whole semester long class to try and address this one issue. I want to see students puzzle over the same questions I've been puzzling over for some time now, namely what "Rights" do governments and international organizations have in protecting civillians in times of war and in protecting soldiers? What rights do soldiers have to refuse to engage in "unlawful orders" now that the defense of "I was just following orders" has been explicitly rendered useless by the Nuremberg trials?

*Torture and Human Rights: A case study analysis of the use of torture as policy, defining torture, creating exempted spaces and circumstances for torture to occur "legally" and the role of NGO's, activist groups and courts in sustaining or silencing the reality of torture.

*Fascism and Fundamentalism: Exploring two extremes in modern political ideology. This could be exploring various examples of fascism and fundamentalism or the relationship between fascism and fundamentalism or comparing and contrasting the two.

Health and Human Rights: Case studies in health and human rights from around the globe. Could focus on AIDS or on how the privatization of water, natural resources, bombing pharameceutical plants, war, targeting critical infrastructures and the unchecked power of corporate monopolies and debt policies perpetuate worsening health crises worldwide but especially in the "third world" or "global south."

Democide, "National Security" and Human Rights: Examining the ramifications of when governments kill their own citizens, legislate against them, imprison, torture and assasinate them and enact punitive measures against a specific "scapegoat" to ensure "national security."

Democide and Genocide: What is the difference between genocide as policy and democide as policy?

Environmental Policy and Human Rights: Examining sustainable development, corporate responsibility, government violations of human rights through nuclear testing, Agent Orange, use of depleted uranium in weaponry, undermining/ignoring existing environmental policy and the effectivenss of the groups such as greenpeace in promoting environmentally sound policy.

*Critical Theory and Human Rights: Applying theory to the rhetoric of human rights and the manipulation of "humanitarianism" to wage war and "excuse" torture and "military necessity."

The United Nations and NGO's: Examining the role and strengths and weaknesses of non-governmental organizations working to secure a global committment to human rights.

*Bearing Witness: Trauma Theory and Literatures of Trauma

Manufactured Consent: Propaganda, The Culture Industry

Social Inequality and Human Rights: Examine the roots of social inequality, the perpetuation of different theories and religious views that inequality is desirable, natural, normal or a failure of proper socialization. Examine the "interlocking systems of oppression" as described by bell hooks.

Sexuality as a Human Right: Examine and analyze the debates over whether or not reproductive rights, queer rights, the debates surrounding pornography, prostitution, and freedom to marry regardless of sexual orientation are human rights. Examine also the ways VARIOUS governments violate these rights and what responsibility (if any) governments have to protect citizens from religiously motivated/excused discrimination.

Religion and Human Rights: Freedom of and from religion, the relationship (historical and current) between various Churches and various States and the use of religion as a moral counterbalance to or tool of compliance with State or military power. It would be equally useful to use this course to unpack the myths of the morally superior religions such as the prevailing belief in the U.S. that Islam has less of a committment to human rights than Christianity or Judaism.

Civil Rights, Human Rights: Understanding the difference, examining various struggles for civil and human rights and the responses from various governments in the face of domestic and global outrage over human rights violations.

*The Show Trial: The Media and International Criminal Tribunals From Nuremberg to Iraq: Case studies or a comparative analysis of the role of both the media in influencing opinion and understanding of tribunals from Nuremberg to Iraq. It would be highly prudent to examine what "crimes" were deemed worthy of continuous coverage and what crimes and what criminals went unpunished and why.

Methods and Research in Human Rights: Some sort of statistics/research course that would be useful for anyone desiring to go and do field research. OR it could be an introduction to how field research is done, how accurate it is and how influential it is and how "authority and agency" is established by NGO's such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. It could also work in conjunction with the UN and NGO's course listed above.

*Cultural Myopia in Human Rights Activism and Academia: Exploring and unpacking the Eastern/Western debate over what qualifies as a "universal" human right, the co-optation of academics, activists, lawyers and NGO's as supporters of State policy rather than to check and balance the uncontrolled power of the State and the failure of some academics and inability to critique human rights abuses and abusers wherever they occur.

*Failure to Protect?: A course exploring the ways in which both the United Nations, International Tribunals and International Human Rights Law have failed to prevent genocide, democide and the use of rape and torture as instruments of policy. Could examine prosecutorial limitations in the face of "policies of exceptionalism" and that age old issue of national sovereignty. I think too, it would be most interesting to use this course as a spring board for further analysis of the very issue of sovereignty...sovereignty of the body and of the nation.

Colonialism, Imperialism and Democracy

Seeking Justice: Amnesty and Retribution: Examines the legal, social and international human rights precedents set by The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Nuremberg trials as both being models for recognizing and reckoning with the atrocity that humans can and have inflicted upon one another.

Moving Beyond Left and Right: Examining the use of human rights as a model for truly progressive political change.

Finally, other courses include topics such as:
Social Justice, Criminalizing and Commodifying "Deviance," Mass-Marketing War, Worker's Rights, The Historic Battle between civil/political and socio-economic "human" rights, Women's rights, Children's rights, Poverty and Human Rights and so on.

Ideally, I'd like to see a minor with two required core:
The intro and the methods course
and then students could choose (because it's a minor) from the remaining classes or any other ones offered but must take a minimum of 3-6 "special topics" courses and would participate in an internship for hands on/"field" experience and culminate their work (research and field experience) in a capstone/senior seminar style course.

Here are some links for anyone with an interest in human rights scholarship/academia.
http://www.hrdc.net/accesshr/
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Human_Rights_and_Liberties/
http://www.stanford.edu/group/Jonsson/hrts.html
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/indices/topics/rights/index.php

Ironic, yet interesting article considering the "holiday"

I had wanted to write something about today being considered "President's Day" until I turned on my computer and the main MSNBC article was illuminating the fact that today is also the day Malcolm X was assasinated.

The article was very interesting and I suppose more than anything I was glad to be given a reprieve from the typical propaganda of this day. I was really glad to see Malcolm even being MENTIONED particularly given this being nationally celebrated as "Black History Month."
So in light of that, I'd like to repost the article here. peace!

From: MSNBC.com

Malcolm X: Down for the cause before the cause 40 years after the messenger’s exit, the message still resonates
By Michael E. Ross
Reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 11:35 a.m. ET Feb. 18, 2005

When Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz) was shot to death at 3:10 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 21, 1965, at the Audubon Ballroom in New York City, he was perceived as a pariah of the still-burgeoning drive for equality in America — monitored by the police and the government, marginalized by more mainstream civil rights figures, vilified as a danger to the nation.

What a difference two generations makes — and doesn’t make.

Even now, 40 years after his untimely death, many of the issues that dominated the life and career of Malcolm X remain — like the man himself — at the forefront of African-American life, and American life in general.
Today, he inspires black America in particular even as he haunts America in general with a message still seen as hostile, a message that’s spanned five decades and galvanized younger generations more powerfully, in many ways, than more centrist civil rights leaders like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
From the still-robust sales of his 1965 autobiography to the adoption of his image and oratory by a generation fired by hiphop, the power of Malcolm X has only increased.
The 40th anniversary of his passing comes in an America that has changed, and not changed, in its reception to both the messenger and his message — a nation sometimes angrily sensitized to Islam, Malcolm’s adopted faith.

Power of the word
It’s that power of Malcolm X — not just the power of one’s personal transformation, but also the ability to communicate that transformation to a wide audience — that’s evident in his book “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.” “The Autobiography,” a work whose blazing candor and unflinching self-examination has inspired books from Eldridge Cleaver’s “Soul on Ice” to “Monster,” the autobiography of an L.A. gang member, remains a seminal American work.
By the late 1990s, almost 3 million copies had been sold worldwide, according to the Malcolm X Center at Columbia University. In 1999, Time magazine selected the book as one of the top 10 nonfiction works of the 20th century.

Embracing a native son, or not
Even as Malcolm X has attained broad recognition in the wider American culture, aspects of his identity are still problematic. The state of Nebraska, where Malcolm Little was born on May 19, 1925, has wrestled in recent years with that recognition.
The Nebraska Hall of Fame, established in 1961 to officially recognize prominent Nebraskans, boasts a range of public figures, including Pulitzer Prize-winning author Willa Cather; anthropologist Loren Eiseley; Gen. John J. (Black Jack) Pershing, commander of American Expeditionary Forces in World War I; and William Frederick Cody, the frontiersman and adventurer more widely known as Buffalo Bill.
How the incendiary presence of Malcolm X would figure in that pantheon of Nebraskans, and whether to embrace him as a native son, has been a matter of debate for the state’s Hall of Fame Commission. Malcolm X was considered but rejected by the commission in April 2004.
A bill currently in the statehouse would seek to have ethnic and gender diversity as factors for consideration. The bill also changes the selection process by requiring public hearings.
“When you consider the makeup of the people on the commision — older white people — the likelihood is not the greatest,” said state Sen. Ernie Chambers of the chances for Malcolm’s inclusion.
“Nebraska is a white-dominated, extremely conservative state,” Chambers said. “Most of the people in the state don’t know anything about Malcolm, and some of those who do have more erroneous information than accurate information.”
Chambers, who is Nebraska’s only African-American state legislator, said the matter is now on an indefinite timetable.
If inducted, Malcolm X would be the first African American to be so enshrined.
Maybe the reactions of the Nebraska lawmakers dogging Sen. Chambers are emblematic of wider American perceptions.
Observances of Malcolm X’s death come in an America still painfully aware of the cultural and philosophical gulf between Christianity and Islam — a gulf no doubt widened by those responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
“He was aware of the fact that the Islamic population in the world is growing at an incredibly rapid rate, in the United States it’s growing significantly,” said Howard Dodson, director of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, based in New York City.
“That means that Americans will have to come to terms with Islam within the United States and outside, and formulate positions at individual and societal levels that bring the same respect to Islam that people bring to Christianity,” Dodson said. “That kind of respect will be won over time. It won’t happen overnight.”
For Dodson, Malcolm’s place in history is secure. “Malcolm’s right up there with Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela in the pantheon of leaders of 20th century black history,” he said.
“He resonates and continues to be a voice and presence 40 years later, in large measure because of the kind of life he lived,” Dodson said. “He was as hard on black America as he was on American society.”
“He reached a point in his life where he could not not speak the truth, and in a society where we’re still in the process of desegregation,” Dodson said.
“Black men who had the courage — the audacity, quite frankly — to speak their minds were perceived as a threat,” he said. “It’s interesting that he was seen as a purveyor of violence. There’s no instance that I’m aware of in his public life in which he initiated violence against anyone. But he was a proponent of the defensive position — strike back if stricken.”

Not so far apart
Dodson dismissed another old assumption: that Malcolm X and King, the civil rights leader perceived as more palatable both in message and method, were light years apart in their thinking. “The tendency to create polar opposites, which is what media did at that time, doesn’t reflect the struggle,” Dodson said. “Malcolm had shifted into a broader humanistic perspective, upgrading the position of black, Hispanic and native Americans,” he said. “But they were part and parcel of the same program. Malcolm said in so many words, ‘either you deal with Martin King or you deal with me.’" For Ilyasah Shabazz, one of six daughters in the Shabazz household, relationships between the two leaders were both a matter of history and a family affair.
“In American history we have Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Both men are embraced and respected for what they contributed as fathers of their country. Malcolm and Martin also both contributed, tremendously,” she said. “It’s too bad that African-Americans often pit one against another. Both gave their lives for our cause and both contributed, however differently or similarly, and both gave their lives for what they believed in. Our families have always been close. We share the same pain and outlook on life and joys.”

Growing up Ilyasah
Like her illustrious father, Shabazz took pen in hand to make sense of her past. “Growing Up X” (One World/Ballantine), her 2002 self-described “coming of age memoir,” is at once a tribute to her mother, Dr. Betty Shabazz; an attempt to come to grips with the loss of a father in highly unnatural terms; and an expression of a life in the shadow of one of the 20th century’s most powerful voices.

Ilyasah Shabazz finds that the country has shifted some in its reception of messenger and message.“America has certainly changed in its embrace of brotherhood, in being able to look at humanity and accepting the contributions of all of us. I don’t know how much it’s changed."
Shabazz, who lives in Mount Vernon, N.Y., credits her mother for the spark to write.
The book, she said, “really serves as a tribute to my mother ... just examining her life — while she was in her twenties, her husband was assassinated in front of her, her home was firebombed, [she was] a woman with four babies and pregnant with twins — she accomplished so much while serving humanity.”

Props for her pops
Shabazz, who was only 2 when Malcolm was slain, bears love for her father that’s equally heartfelt. “He was just a young man; that’s what surprises people,” she said. “He was only in his twenties when he burst on the scene.
“This was a regular young man in search of his identity as a man and as a person of African descent and reconnecting us to what we had before bondage … that psychological trauma we see the results of today,” she said.
“He didn’t cower, didn’t compromise his values or integrity. Like Ossie Davis said in the eulogy, Malcolm was our manhood — he was his nation’s manhood. He was unwavering. After a speech I gave once, a young white male student came up and told me, ‘There are only two men I respect in my life — your father and mine.’ ”
“In a sense, Malcolm drove people to King,” said Chambers, the Nebraska state senator. “They would rather contend with someone like Martin Luther King, who said ‘suffer in silence,’ than to deal with Malcolm who said ‘if you hit me, I’m going to hit you back.’ ”
That sense of defiance, a streetwise forthrightness about personal integrity and the need for self-defense, has endeared Malcolm X to the hip-hop generation.
“Hip-hop is not just a style of music, it’s a way of life, a philosophy, and the philosophy of hip-hop comes, in a large part, from the philosophy of Malcolm X,” said Sandeep Atwal, publisher of the political/cultural blog Infernal Press, to the Web site AllHipHop.com.

Full circle at 40

There’s a sense of things having come full circle — or nearly so — for the Audubon Ballroom, the site of the tragedy. On Monday, 40 years to the day of the assassination, the location on upper Broadway in Washington Heights will be where the Shabazz family celebrates Malcolm’s life, at what is now called the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Education Center.
The 2005 observances follow efforts to preserve the site announced in October 1997: New York City, through its Economic Development Corporation, had to that time invested more than $19 million in renovating the building, according to the mayor’s press office. Since then, however, efforts to use the location have faced complications but seem to be getting back on track.
The ballroom’s new center will house a multimedia environment containing documents about Malcolm X’s life, including memoirs, notes, speeches and other personal items.
“It preserves an important historic landmark,” Ilyasah Shabazz said of the site. “It’s about not living a life of bitterness and despair, but finding the good and praising it. Each individual has their share of life’s tragedies. You can’t live life as a victim. We would rather smile and stand than to cry and be bitter and broken. This is all a part of life’s journey.”

MSNBC.com’s Darrell Bowling and The Associated Press contributed to this report. Michael E. Ross is author of Interesting Times: Essays and Nonfiction.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

ADBUSTERS, ADORNO and Application of Critical theory

ADBUSTERS magazine, coupled with the SUN magazine really make me smile. Every issue is well worth what you pay for them. I love the SUN because of the quality of the writing and photographs AND for the fact that they have NO advertisements cluttering up their wonderful pages. ADBUSTERS? Well, you'll have to check them out for yourself.

This though came from their latest edition and I thought it was too great not to post here.

NINE Theses AGAINST CORPORATE RULE:
STOP Buying Politics
STOP Fetishizing Growth
STOP Colonizing Neighborhoods
STOP Selling our Thoughts
STOP Selling off the Poor
STOP Demonizing Peace Workers
STOP Consuming Everything
STOP Privatizing Public Space
START Saying Hello and Listen Like Human Beings (ADBUSTERS, BUY NOTHING DAY)
**************************************************************
I especially enjoy the "fetishizing growth" bit. Reminds me of Lukacs "Commodity Fetishism" that we were briefly introduced to in soc theory last week. It was interesting that the teacher put quite a bit of his lecture in the context of education being commodified to ensure that its true purpose remains to produce the best, most efficient assembly line minds that student loans or your parents can buy. Those are my words, not his but that was his basic point.
Because of this lecture, I picked up a copy of "One-Dimensional Man" from the school library by Mercuse and a collection of "Critical Theory" that has Habermas, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm and Lukacs as well. I wish in a way that critical theory was actually taught in a way that allowed students and teachers to engage the theorists/theories IN a critical way. Rather than the read-regurgitate method, I would love to actually see a classroom setting where we had to take a theorist and have a little role playing game where we had to know their main theory well enough to argue it and defend it or critique another's work using it. Boy, you couldn't b.s. your way through that. I doubt you'd be so quick to forget what they said either if you had to actually argue Freud or argue Foucault or use Foucault to critique Freud. I think that would be quite interesting. I have never understood the logic of "learning" theory outside of its application. If you can't see how Marx's critique of capitalism is relevant today, than it is little more to you than print on a page...positively pointless. Punch the timeclock and here's your degree sort of thing. It's funny too that the teacher commented in class about how when he was speaking of Adorno's argument on critical thinking and the authoritarian personality that we were all "scribbling furiously" that I was writing it down, not for future regurgitative purposes but because it was actually an INTERESTING argument that I wanted to remember. I had a friend of mine point out recently that even the "meritocracy" is an illusion to keep people in the proper pecking order. SO the meritocracy of the macro is mirrored in that lovely little microcosm of the university. That's what my friend said. I realize that teachers have alot of pressure (and increasing crap to put up with it seems) beyond the classroom and so expecting someone to come in and do something different might be a tall order. I have known teachers though to do this and the suprise of the students is simply amazing to behold. My Comm 101 teacher had us act as trial lawyers one day to work on persuasive speech and it was great. Another teacher had us analyze a modern film using three literary theorists. For this, I chose "American Beauty" and put Foucault, de Stael, and John Keats in a bar together to discuss it using their theories and wrote it in a play format. This was probably one of my all time favorite assignments because it allowed me to be as creative as I wanted to be.

I've often wondered if we could ever have a modern day American "Frankfurt School" devoted entirely to critical theory and its application. How though does one come up with an ORIGINAL theory anyway? Look at the main theorists we've studied. THEY've all built their arguments upon the works/words of others. So regardless of whether you're a diehard leftist or one who considers themselves devoutly RIGHT, how DO you think critically and apply the theories (shortcomings and all) to current events without sounding as though you've memorized the latest FOX news soundbyte or have listened to CHOMSKY a bit too much. Hmm? In other words, if you're seeking to escape the box entirely, how does one go about it when everything you know and are and understand about this world has been defined in varying relation to that box? So if Adorno is right is the choice really mutated GMO ketchup or simply naked, mutated, GMO, fat-tainted and deep fat fried "freedom" fries as advertised repeatedly on the channel, billboard and sports team of the day or is there really no choice at all but the illusion of choice and exercise in supply and demand as understood and made history and science by propaganda and Pavlov's dogs?

Friday, February 11, 2005

In honor of Arthur Miller

A poem by another playwright. The bold emphasis added is mine. peace!

From A German War Primer by Bertolt Brecht ()
AMONGST THE HIGHLY PLACED
It is considered low to talk about food.
The fact is: they have
Already eaten.

The lowly must leave this earth
Without having tasted
Any good meat.

For wondering where they come from and
Where they are going
The fine evenings find them
Too exhausted.

They have not yet seen
The mountains and the great sea
When their time is already up.

If the lowly do not
Think about what's low
They will never rise.

THE BREAD OF THE HUNGRY HAS
ALL BEEN EATEN
Meat has become unknown. Useless
The pouring out of the people's sweat.
The laurel groves have been
Lopped down.
From the chimneys of the arms factories
Rises smoke.

THE HOUSE-PAINTER SPEAKS OF
GREAT TIMES TO COME
The forests still grow.
The fields still bear
The cities still stand.
The people still breathe.

ON THE CALENDAR THE DAY IS NOT
YET SHOWN
Every month, every day
Lies open still. One of those days
Is going to be marked with a cross.

THE WORKERS CRY OUT FOR BREAD
The merchants cry out for markets.
The unemployed were hungry. The employed
Are hungry now.
The hands that lay folded are busy again.
They are making shells.

THOSE WHO TAKE THE MEAT FROM THE TABLE
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the contribution is destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
Of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary men.

WHEN THE LEADERS SPEAK OF PEACE
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.

THOSE AT THE TOP SAY: PEACEAND WAR
Are of different substance.
But their peace and their war
Are like wind and storm.

War grows from their peace
Like son from his mother
He bears
Her frightful features.

Their war kills
Whatever their peace
Has left over.

ON THE WALL WAS CHALKED:
They want war.
The man who wrote it
Has already fallen.

THOSE AT THE TOP SAY:
This way to glory.
Those down below say:
This way to the grave.

THE WAR WHICH IS COMING
Is not the first one. There were
Other wars before it.
When the last one came to an end
There were conquerors and conquered.
Among the conquered the common people
Starved. Among the conquerors
The common people starved too.

THOSE AT THE TOP SAY COMRADESHIP
Reigns in the army.
The truth of this is seen
In the cookhouse.
In their hearts should be
The selfsame courage. But
On their plates
Are two kinds of rations.

WHEN IT COMES TO MARCHING MANY DO NOT
KNOW
That their enemy is marching at their head.
The voice which gives them their orders
Is their enemy's voice and
The man who speaks of the enemy
Is the enemy himself.

IT IS NIGHT
The married couples
Lie in their beds. The young women
Will bear orphans.

GENERAL, YOUR TANK IS A POWERFUL VEHICLE
It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs a driver.

General, your bomber is powerful.
It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
But it has one defect:
It needs a mechanic.

General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.

The Futility of the "Moral" Argument

I think I've figured out that trying to argue morality with someone who can't think outside the walls of their own, just doesn't work. It becomes a wall between us that the words cannot, despite however cleverly phrased, penetrate. Then again, you must ask, how does a woman "penetrate"?

Much has been written about the feminization and masculinization of discourse. I think you can see a difference even in the words that are chosen or the way, if you watch a person close enough, you'll see that communication is so much more than words. People speak with their hands, their eyes and their silence as well. The way their hands fall, open and closed. The emphasis of a smile. I tried to learn this but I couldn't bring myself to smile when speaking about modern day slavery. The comm teacher commented I should try anyway. I thought, doesn't this make it seem light when it is anything but?

What I wouldn't give for a space in which people simply value LISTENING more than persuasive speech. I've been reading different op-ed's and "how-to's" by and for "activists" on both sides of the political ravine (left/right) and I think you can see each building a budding little arsenal with the intent of assuring their own first, second and third strike capability. And so how can you seem shocked by the war of words (and weapons) that nations so happily wage if the people who shape discourse do so through their ability to "dominate" it?

I'm feeling futile today. Blame the cold that won't go away. Blame depression. Blame my having to spend four hours at work last night sitting with psychotic patients. Blame economics. Blame that eerie feeling of de ja vu at the sight of the new Time magazine cover page with the next "enemy" already in caricature. Already a face of "evil" plastered on a front page, framed by words of "nuclear" "disarm" "threat" and "force." Sometimes you just want be a turtle and crawl back in your self and say, well shit, if the sky falls you can't say I didn't TRY to warn you.

That's so apathetic isn't it? Sorry.

This semester has (as short as it is thusfar) has been both wildly exciting and tremendously pathetic. Moreso than any semester I've had yet in college. It's so hard to be pulled in a thousand different directions. A mental drawn-and-quartering. It's growth I suppose. Shedding old skin for new. I just can't understand how I'm finally getting to take the most lustworthy classes for my brain ("modern" sociological theory, really great literature from the middle east AND an actual HUMAN RIGHTS history course) and I'm so overloaded emotionally that I can't string together a simple reason I feel so apathetic yet alone a solution to it.

Perhaps it's "Senior burnout."

I dropped a class thinking that might help. I'm in the process of trying to find a job that won't leave me injured and depressed. I'm learning to throw off the tyranny of people in my past whose love is most toxic and their hate, downright deadly. This should be good, should it not?
There have been days recently that I have woke up wanting to quit college. This SHOCKS me because I really do love it. I want to teach for crying out loud. I also want my dishes to get washed, my house to be clean, my bills to be paid, my cabinets to have food in them, my health to be somewhat existent and to be able to spend time with those I love. School doesn't prevent this but then again, you can't survive eating your textbook (or perhaps you can, but for how long?)

Lately, I'm more enchanted by the frost on the ground and the amazing colors of sunrise/sunset than I am by Parson's theory on power.

How do you get people to take the time to listen and actually hear/process what you are trying to say without reacting to what little they chose to hear? How do you do this within yourself to give them the same respect you really wish for yourself? I believe deeply that we need a new dyanmic, a new way of communication that is inclusive and centered NOT on persuasion but on LISTENING. On that note, I'm planning a new tattoo for myself. I need to pick between the kanjii for peace or one I'm actually leaning toward, "Listening" which has characters for the ear but also the heart and the mind. Listening with you whole being. There is such beauty out there and I think if we stay inside our little bubble worlds, we'll miss it. Like a blink, it will be gone.
Of course, this is itself a silly, futile "moral" argument. I think something needs desperately to change in the way that "diplomacy" works in the micro and macrocosmic/public and private spheres. When nations behave like children on a playground, some playing the role of bully, picking fights with anyone who seems different or vulnerable (almost always with the help of audience/crowd) and another throwing temper tantrums in the corner (whose punishment is to be ignored) one must ask as a bystander, where are the parents in all of this? Who will play the adult?

peace!


"in your revelation
in the symphony
there you stood in your own delirium
and all your satellites are fragments here
i feel a little crushed and out of control
and all your gravity
it's meant to bring you down
makes me feel so crushed and out of control" --crushed by Collide

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Lectures, discussion, dialogue.

BSU brought Gloria Steinem to campus and her speech was quite cool. Packed room. Even "pro-life" feminists outside holding anti-abortion signs. Very interesting. Most people in the room seemed quite agreeable to the points Steinem raised but some tried to ask questions that appeared (to me) to be attempts at illiciting a specific, defensive response. All of this made me think about what it might feel like if the shoe were on the other foot (oh, however cliche it is to say). I imagine that if I had been sitting at an Ann Coulter "lecture" I would probably feel as defensive and annoyed as the people who called Steinem's words "degrading." Do you think people who disagree with a speaker's views tend to go to listen to them JUST to dispute them or bitch about what they say or do you think there's opportunity there to change or challenge the perception? Gloria Steinem's lecture also made me think about how sometimes people try to use your words (or words in general) against you. Eventually, I would like to see a direct challenge to that whole notion of a seperation between activism and academia. Too many times professors are labeled as "activist" or as having an "agenda" if they merely present an issue contrary to or unfavorable to the status quo. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. A good professor will allow you to figure out the issue for yourself and give you the space to prove your position intelligently if you disagree and to back up your position even if you agree. Or at least that's my understanding of the ideal academic exchange. I would not sit for one minute in a class where a professor would demean my efforts at learning or push an agenda on me. I have had not yet had to thankfully. Perhaps the dynamic shifts a bit when it's a speaker up there for an hour and a half as opposed to sixteen weeks of educational exchange. I imagine too it must be difficult for people to hear someone presenting a view that may feel personally attacking to them or attacking their religious/moral/familial beliefs. I suppose though that at that point you would want to either put aside your biases to examine what is being presented to you CRITICALLY or at least work through your biases with the same CRITICAL THOUGHT that you want to unleash in "defense" of your views. "Curiouser and Curiouser..."

Off to read. peace!







"Have the strength to just sit inside your sadness
even if you're sitting there alone"--"Icarus" Ani DiFranco

Monday, February 07, 2005

Vocab Lesson

Please explain to me the difference between "virulent" hatred and hatred. We are constantly given (and constantly give) examples of a differentiation between "virulent" hatred and hatred and the subject of which became even more relevant with two words: "hate crime." My point here in questioning the use of such a qualifier/quantifier is that I feel that it allows for a cognitive dissonance of sorts. By arguing Hitler is the epitome of evil incarnate it allows people who might've agreed with his policies and supported him financially and profited off of his wars(hint hint) to somehow be let "off the hook." Because they were not running the trains or the camps, nor were they donning the uniform and the fascist salute, they escape being lumped into the category of "truly evil." I wonder though if people who get labeled today as "virulently" hateful such as the Rev. Phelps and Falwell (among others) are really convenient diversionary tactics from those who make "virulently hateful" policies. I wonder also if their semi-"free reign" allows people to tolerate the smilingly hateful (a sort of razor blade in honey approach) so that they don't HAVE to deal with those who are obviously "extremist" in their views. I suppose I should qualify this. Is there anything less hateful about speeches made by Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity than the shit spewed by Phelps and Falwell? Sure, their targets are "liberals" and "terrorists" rather than gays, America, and liberals and terrorists but is there any real difference? One coats their words and the other doesn't but both have this odd ability to nearly cut the throat of the "Left" and with any radical voice that does escape is labeled "treasonous" and so too dies the opportunity for dialogue and critical thought. Back to my question though (drama aside) I really would like to know what the difference is between "private" hatred that may motivate racist, sexist and homophobic policies and that of "public" hatred which may result in a "hate" crime or a "war of aggression." I find the different words we use quite fascinating. The words "frame" debate and thus our understanding but more often they crush debate. That which doesn't fit within the given frame is simply ignored or made to seem idiotic, evil or questionable at best. Take the words "beating death" and "lynching." People didn't label Matthew Shephard's death a lynching. It was listed in the press again and again as a "hate crime" but also from what I read as a "beating death." How is it not a lynching?
How is it that the actions taken by Israeli soldiers against Palestinians understood as "defense" rather than "aggression?" Or when an individual uses a bomb or becomes a bomb, this is "terrorism" but when nations do it, it is "justice" "war" or even "humanitarian intervention."
All of these words have a specific, significant function in our discourse. The more sanitized the language, the more distance is maintained cognitively, thus "morally" and conveniently enough, politically. This works on so many levels. By maintaining the illusion of a "middle class" in America and the even greater illusion that anyone can become part of the richest 1% if they just "work hard enough" or that all people on welfare are to blame for the economy being in the crapper, it keeps people's attention diverted and their energy divided. We become factionalized. We think it's the "illegal immigrants" faults. Never mind that without those willing (often forced) to work in fields and sweatshops, we would have nothing to eat and nothing to wear. We think "gay marriage" and "abortion" are truly "moral" issues. This keeps people from thinking about and questioning the "morality" of bombing an entire country (two, three or more) into democracy or bombing a pharamceutical plant or ignoring genocide after genocide because we don't want to acknowledge our own war crimes. Carefully constructed PR stifles dissent like duct tape over the mouth, while the chance for actual "discourse" is played out like a role-play game by corporate media monkeys who dance to the tune of the business interests who are REALLY in power. All the while we're told that EVERY action is for the "GOOD of America" or the "Good of the world." How anyone could believe that cutting social programs are going to benefit "ALL" of America, especially the "WORKING CLASS" of America or the YOUTH, OR the elderly. COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who is this "We" anyhow?

Your job isn't safe. Your family isn't safe. Your dream of retiring is exactly that and increasingly more so given the push for "overhauling" social security. I think any time you hear a policy maker sugar coat a policy agenda they're pushing you should automatically pause and think WHOA, "overhauling" "Defense of..." "reform," where have I heard this before? Ann Coulter can make an ass of herself slamming the feminist efforts that ALLOW for her to even be able to be misconstrued as an "Authority" (ON WHAT?) and sell a billion books doing so but someone like Arundhati Roy is viewed as "virulent" because her views aren't consistent with the crap spewed on the mainstream media. I think my post is starting to sound rather virulent. It just amazes me how words are so easily turned into weapons. The real danger is in silence and being made silent. Silence in the face of oppression. Silence in the reality of torture. Silence as the bombs fall. Didn't you ever want to ask someone like Phelps, someone who is running around screaming what GOD thinks/knows/believes/loves/hates/condemns and condones: How do you know God isn't up there going, would you just shut up already? I find the arrogance in people's pretense of "knowing" what GOD thinks pretty amazing. I'm a firm believer in karma. What you do comes back to you. So do you think Phelps might be reincarnated into a homosexual then or perhaps he is simply following in the footsteps of such grand souls as Hoover and McCarthy????
Hmm...I need sleep. :) peace!

"Have the strength to just sit inside your sadness
even if you're sitting there alone"--"Icarus" Ani DiFranco

"i'm haunted by my illicit, explicit dreams
and i can't really wake up
so i just drift in between
thinking the glass is half empty
and thinking it's not quite full"--"Slide" Ani (again)

"cuz all the wrong people have the power
of suggestion
and the freedom of the press is meaningless
if nobody asks a question"--"serpentine" Ani (yet again)

"so you see don't believe in the system
to legalize you or give you your freedom
you want rights ask 'em, they'll read 'em
but every flower gotta right to be bloomin'...
stay human..."--"Stay Human" Michael Franti/Spearhead

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Rethinking Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"

Today we focused much discussion on torture and the big question of how to get people to care about others and not just about themselves, their world, their love, their fear and their well-being. I thought today that a perfect story to get younger people thinking about this would be Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery."

Here's an excerpt:

It's Tessie," Mr. Summers said, and his voice was hushed. "Show us her paper. Bill."
Bill Hutchinson went over to his wife and forced the slip of paper out of her hand. It had a black spot on it, the black spot Mr. Summers had made the night before with the heavy pencil in the coal company office. Bill Hutchinson held it up, and there was a stir in the crowd.
"All right, folks." Mr. Summers said. "Let's finish quickly."
Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones. The pile of stones the boys had made earlier was ready; there were stones on the ground with the blowing scraps of paper that had come out of the box Delacroix selected a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands and turned to Mrs. Dunbar. "Come on," she said. "Hurry up."
Mr. Dunbar had small stones in both hands, and she said. gasping for breath. "I can't run at all. You'll have to go ahead and I'll catch up with you."
The children had stones already. And someone gave little Davy Hutchinson few pebbles.
Tessie Hutchinson was in the center of a cleared space by now, and she held her hands out desperately as the villagers moved in on her. "It isn't fair," she said. A stone hit her on the side of the head. Old Man Warner was saying, "Come on, come on, everyone." Steve Adams was in the front of the crowd of villagers, with Mrs. Graves beside him.

"It isn't fair, it isn't right," Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.
**************************************************************
That story never fails to give me chills and yet, how farfetched is the "village" mentality?
What do you think? Could such a story, so disturbing and yet powerful, give people pause enough to consider the idea of "sacrifice?" Or what about "justice?" Or perhaps even "security?" I remember reading this story in an English class where we also read "A Tale of Two Cities" followed shortly thereafter by the black-and-white film version. The Guillotine was a very menacing sight but I wonder how any thought of execution or pain could not cause psychological torment? Especially the fear of being killed by children. While children were not performing lynchings, there are many pictures of them at the feet of the dead, usually hanged man and stories of course of picnics by a disembowled (formerly pregnant) black woman. Juxtapose this with the child's understanding of torture and of death. Are most young children capable of understanding/comprehending/contextualizing the murder of someone? Some teens aren't even able to do this. How young do you begin to speak about the consequences of violence and more importantly, the violence of apathy? The apathy of watching people being interned. The apathy of seeing torture photos or watching buildings crumble after being struck by planes? How much should you worry about the violence in a video game when the violence acted out on real people in various countries using various methods of torture, starvation, carpet and cluster bombing or domestic violence, rape and child abuse is ever present? You can't turn that off.

If I teach one day, I want to teach using this story among many others such as "Persepolis," "Things Fall Apart," "The Sunflower," "Ordinary Men," "The Things They Carried," and "Beloved" so that people get to grapple with the "morality" or "ethics" of breaking another's body and/or mind. Why these? Well I think each span various cultures and times. Some deal with war. Some deal with torture. One addresses slavery. All deal with the question of ethics and/or morality and human rights and violation. I would add too, Derrick Jensen's book "A Language Older than Words" and perhaps Kali Tal's "Worlds of Hurt" book as a theory text. Jensen's book deals spans a spectrum of abuse from child abuse to rape of the environment. Tal's book examines the use of literature to speak about trauma (among other things). There are a ton of books I'd like to use but this is where I'm beginning my list. If you've got things to add feel free to do so. Also if you have suggestions let me know. I'm always open to suggestion. peace!

"Morality" and Law

I'm always torn on the issue of a legislative morality. Do you remember when the Hate Crimes bills surfaced after the murder of Matthew Shephard trying to include in that definition, sexual orientation? I had a nice talk with a professor of mine who is a former lawyer and I remember he said something like the problem is, how do you legislate what is in someone's head or heart? How do you prosecute hate? How is murder any less a murder if the person died because they were in the wrong place/ wrong time or because their death was motivated by their sexual preference? How is changing the law to prosecute their murder as a "hate crime" going to change the fact that despite the motivation, the person is still dead?

I realize laws fall quite short of actual protection but I DO think the wording is quite important.
I think that by adding "sexual orientation" "sexuality" "sexual preference" you are legally validating a group who are still quite marginalized in this "democratic" society, thus still very much subject to discrimination and violence. Still, what to do about the laws...
This whole "oil-for-food" fiasco with the UN makes it seem even MORE inept (if that's even possible) and I just wonder where, when and how the idea of legal protection can trump class privilege, racist practice, power politics and hate? On the one hand, you have carefully worded laws that can actually provide precedence or offer an open door to improving or challenging or overhauling policy but how do you change the practice? Does changing the penalty of a law actually help or hurt the people the law is meant to protect? What about that ever important issue of enforcement? As evidenced by the US/UN relationship which borders on the incestuous in my opinion, the degree to which "law" will be follow really depends upon the capability of either an inner (as in, within the State itself) or outer (as in, with an international court) prosecutorial body that is free enough from the persuasion of that which it is to judge to do so according to the law. Then again, who defines that law? History has shown again and again the constant mutability of international law. There's that saying "Might makes Right" and I think that in this case (or at least in this argument) that is true. Unfortunate, but true. So I think perhaps that the true 'might' to make right has to lie in the hands of the people of a nation and not in the blind trust of their "leadership" or in the romantic notion of a foreign protectorate ready and able to enforce a body of law that is so wonderfully eloquent but so incredibly difficult to enforce.

I watched this film this weekend that I love titled "When night is falling" and in it one of the characters says to the other (who happens to be a lesbian) "Surely people like you have friends right?" I think the best intentions are just as cutting as that stupid phrase. However cautiously said or well-meant, those words isolate and treat the person they are addressing as a subject, an abnormality, a deviant, different, flawed. Some have argued that offering legal protection to those whose sexuality differs from the heterosexist norm is giving those not fitting within that norm, "special rights." The word "Special" suggests something above and beyond what already exists and the sad fact is that the U.S. hasn't even reached the point of "equal" rights so the notion of special rights is absolutely ludicrous. Under GW our nation has regressed in its fancy side step of international law and has kicked whatever legal "teeth" in that the Convention Against Torture may have had. This blog began by asking the question about what an America might look like that actually promoting a commitment to human rights rather than military might. We'll see how this will change for the better or worse in the next six months with Bush, Rice, Rummy and potentially Gonzales at the helm. It is painfully ironic that those who voted for this group are dubbed "the moral majority." This is only further proof that morality is really as abstract a label as any other word we might attach to ourselves or our thinking. You can wear it all you want but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Finally, I really do think that legal scholars and scholars in general need to demand/shape/create a new language to counter and unpack the rhetoric used to justify/excuse human rights violations. The word "occupied" seems inadequate and innoculous. The word "detainee" seems like someone's just being held for a short while really, never mind what they're actually going through. The words "justice" "democracy" "oppression" "coercion" "freedom" "liberty" "power" and even that lovely word "morality" have all proven quite effective in the war here for hearts and minds. I think those who cringe at the use and abuse of those words really need to either reclaim them or create new ones that are yet to be co-opted. The media may be the mouthpiece of this administration but the indy media and alternative spaces have the power and opportunity to create a much needed (change in) dialogue. Refuse to be silenced. peace!


Friday, February 04, 2005

Happiness in "Verse"

Happiness, for me, is often something channeled into words. Especially when I read something that just makes me smile. This poetry review did just that. I want this book. I want to shake the poet's hand or buy him a coffee and say, "Rock on!" For now, this will have to do. One thing though, the reviewer explains that some may wonder why the poet is so angry. I always wonder why more people are not. Oh and I agree with Herron, I would take John Lennon anyday but add Jim Morrison as well. So many forget he was first and foremost a poet. peace!


NEW! Review of Patrick Herron
American Godwar Complex by Patrick Herron.
BlazeVOX, $10.
Reviewed by Heidi Lynn Staples

And the just man rages in the wilds / Where lions roam. --William Blake

Some readers simply won't be satisfied with the particular execution of the political agenda in American Godwar Complex. Patrick Herron, surely, is aware of this, and his “Fuck You O Elvis” might be read, in part, as a response to anticipated critiques that demand a front-man of more lyricism and less didacticism:
... Fuck you O Elvis your cloudy pool is airless; the fish float on the surface with marble grin rotated sideways.Fuck you O Elvis your rotted Picasso-sloughed corpse you had no taste for voluminous fervor you absented toiling clam and skinny tie flim-flam spam man.Fuck you O Elvis you are the icon of my gilded excoriation.
Fuck you O Elvis fuck you I'll take John Lennon any day.

The epigraphs by Bertolt Brecht and Allen Ginsberg, two writers who worked from a belief in the poem as relevant site for public discourse, suggest we read the book not as the overheard musing of a solitary speaker but as the openly proclaimed indignation of an angry citizen. American Godwar Complex commences with a bit of revolutionary disturbance: “The Star Spangled Banner” becomes the collection's first poem, “The Blood-Spatter'd Banner”:

Oh, say can't you see, by the bare dangled light,
What so loudly we nailed with our nighttime's armed reaming?
Whose blood stripes and barbed stars, through the one-sided fight,
O'er the ghettoes we watched, were so violently screaming?
Does the vanquished's dead stare, uranium bursting in air, Give proof to our night that our flag is still there?
O say, can that blood-spattered banner yet wave
O'er the land ruled by blind decree, in a world we enslave?

This presents more than bare pastiche; across the collection, Herron employs (not always with sufficient force) the Situationist strategy of d'etournement--the subversion, devaluation and re-use of present and past cultural production to demolish its message while pirating its impact. What Adbusters does to the corporate, Herron sets out to do to the government: “The Star Spangled Banner” becomes “The Blood-Spattered Banner”; “My Country Tis of Thee” becomes “My Country Steals from Me”;“Hail to the Chief” becomes “Hail to the Thief”; “Take Me Out to The Ball Game” becomes “Take Me Out In the Maul Game.” Herron's saucy speaker mouths off in poems of a wide assortment, including skeletals, epistles, definitions, transcripts, and this one-liner:

“Parade”
I used to love a parade.

By evoking a fallen enthusiasm for processions--those actions in which things (words, cognitive patterns, policies, people) move forward in regular formation--Herron expresses disenchantment with, among other phenomena, high-stepping lyricism. Instead of a well-wrought yearn, the reader will find, for example, acerbic political haikus:

Politiku 1

Word from our sponsors:
please place your television
on the ocean floor.

Politiku 2
american re
olution: pollution, de
plete uranium.

solution: dig ahold to permanently keep
armed forces covert.

Sustained anger, a distinct feature of the collection, alienates the reader--perhaps purposefully. As anyone who has been in a good row knows, anger creates distance. Most obviously, anger introduces questions of judgment into the reading experience: What's he so angry about? Should he be this angry? What does he want me to do about it? Such questions interrupt the reader from her dreamy identification with the poem's speaker and ask her to wake up, participate in the making of meaning, and decide the issues for herself, goddammit; however, the best culture jamming--using an enemy's resources against it--is shocking and unexpected. The book's accomplishment in these terms can be unclear, particularly when words rhyme predictably, the syntax goes unsubverted, and the subject and sentiment can be anticipated, as in
“Amurika Eins:”
Follow the bouncing ball
to wherever Osama will fall.

Our might will take it all.
To fill the lives of young soldiers with thrills,
to inspire our leaders to gobble their pills!

There's oil in them thar Caspian hills.

Very likely these lines play better as spoken word, an indication of the collection's inherent theatricality.To everything there is a season. A time to laugh. A time to cry. And a time to tell off the motherfuckers. American Godwar Complex identifies our current epoch as this latter sort.
--from Verse magazine.--

"Stand your ground, this is what we are fighting for. For our spirit and laws and ways
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. For heaven or hell we shall not wait.
Shall I think of honour as lies or lament it's aged slow demise?
Shall I stand as a total stranger on this day in this stone chamber?"
--VNV Nation "HONOUR"

"We who build great works just to break them down. We who make our rules so we never fail."
--VNV Nation "Joy"

I LOVE THIS!

This is too cool not to share. Check out more on http://alse.blogspot.com


.

Gives a whole new meaning to the words: Question authority!

peace!


Thursday, February 03, 2005

Continued discrimination?

Gays Excluded From Auschwitz Commemoration

The only victims not remembered — or invited.
By Tomek Kitlinski

WARSAW, Holocaust survivors and world leaders held a ceremony last week in Poland to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi death camp by the Red Army. Gay victims were the only ones not remembered, and gay groups the only ones not invited.

*****************************************************************
I've always wondered what the difference is between persecution and prosecution when both assume a sort of criminality?

Lunacy as policy

I've heard it explained countless times that capitalism as a system of economics is self-destructive...because of overproduction and depletion of resources (natural, non-renewable, labor and monetary) chiefly. Yet I'm still always amazed when we have a repeat performance of the same tired old act: i.e. wage a war when the economy sucks, wage a war when people begin to question why their jobs are all going to thirteen year old girls in "third world" countries, wage a war when people start questioning that the cuts to social programs (poor little bleeding wrists that they are) are really "in the best interest of the "public," the "family" or god help, "the economy." I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. I've always felt that what "we've" learned from Vietnam has really been how better to dupe people. Control the media when you get your war on. Distort the social reality and see how best to convince people not to care about those beyond "our secure" borders. When "we" do it's not "terrorism" it's "exporting" opportunistic democracy. America has an impressive track record of this sort of export, don't you think?

This latest Rice venture, coupled with Bush's "We don't force our style of government on anyone" speech and (oh what a) photo-op in the beautiful pages of HIStory, the bumper magnet mania, what a wonderful exercise in promoting global democracy...

Well if you aren't yet feeling nostalgic enough, read this:

Rice Criticizes Iran on First Trip Abroad
2 hours, 41 minutes ago
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
LONDON - Iran's approach to human rights and its treatment of its own citizens is loathsome, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said Thursday. While saying Iranians deserve better leaders than "unelected mullahs," America's new chief diplomat stopped short of demanding their ouster.
AP Photo
AFP
Slideshow: Condoleezza Rice

At the start of her first trip abroad since succeeding Colin Powell (news - web sites) at the State Department, Rice also told reporters that last weekend's election in Iraq (news - web sites) vindicates the U.S.-led toppling of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
The invasion was broadly unpopular in many of the European capitals that Rice will visit over the next week. A major goal of Rice's trip is to shift the subject in Europe toward the possibility of Middle East peace and other mutual goals.
"I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people and for the region," Rice said en route to London, her first stop. Her itinerary includes visits to Jerusalem and the West Bank to encourage peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Rice planned to meet on Friday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. In stops in Berlin later Friday and Paris next week, she may run into war opposition that still lingers.
Iraq's elections for a national assembly "clearly remind us why we worked to liberate the Iraqi people from that terrible dictator," Rice said.
Acknowledging that "we all know that it's been difficult in Iraq," Rice said she still would "trade anytime" the stability offered under Saddam's rule for the self-determination promised by the election.
"It should just remind us all that those of us who had the good fortune to live on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to those who are left on the other side of freedom's divide to try to achieve their aspirations," Rice said.
On that point, she said, even those who "disagree about what we did or when we did it," can unite.
"I don't think there's anyone in Europe or anyplace else that thinks that the Iraqi people deserved Saddam Hussein," Rice said.
It is not clear how much international support there is for any potential action against Iran. The United States has been cool to European efforts to negotiate a halt to suspected Iranian nuclear weapons development, preferring stiffer measures such as economic penalties.
"I think that our European allies agree that the Iranian regime's human rights behavior and its behavior toward its own population is something to be loathed," Rice said.
Asked directly whether the United States supports a change in leadership in Iran, Rice said: "We are engaged in a process with many others that is aimed at making clear to the Iranians that their behavior internally and externally is out of step with the direction and desire of the international community."
During his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Bush (news - web sites) urged the government in Tehran to "end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
On Thursday, Iran's supreme leader said Bush's policies toward Iran will fail.
"America is like one of the big heads of a seven-headed dragon," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in Iran's capital. "The brains directing it are Zionist and non-Zionist capitalists who brought Bush to power to meet their own interests."
At her Senate confirmation hearings last month, Rice said the United States wants "a regime in Iran that is responsive to concerns that we have about Iran's policies, which are 180 degrees" antithetical to America's interests.
Rice said she does not plan to attend next week's Middle East summit meeting in Egypt, although she said it was one of several hopeful signs for peace.
Rice will meet with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders ahead of that summit, but she indicated Thursday that the United States is taking something of a hands-off approach, for now.
"Not every effort has to be an American effort," Rice said. "It is extremely important that the parties themselves are taking responsibility. It is extremely important that the regional actors are taking responsibility."
President Bush pledged $350 million in aid for the Palestinians in Wednesday's State of the Union speech. Rice said it is too soon to say how that money will be spent.
She issued a veiled rebuke to Arab countries that have lagged behind Europeans and others in financial or other support for Israeli-Palestinian peace or have not acted to quell terrorism.
"Some in the region have not been as generous as they might be," Rice said. "I think it is time for everybody to look deep inside and say, `If we want the Israeli-Palestinian peace to be achieved and sustain momentum, what more can we do?'"

It's so fascinating the way they're staging this little (latest) "peace in the middle east" campaign.
"Manufacturing consent" as Chomsky would (has) said. I find it quite ironic that they're also always asking for more money when it was disclosed last week that they're some 9 billion dollars "missing" in Iraq. Hmm...wonder what the "aid" for Palestine will look like and what this will mean for Israel. What do you think?


peace!

"take away my right to choose
take away my point of view
the lunatics have taken over the asylum"--Collide (from their c.d. "Vortex")