Sunday, December 16, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Uncommon Occurrences: UFOs and Impeachment
Written as a weekend column for Huffington Post. As of uploading to my blog at 11AM, HuffPo doesn't have it up just yet. Hopefully it'll get a chance to bemuse and enlighten their readership.
So Tim Russert pegs Kucinich with a question about whether he saw a UFO. Definitely the punk move of the night and, despite what Hillary-protectors might say, it’s his job to challenge her with tough questions. Not because she’s a woman, not because she’s in the lead, but because she doesn’t say anything when she’s up there. And don’t get me started on Brian Williams presenting her with “will you be the president that reduces cancer” question on a tee ball stand, right after Kucinich gave the Spock Sign. The juxtaposition is like suggesting Isaiah 2:4 is the Gospel of the Neocons. But it’s funny how a candidate like Kucinich, with some of most substantive, direct answers to all questions, is never asked much of anything. Universal not-for-profit healthcare? No blood for oil? Impeachment of Cheney & Bush? I mean, John Lennon reported to seeing a UFO, the Egyptians couldn’t have lifted those 2 ton stones without alien anti-gravity beams; we KNOW this stuff. Is it any surprise that many world governments have now disclosed their top secret UFO documents? The French have! Sarkozy may not want to discuss his divorce, but all that stuff about de Gaulle and visitors from beyond is available to the global community. Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian Defense Minister, recently implored all governments of the world to fully disclose knowledge of alien technology. He believes that their hyper-advanced technology can “help save civilization.” I’ve read my Isaac Asimov, watched Back to the Future Part II, and what the hell? The future is really letting us down. What happened to Doc Brown telling us “where we’re going, we don’t need roads.” That’s 2015! Pick up the pace, OPEC! Exxon, Shell & Chevron, stop taping butterflies to those solar panels. Oh, and your derricks are shooting blanks. Ultimately though, isn’t a car that runs on a kitchen scraps just a whole lot cooler?
For the record, until I was 12 I often slept with my head buried under my pillow, afraid I was going to be abducted by aliens. I attribute that to seeing ET at the drive-in when I was 2 and totally misinterpreting. I’m from a formerly rural valley of eastern Pennsylvania, where people used to see strange lights out above the distant farm plots. Now sprawled out where Peppermint Avenue meets Dickinson Lane, that sounds far less scary than endless cookie sheets of houses with roads that feel like you’re staring down that long hallway in Kubrick’s The Shining. Hummers for him and H3’s for her, staring you back. Petroolll, they cow. All of a sudden, alien technology sounds a whole lot friendlier. And don’t worry if they’re hostile like in Independence Day. We can team up with Iran and bolster their nuclear program. Winning the Intergalactic War trumps World War III, hands down.
All that said, I can’t believe I’d ever have ill words for Jon Stewart, but this past week he stung the most delicate pangs of my bleeding heart. Halloween night, The Daily Show ended its segment on the debate with Kucinich’s UFO question. The camera comes back to Stewart, who says with cloying sarcasm, “Sanjaya, why are you still in this competition?” Now I could be mistaken, but that was a low blow. Maybe the delivery was meant to be an empathic “you’re the guy who gets put in the kooky left field pen by the media,” but that wasn’t my read. (And if so, you should know better than to perpetuate it). No, I got more of “you’re the crappy, insufferable candidate who has somehow made it this far.” I have to remind myself that reality’s more of an inverted system, where the candidates with the most integrity, the most courage, are left to the laughable margins. The hippie-vegan/hot wife/elfkin punch lines can only go so far; so let’s either bring the jokes up to snuff, or consider taking the guy seriously.
If you’re live next week, Mr. Stewart, I challenge you to run a segment on impeachment proceedings. I’m curious whether anyone other than the 4AM C-SPAN broadcast will cover it (I don’t know what C-SPAN broadcasts at 4AM, just go along with it). So what it’s going to be? Kucinich sees little green men, or Kucinich impeaches little greedy men? Both sound like great copy. And if your writers are on strike, blog about it. Please.
(In case you didn’t hear it from your fearless network reporter, Congressman Kucinich will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor this Tuesday to introduce HR 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. The bill currently has 21 House co-sponsors. Democratic leadership is likely to table the measure, so if you feel differently, contact your representative.)
So Tim Russert pegs Kucinich with a question about whether he saw a UFO. Definitely the punk move of the night and, despite what Hillary-protectors might say, it’s his job to challenge her with tough questions. Not because she’s a woman, not because she’s in the lead, but because she doesn’t say anything when she’s up there. And don’t get me started on Brian Williams presenting her with “will you be the president that reduces cancer” question on a tee ball stand, right after Kucinich gave the Spock Sign. The juxtaposition is like suggesting Isaiah 2:4 is the Gospel of the Neocons. But it’s funny how a candidate like Kucinich, with some of most substantive, direct answers to all questions, is never asked much of anything. Universal not-for-profit healthcare? No blood for oil? Impeachment of Cheney & Bush? I mean, John Lennon reported to seeing a UFO, the Egyptians couldn’t have lifted those 2 ton stones without alien anti-gravity beams; we KNOW this stuff. Is it any surprise that many world governments have now disclosed their top secret UFO documents? The French have! Sarkozy may not want to discuss his divorce, but all that stuff about de Gaulle and visitors from beyond is available to the global community. Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian Defense Minister, recently implored all governments of the world to fully disclose knowledge of alien technology. He believes that their hyper-advanced technology can “help save civilization.” I’ve read my Isaac Asimov, watched Back to the Future Part II, and what the hell? The future is really letting us down. What happened to Doc Brown telling us “where we’re going, we don’t need roads.” That’s 2015! Pick up the pace, OPEC! Exxon, Shell & Chevron, stop taping butterflies to those solar panels. Oh, and your derricks are shooting blanks. Ultimately though, isn’t a car that runs on a kitchen scraps just a whole lot cooler?
For the record, until I was 12 I often slept with my head buried under my pillow, afraid I was going to be abducted by aliens. I attribute that to seeing ET at the drive-in when I was 2 and totally misinterpreting. I’m from a formerly rural valley of eastern Pennsylvania, where people used to see strange lights out above the distant farm plots. Now sprawled out where Peppermint Avenue meets Dickinson Lane, that sounds far less scary than endless cookie sheets of houses with roads that feel like you’re staring down that long hallway in Kubrick’s The Shining. Hummers for him and H3’s for her, staring you back. Petroolll, they cow. All of a sudden, alien technology sounds a whole lot friendlier. And don’t worry if they’re hostile like in Independence Day. We can team up with Iran and bolster their nuclear program. Winning the Intergalactic War trumps World War III, hands down.
All that said, I can’t believe I’d ever have ill words for Jon Stewart, but this past week he stung the most delicate pangs of my bleeding heart. Halloween night, The Daily Show ended its segment on the debate with Kucinich’s UFO question. The camera comes back to Stewart, who says with cloying sarcasm, “Sanjaya, why are you still in this competition?” Now I could be mistaken, but that was a low blow. Maybe the delivery was meant to be an empathic “you’re the guy who gets put in the kooky left field pen by the media,” but that wasn’t my read. (And if so, you should know better than to perpetuate it). No, I got more of “you’re the crappy, insufferable candidate who has somehow made it this far.” I have to remind myself that reality’s more of an inverted system, where the candidates with the most integrity, the most courage, are left to the laughable margins. The hippie-vegan/hot wife/elfkin punch lines can only go so far; so let’s either bring the jokes up to snuff, or consider taking the guy seriously.
If you’re live next week, Mr. Stewart, I challenge you to run a segment on impeachment proceedings. I’m curious whether anyone other than the 4AM C-SPAN broadcast will cover it (I don’t know what C-SPAN broadcasts at 4AM, just go along with it). So what it’s going to be? Kucinich sees little green men, or Kucinich impeaches little greedy men? Both sound like great copy. And if your writers are on strike, blog about it. Please.
(In case you didn’t hear it from your fearless network reporter, Congressman Kucinich will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor this Tuesday to introduce HR 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. The bill currently has 21 House co-sponsors. Democratic leadership is likely to table the measure, so if you feel differently, contact your representative.)
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Gravel's Media Manipulation
Originally written for Huffington Post, this is an article covering Mike Gravel's alternate debate held October 30th in Philadelphia. This version is unedited, the HuffPo version can be found here.
Philadelphia, PA –
When NBC excluded Mike Gravel from its October 30th Democratic Debate, the Former Senator did not take things lying down. Support videos sprouted up on YouTube, and Gravel’s campaign organized an alternate debate one block away. He began the evening by listing NBC’s criteria for his exclusion, presented to his campaign on October 19th, and refuted them. NBC cited that he had not visited New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times, which Gravel countered with 20+ campaign-verified visits to New Hampshire, more than most other candidates. Another requirement, polling at 5%, was voided by the fact that numerous candidates are below that margin (Chris Dodd, Joe Biden & Dennis Kucinich). The final, and only irrefutable requirement, was that the campaign had yet to raise $1 million. That was part of yesterday’s agenda, in addition to fighting censorship and raising visibility of Gravel’s candidacy.
The ensuing event contrasts starkly with the impression most probably have of Gravel, especially if they base it solely upon his debate performances. Typically given the least speaking time, Gravel’s responses could be characterized as Bulworth meets Howard Zinn meets Peter Finch in “Network”. Exasperated candor, sincerity, and moral urgency all wound together. But here Gravel was master of ceremonies, able to speak to his heart’s content and the crowd’s delight. Whenever a candidate’s response or debate topic merited commentary, he’d call out “pause,” talk freely with the candidate frozen on-screen behind him, and offer his take on “politics as usual.” Gravel’s campaign broadcast the event live from its website for supporters to tune in.
Gravel sat on stage by his lone podium, 77 years of grizzled experience, unsung hero of the Vietnam era (having filibustered the draft by himself and read The Pentagon Papers into the public record), watching the debate with supporters, totaling around 250. Attendees included a team of NYU filmmakers, Drexel and UPenn students, kindred Kucinich supporters, and a generous handful of Ron Paul supporters, curious to hear more about the maverick Democrat with some similar views to Paul (ending the Iraq war and US militarism, ending the Drug War, eliminating the IRS & income tax, and Constitutional integrity). Even a handful of Students for Hillary were present, although they left nearly as soon as Gravel pounced on statements made by the former First Lady.
An Army counterintelligence officer in West Germany during the Korean War, Gravel demonstrated this with a keen analysis of the political game. He offered commentary like an Orwellian pundit, frequently taking Clinton’s language to task for its doublespeak. And while Hillary-bashing has become de rigeur as of late, Gravel referenced last month’s debate, during which he condemned Clinton’s vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Before candidates were really making noise about its implications for war with Iran, he turned to Clinton point-blank and said “I’m ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it.” Though received with little fanfare at the time, since then many supporters, Gravel included, feel this may have cost him attendance at Tuesday’s debate.
He warned of the incessant “drumbeat to war and saber rattling” in light of no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and the consequences of invading Iran. “Worldwide recession, oil $150+ per barrel. Minimum.” As president, Gravel promised to unilaterally reduce America’s nuclear weapons stockpile by one half, “as an example to the rest of the world.” He noted that every permanent member of the UN Security Council has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which obligates other nations to feel “if you don’t have it [the bomb], you want it.”
Against sanctions and wanting instead “to start treating the world as equals,” Gravel condemned Bill Clinton’s sanctions against Iraq that caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. “The innocent of the innocent,” he intoned. He blasted the US mindset of “policing the world” as code for American Imperialism. Later, exasperated by Clinton’s repeated “carrots and sticks” foreign diplomacy soundbite, he exhorted “Talk to them like the equal human beings that they are!” Strong applause greeted this comment, as did other adages shared throughout the evening.
On how politicians learn their lessons—“Their lessons are not measured through loss of human life and suffering.”
Evoking his military voice: “If you truly value your troops, you protect them from harm’s way.”
Speaking out against censorship: if any candidate was missing, the first thing Gravel would have done is point to the missing podium and demand, “Why isn’t this person here?” He mused that the very fact that no one spoke up shows that they may not recognize the gravity of censorship (or they don’t want to be excluded themselves).
On his fellow candidates: “The more I look at them, I more I want to be president!”
Known for his candor and honesty, Gravel decried buzzwords like change as “meaningless code that do well in focus groups.” Addressing Obama’s rhetoric of hope, Gravel offered that “hope without substance means nothing,” and that it won’t withstand Clinton political machine. He blasted the Clintons for “hijacking the Democratic party in 1992 with Wall Street.” To that end, he also took exception to Chris Dodd’s comment that “electing a Democrat is the single-most important thing,” condemning party-first compromises of “power over substance.”
Of course, the event was not all punditry. Gravel and the audience cheered Edwards’ call for Democrats to stand up for party values, and Biden’s crack that Rudy Giuliani’s vocabulary consists of “a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” The audience burst into giddy applause, with Gravel giving a thumbs up and offering, “best line of the night!” Many viewers were annoyed by the UFO-sighting question to Kucinich, immediately followed by Clinton’s “will you pledge to fight cancer” softball.
Gravel touched on many of the same issues addressed at the Drexel debate. Our education system needs top prioritization, with more rigorous schooling an essential. He aspires for the US system to be like Finland, Sweden, and Spain, with fully-funded pre-K through doctoral studies. He explained his plan for universal not-for-profit healthcare, which involves a voucher system that is funded by a retail sales tax, has one public plan (Medicare/Medicaid) and five private plans that compete against each other. He believes the replacement of income tax with a progressive fair tax will help shift America from a consuming to a savings nations, necessary to counter “our $50-70 trillion fiscal gap”.
Before taking a final round of questions for the night, Gravel laid out the cornerstone of his campaign, the National Initiative. He lights up when explaining this legislation, which he’s spent over a decade crafting with top Constitutional scholars. Once enacted, it would empower citizens to propose ballot-initiatives at the federal level and supersede the partisan stalemate often found in Congress. This would bring Americans out of “political adolescence”, and empower them as lawmakers. To those that felt unqualified to make laws, he quipped, “Congress doesn’t read 95% of the legislature they vote on!”
Two large projection screens flanked the stage, prominently featuring contact information for General Electric. GE, who owns NBC, is one of the primary profiteers in the Military-Industrial Complex, and Gravel says the reason behind his exclusion. He was also shocked that the DNC did not stand up to NBC, for his rights as a candidate. Rather, they deferred that “it’s a private company’s decision.” Gravel had similar trouble finding a place for the event, with some venue declining once they heard he would mention GE. Signs with the slogan “No Corporate Media Censorship, Support Free Speech: Mike Gravel for President” covered the walls of the venue and neighboring street posts. As the only candidate with military service pre-Vietnam, Gravel often evokes Dwight Eisenhower, the first (and last) president to address the threat of the Military-Industrial-Complex. Gravel has said: “Someday the American people will want peace so badly that they will push the government aside and just seize it.” With the National Initiative and his leadership, Gravel believes that the American people will be able to make those steps.
While NBC may have excluded Gravel, if his debate was any indication, he knows the political brain well. For those in attendance, he gave a candid look at its mechanics. His venue is with the people, and this event embraced that philosophy. He’s currently invited to next month’s debate, and if this event was any indication, he won’t mince words.
Philadelphia, PA –
When NBC excluded Mike Gravel from its October 30th Democratic Debate, the Former Senator did not take things lying down. Support videos sprouted up on YouTube, and Gravel’s campaign organized an alternate debate one block away. He began the evening by listing NBC’s criteria for his exclusion, presented to his campaign on October 19th, and refuted them. NBC cited that he had not visited New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times, which Gravel countered with 20+ campaign-verified visits to New Hampshire, more than most other candidates. Another requirement, polling at 5%, was voided by the fact that numerous candidates are below that margin (Chris Dodd, Joe Biden & Dennis Kucinich). The final, and only irrefutable requirement, was that the campaign had yet to raise $1 million. That was part of yesterday’s agenda, in addition to fighting censorship and raising visibility of Gravel’s candidacy.
The ensuing event contrasts starkly with the impression most probably have of Gravel, especially if they base it solely upon his debate performances. Typically given the least speaking time, Gravel’s responses could be characterized as Bulworth meets Howard Zinn meets Peter Finch in “Network”. Exasperated candor, sincerity, and moral urgency all wound together. But here Gravel was master of ceremonies, able to speak to his heart’s content and the crowd’s delight. Whenever a candidate’s response or debate topic merited commentary, he’d call out “pause,” talk freely with the candidate frozen on-screen behind him, and offer his take on “politics as usual.” Gravel’s campaign broadcast the event live from its website for supporters to tune in.
Gravel sat on stage by his lone podium, 77 years of grizzled experience, unsung hero of the Vietnam era (having filibustered the draft by himself and read The Pentagon Papers into the public record), watching the debate with supporters, totaling around 250. Attendees included a team of NYU filmmakers, Drexel and UPenn students, kindred Kucinich supporters, and a generous handful of Ron Paul supporters, curious to hear more about the maverick Democrat with some similar views to Paul (ending the Iraq war and US militarism, ending the Drug War, eliminating the IRS & income tax, and Constitutional integrity). Even a handful of Students for Hillary were present, although they left nearly as soon as Gravel pounced on statements made by the former First Lady.
An Army counterintelligence officer in West Germany during the Korean War, Gravel demonstrated this with a keen analysis of the political game. He offered commentary like an Orwellian pundit, frequently taking Clinton’s language to task for its doublespeak. And while Hillary-bashing has become de rigeur as of late, Gravel referenced last month’s debate, during which he condemned Clinton’s vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Before candidates were really making noise about its implications for war with Iran, he turned to Clinton point-blank and said “I’m ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it.” Though received with little fanfare at the time, since then many supporters, Gravel included, feel this may have cost him attendance at Tuesday’s debate.
He warned of the incessant “drumbeat to war and saber rattling” in light of no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and the consequences of invading Iran. “Worldwide recession, oil $150+ per barrel. Minimum.” As president, Gravel promised to unilaterally reduce America’s nuclear weapons stockpile by one half, “as an example to the rest of the world.” He noted that every permanent member of the UN Security Council has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which obligates other nations to feel “if you don’t have it [the bomb], you want it.”
Against sanctions and wanting instead “to start treating the world as equals,” Gravel condemned Bill Clinton’s sanctions against Iraq that caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. “The innocent of the innocent,” he intoned. He blasted the US mindset of “policing the world” as code for American Imperialism. Later, exasperated by Clinton’s repeated “carrots and sticks” foreign diplomacy soundbite, he exhorted “Talk to them like the equal human beings that they are!” Strong applause greeted this comment, as did other adages shared throughout the evening.
On how politicians learn their lessons—“Their lessons are not measured through loss of human life and suffering.”
Evoking his military voice: “If you truly value your troops, you protect them from harm’s way.”
Speaking out against censorship: if any candidate was missing, the first thing Gravel would have done is point to the missing podium and demand, “Why isn’t this person here?” He mused that the very fact that no one spoke up shows that they may not recognize the gravity of censorship (or they don’t want to be excluded themselves).
On his fellow candidates: “The more I look at them, I more I want to be president!”
Known for his candor and honesty, Gravel decried buzzwords like change as “meaningless code that do well in focus groups.” Addressing Obama’s rhetoric of hope, Gravel offered that “hope without substance means nothing,” and that it won’t withstand Clinton political machine. He blasted the Clintons for “hijacking the Democratic party in 1992 with Wall Street.” To that end, he also took exception to Chris Dodd’s comment that “electing a Democrat is the single-most important thing,” condemning party-first compromises of “power over substance.”
Of course, the event was not all punditry. Gravel and the audience cheered Edwards’ call for Democrats to stand up for party values, and Biden’s crack that Rudy Giuliani’s vocabulary consists of “a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” The audience burst into giddy applause, with Gravel giving a thumbs up and offering, “best line of the night!” Many viewers were annoyed by the UFO-sighting question to Kucinich, immediately followed by Clinton’s “will you pledge to fight cancer” softball.
Gravel touched on many of the same issues addressed at the Drexel debate. Our education system needs top prioritization, with more rigorous schooling an essential. He aspires for the US system to be like Finland, Sweden, and Spain, with fully-funded pre-K through doctoral studies. He explained his plan for universal not-for-profit healthcare, which involves a voucher system that is funded by a retail sales tax, has one public plan (Medicare/Medicaid) and five private plans that compete against each other. He believes the replacement of income tax with a progressive fair tax will help shift America from a consuming to a savings nations, necessary to counter “our $50-70 trillion fiscal gap”.
Before taking a final round of questions for the night, Gravel laid out the cornerstone of his campaign, the National Initiative. He lights up when explaining this legislation, which he’s spent over a decade crafting with top Constitutional scholars. Once enacted, it would empower citizens to propose ballot-initiatives at the federal level and supersede the partisan stalemate often found in Congress. This would bring Americans out of “political adolescence”, and empower them as lawmakers. To those that felt unqualified to make laws, he quipped, “Congress doesn’t read 95% of the legislature they vote on!”
Two large projection screens flanked the stage, prominently featuring contact information for General Electric. GE, who owns NBC, is one of the primary profiteers in the Military-Industrial Complex, and Gravel says the reason behind his exclusion. He was also shocked that the DNC did not stand up to NBC, for his rights as a candidate. Rather, they deferred that “it’s a private company’s decision.” Gravel had similar trouble finding a place for the event, with some venue declining once they heard he would mention GE. Signs with the slogan “No Corporate Media Censorship, Support Free Speech: Mike Gravel for President” covered the walls of the venue and neighboring street posts. As the only candidate with military service pre-Vietnam, Gravel often evokes Dwight Eisenhower, the first (and last) president to address the threat of the Military-Industrial-Complex. Gravel has said: “Someday the American people will want peace so badly that they will push the government aside and just seize it.” With the National Initiative and his leadership, Gravel believes that the American people will be able to make those steps.
While NBC may have excluded Gravel, if his debate was any indication, he knows the political brain well. For those in attendance, he gave a candid look at its mechanics. His venue is with the people, and this event embraced that philosophy. He’s currently invited to next month’s debate, and if this event was any indication, he won’t mince words.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Rally cry of support for a True Patriot
Please take, use, and distribute far and wide across the land. Whether or not he's your candidate, Senator Gravel deserves to be heard. It is imperative to the democratic process that he be allowed to participate and share his views. Plus, he keeps the rest of the candidates honest and says things that no one else dares. Courage and integrity. Now more than ever.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The GOREacle Knows Best!
Belated props to Al Gore and his latest accolade: Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
This runs in stark contrast to President Bush, who was the 44th diner at Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast this weekend. Free pancakes for the POTUS. Stack 'em high! The sky's the limit! Just keep 'em below the smogosphere.
As to a potential candidacy--what do any of us really know? Do we even dare to breathe in the same carbon emissions that give the Goreacle his lucid visions? What I will say is, all the naysaying MSM pundits don't know shit.
Oh, he's doesn't want to challenge Hillary.
He's got more clout outside the political arena.
It would taint his message!
Bollocks, bollocks, and bullshit. Gore has repeatedly said that "no candidate" has addressed climate change with the urgency or aggressiveness truly required. He endorses both a carbon tax and cap & trade schemes; all candidates currently support only one or the other.
Addressing the UN on October 5th, Gore called for a "Global Marshall Plan" to combat climate change, that must be established & enacted by 2009, 2010 at the latest. He's previously called for a FREEZE on carbon emissions and no new coal plants unless they can trap the carbon.
All I'm saying is, who will make the environmental & climate change THE issue in their candidacy, their platforms, and their presidency? Gore has the ability to weave this together with numerous other crises we face, from energy independence to the war in Iraq to a healthier US economy. Until more candidates and citizens wise up to, as Dennis Kucinich might say, the interconnectedness of the world around us, we're indulging in a lot of political futility.
PS - SuperGore v. Hillary political deathmatch... I prefer the story arc of a fallen hero's return to grace, not a power-hungry robot without humility or integrity? What, too harsh? Nah................
This runs in stark contrast to President Bush, who was the 44th diner at Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast this weekend. Free pancakes for the POTUS. Stack 'em high! The sky's the limit! Just keep 'em below the smogosphere.
As to a potential candidacy--what do any of us really know? Do we even dare to breathe in the same carbon emissions that give the Goreacle his lucid visions? What I will say is, all the naysaying MSM pundits don't know shit.
Oh, he's doesn't want to challenge Hillary.
He's got more clout outside the political arena.
It would taint his message!
Bollocks, bollocks, and bullshit. Gore has repeatedly said that "no candidate" has addressed climate change with the urgency or aggressiveness truly required. He endorses both a carbon tax and cap & trade schemes; all candidates currently support only one or the other.
Addressing the UN on October 5th, Gore called for a "Global Marshall Plan" to combat climate change, that must be established & enacted by 2009, 2010 at the latest. He's previously called for a FREEZE on carbon emissions and no new coal plants unless they can trap the carbon.
All I'm saying is, who will make the environmental & climate change THE issue in their candidacy, their platforms, and their presidency? Gore has the ability to weave this together with numerous other crises we face, from energy independence to the war in Iraq to a healthier US economy. Until more candidates and citizens wise up to, as Dennis Kucinich might say, the interconnectedness of the world around us, we're indulging in a lot of political futility.
PS - SuperGore v. Hillary political deathmatch... I prefer the story arc of a fallen hero's return to grace, not a power-hungry robot without humility or integrity? What, too harsh? Nah................
Friday, September 28, 2007
FINISH HER! Or get started, at the very least...
Mortal Kombat references aside, I will quote U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday:
And the battle's just begun...
In the wake of Wednesday's debate, and other recent guffaw's in the media, people are actually commenting upon Hillary Clinton's "unsavory" behavior. Well someone's getting it right. The media had it wrong in the first place, teetering on the free pass to the Coronation Ball. Finally, some are perceiving her haughtiness, snippiness, and lest we forget, mechanized laughter.
I wish that The Daily Show hadn't done a bit on Hillary's calculated bubbliness at the start of the week. Had they not, I was hoping someone would address her moment at the debate, when she derisively laughed at Mike Gravel, if only for illustrating the severe danger in her Senate vote (which sided with Republicans and AIPAC-Lieberman in chastising Iran for waging “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”). Gravel's exasperated old uncle approach, which many deride, is sincere beyond words. People think he can't articulate his points, which is part of their very strength and urgency. The very SOUL of our nation is at stake, and he knows this. So disregarding the messeneger himself (which any Hillary-enabler is first to do), let's take the overall context:
A former US Senator, remembered for his strident passion to end the Vietnam war, expresses his shame and outrage at a current US Senator, who has just voted FOR a Senate Bill that antagonizes Iran, a country with whom we already have hangover-shaky relations.
Rather than take such a charge seriously and with the dignity expected of a Senator, former First Lady, and presumed next President (too many), she laughs. She scoffs. War is not funny, provoking further hostility is not funny. But heck, just laugh at the messenger, and the world laughs with you. Even though the comic, the jester, is always the one free to speak the truth, since everyone laughs along. In this case, AT the messenger himself. Forget that he was a one-man-wrecking-dove (copyright!! hands off, Colbert!) to filibuster against the draft (on and off for 5 months in 1971), causing Nixon to end the draft in 1973.
Instead of this moment, most of the media chose to pick up on Hillary's hard-lined stance against torture, flying in the face of Bill's endorsement of it, if to obtain information to squash an imminent terrorist threat. Then she gets all mushy about bickering over torture with Bill. Rather than alienating some with caustic commentary, Colbert invites everyone along with his customary wink and charm. Check his video on the MSNBC debates and the Clintons cuddling over torture.
It's like when Rocky makes Drago bleed! When Van Damme mounts a comeback against every villain he's ever faced! When Bono resurrects the crowd via Where the Streets Have No Name. Sufficed to say, there are chinks in the Clinton armor, and anyone who want a less Corporate-Militant America needs to get busy.
From PopMart, U2's ironic (and ironically misinterpreted) piss-take on corporate-pop-culture. They announced the tour from K-Mart, for crying out loud:
And the battle's just begun...
In the wake of Wednesday's debate, and other recent guffaw's in the media, people are actually commenting upon Hillary Clinton's "unsavory" behavior. Well someone's getting it right. The media had it wrong in the first place, teetering on the free pass to the Coronation Ball. Finally, some are perceiving her haughtiness, snippiness, and lest we forget, mechanized laughter.
I wish that The Daily Show hadn't done a bit on Hillary's calculated bubbliness at the start of the week. Had they not, I was hoping someone would address her moment at the debate, when she derisively laughed at Mike Gravel, if only for illustrating the severe danger in her Senate vote (which sided with Republicans and AIPAC-Lieberman in chastising Iran for waging “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”). Gravel's exasperated old uncle approach, which many deride, is sincere beyond words. People think he can't articulate his points, which is part of their very strength and urgency. The very SOUL of our nation is at stake, and he knows this. So disregarding the messeneger himself (which any Hillary-enabler is first to do), let's take the overall context:
A former US Senator, remembered for his strident passion to end the Vietnam war, expresses his shame and outrage at a current US Senator, who has just voted FOR a Senate Bill that antagonizes Iran, a country with whom we already have hangover-shaky relations.
Rather than take such a charge seriously and with the dignity expected of a Senator, former First Lady, and presumed next President (too many), she laughs. She scoffs. War is not funny, provoking further hostility is not funny. But heck, just laugh at the messenger, and the world laughs with you. Even though the comic, the jester, is always the one free to speak the truth, since everyone laughs along. In this case, AT the messenger himself. Forget that he was a one-man-wrecking-dove (copyright!! hands off, Colbert!) to filibuster against the draft (on and off for 5 months in 1971), causing Nixon to end the draft in 1973.
Instead of this moment, most of the media chose to pick up on Hillary's hard-lined stance against torture, flying in the face of Bill's endorsement of it, if to obtain information to squash an imminent terrorist threat. Then she gets all mushy about bickering over torture with Bill. Rather than alienating some with caustic commentary, Colbert invites everyone along with his customary wink and charm. Check his video on the MSNBC debates and the Clintons cuddling over torture.
It's like when Rocky makes Drago bleed! When Van Damme mounts a comeback against every villain he's ever faced! When Bono resurrects the crowd via Where the Streets Have No Name. Sufficed to say, there are chinks in the Clinton armor, and anyone who want a less Corporate-Militant America needs to get busy.
From PopMart, U2's ironic (and ironically misinterpreted) piss-take on corporate-pop-culture. They announced the tour from K-Mart, for crying out loud:
Thursday, September 27, 2007
SHAME on you, Hillary!
Briefly and broadly, I want to recall some key and clutch moments in last evening Democratic debate.
#1 MOMENT, if nothing else, this was the crux of the evening. Video below, editing not mine:
Mike Gravel, speaking with regard to yesterday's Senate vote to rebuke Tehran, a histrionic move that potentially validates war with Iran. He applauds Biden and Dodd for voting against, questions Obama for not showing up...
"And I am ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it."
(Hillary mockingly laughs/chortles in response)
"I don't know where to start," she sighs.
Here's a thought, Hillary. Try answering a single question directly, stop triangulating like your husband, stop exploiting nostalgia for the pre-Bush years, which are that much rosier by comparison. Don't feign to be some aristocrat who's above handling questions that every other candidate is eager to answer. If you're going to sandbag the debates, don't bother participating. This is an election of urgency, not entitlement.
Amongst the other candidates, everyone had scattered moments, not one clear and away winner. If there were any losers, it was the top two of Hillary/Obama. Hillary's arrogance and presumed victory are apparent, while Obama just doesn't throttle it up and take her, or any issue really, to task. His sing-song, infinitely-qualifying-itself rhetoric do not work, and don't convince me has a hard-lined stance on much. Enter John Edwards. As I previously noted, Edwards is the political athlete of the field, most adept at truly sparring with rhetoric. That is exactly what we saw last evening. For, while a quiet presence overall, he bobbed and weaved on Hillary numerous times, illustrating their differences. At no point does he outrightly diss Clinton, but his comments paint very overt distinctions.
admitting his error on authorizing the Iraq War:
"We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran... What I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted. And that resolution that was voted on today was a very clear indication..."
on Iraq/military strategy:
"There are, however, differences between us, and
those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue. For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq."
on prioritizing universal Healthcare:
"What happened in '93 and '94 is that we didn't get universal health care, but we got NAFTA. And when I'm president of the United States, you have my word, I will never pull the universal health care bill."
Kucinich had some trouble getting his footing at times, with responses bouncing between the other candidates. Considering Kucinich's unique stance on Iraq and healthcare, it's no surprise. But you give him the right opportunity, and he'll unleash. From the Lightning Round:
Russert: "Would you be in favor of a phase-in $3.00 a gallon gasoline tax?" (Based upon Alan Greenspan's suggestion in his new book).
Kucinich: "No. And he said something else that didn't receive much notice. He said that the Iraq war was about oil, something that
I said on "Meet the Press," Tim, on February 23rd, 2003.
I think that we need to make sure that the next president was
right about Iraq, was right about the Patriot Act.
You can have a president like that, who was right about Iraq, who
voted against it from the beginning and against the funding. You can
have a president against -- who was for a single-payer, not-for-profit
health care system, one who will stop the Patriot Act... or you can have a president who's tall."
And when recounting the epic Cleveland-falls-into-default story, in which Kucinich stood up for regular citizens, and was heralded as Cleveland's savior 15 years later:
"I put my job on the line. How many people would be willing to
put their job on the line in the face of pressure from banks and
utilities?
As this story gets told, people will want me to be their next
president, because they'll see in me not only the ability to take a
stand, but the ability to live with integrity."
Gravel was also on point, with his exasperation more palatable this evening (I'm always a fan of it, but I recognize much of the populace is full of squeamish squares who can't handle the truth). Hopefully others watching felt the same way. Case in point, regarding his personal bankruptcy:
"I stuck the credit card companies with $90,000 worth of bills and they deserved it because I used the money... They deserved it -- and I used the money to finance the
empowerment of the American people with a national initiative, so you can make the laws."
It goes to show ya, the guys with the purest integrity are the ones with the least money to their name. To that end, Edwards did not take kindly to questions of character regarding his hedge fund work/haircuts/book deal with a Rupert Murdoch publisher. And I respect how he was able to answer and qualify each of those incidents (donated all the book deal money, took his money out of the hedge fund and set up a low-income housing program after the revelation, and the haircut... who cares? Giuliani pays more for Max Schreck's makeup parlor, and Hillary would wear face glitter if he got her votes, so don't go off on him about integrity). It's a shame that the system is so crooked in the first place. Anyone vocally expresses a desire to fix it deserve support, not skepticism bred out of complacency.
Top One Liners (not surprisingly, they come from the guys given the least time or opportunity to fully explain their platforms):
Gravel: (on lowering the drinking age to 18) "If you're old enough to die for this country then you're old enough to drink."
"WE'RE LIVING IN FANTASY LAND!" (recurring soundbite, very true as well)
Kucinich: (on a national smoking can in public places) "I've been breathing in a lot of second-hand smoke here tonight. You bet I'll go for a national law."
Also, big props to Biden:
"And last point I'll make is, Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. He's the most uninformed person in American
foreign policy and now running for president, number one."
THAT is what we need more of. Democrats willing to directly call out the Republicans. The only way to reclaim moral authority and integrity amongst the American people is to tell it like it is. Gravel sure as hell will, Kucinich fears no man, Biden is a force, Dodd even has some fire, Edwards was a born fighter, Richardson had change + experience... but what about the other two? Obama? Hillary?
#1 MOMENT, if nothing else, this was the crux of the evening. Video below, editing not mine:
Mike Gravel, speaking with regard to yesterday's Senate vote to rebuke Tehran, a histrionic move that potentially validates war with Iran. He applauds Biden and Dodd for voting against, questions Obama for not showing up...
"And I am ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it."
(Hillary mockingly laughs/chortles in response)
"I don't know where to start," she sighs.
Here's a thought, Hillary. Try answering a single question directly, stop triangulating like your husband, stop exploiting nostalgia for the pre-Bush years, which are that much rosier by comparison. Don't feign to be some aristocrat who's above handling questions that every other candidate is eager to answer. If you're going to sandbag the debates, don't bother participating. This is an election of urgency, not entitlement.
Amongst the other candidates, everyone had scattered moments, not one clear and away winner. If there were any losers, it was the top two of Hillary/Obama. Hillary's arrogance and presumed victory are apparent, while Obama just doesn't throttle it up and take her, or any issue really, to task. His sing-song, infinitely-qualifying-itself rhetoric do not work, and don't convince me has a hard-lined stance on much. Enter John Edwards. As I previously noted, Edwards is the political athlete of the field, most adept at truly sparring with rhetoric. That is exactly what we saw last evening. For, while a quiet presence overall, he bobbed and weaved on Hillary numerous times, illustrating their differences. At no point does he outrightly diss Clinton, but his comments paint very overt distinctions.
admitting his error on authorizing the Iraq War:
"We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran... What I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted. And that resolution that was voted on today was a very clear indication..."
on Iraq/military strategy:
"There are, however, differences between us, and
those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue. For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq."
on prioritizing universal Healthcare:
"What happened in '93 and '94 is that we didn't get universal health care, but we got NAFTA. And when I'm president of the United States, you have my word, I will never pull the universal health care bill."
Kucinich had some trouble getting his footing at times, with responses bouncing between the other candidates. Considering Kucinich's unique stance on Iraq and healthcare, it's no surprise. But you give him the right opportunity, and he'll unleash. From the Lightning Round:
Russert: "Would you be in favor of a phase-in $3.00 a gallon gasoline tax?" (Based upon Alan Greenspan's suggestion in his new book).
Kucinich: "No. And he said something else that didn't receive much notice. He said that the Iraq war was about oil, something that
I said on "Meet the Press," Tim, on February 23rd, 2003.
I think that we need to make sure that the next president was
right about Iraq, was right about the Patriot Act.
You can have a president like that, who was right about Iraq, who
voted against it from the beginning and against the funding. You can
have a president against -- who was for a single-payer, not-for-profit
health care system, one who will stop the Patriot Act... or you can have a president who's tall."
And when recounting the epic Cleveland-falls-into-default story, in which Kucinich stood up for regular citizens, and was heralded as Cleveland's savior 15 years later:
"I put my job on the line. How many people would be willing to
put their job on the line in the face of pressure from banks and
utilities?
As this story gets told, people will want me to be their next
president, because they'll see in me not only the ability to take a
stand, but the ability to live with integrity."
Gravel was also on point, with his exasperation more palatable this evening (I'm always a fan of it, but I recognize much of the populace is full of squeamish squares who can't handle the truth). Hopefully others watching felt the same way. Case in point, regarding his personal bankruptcy:
"I stuck the credit card companies with $90,000 worth of bills and they deserved it because I used the money... They deserved it -- and I used the money to finance the
empowerment of the American people with a national initiative, so you can make the laws."
It goes to show ya, the guys with the purest integrity are the ones with the least money to their name. To that end, Edwards did not take kindly to questions of character regarding his hedge fund work/haircuts/book deal with a Rupert Murdoch publisher. And I respect how he was able to answer and qualify each of those incidents (donated all the book deal money, took his money out of the hedge fund and set up a low-income housing program after the revelation, and the haircut... who cares? Giuliani pays more for Max Schreck's makeup parlor, and Hillary would wear face glitter if he got her votes, so don't go off on him about integrity). It's a shame that the system is so crooked in the first place. Anyone vocally expresses a desire to fix it deserve support, not skepticism bred out of complacency.
Top One Liners (not surprisingly, they come from the guys given the least time or opportunity to fully explain their platforms):
Gravel: (on lowering the drinking age to 18) "If you're old enough to die for this country then you're old enough to drink."
"WE'RE LIVING IN FANTASY LAND!" (recurring soundbite, very true as well)
Kucinich: (on a national smoking can in public places) "I've been breathing in a lot of second-hand smoke here tonight. You bet I'll go for a national law."
Also, big props to Biden:
"And last point I'll make is, Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. He's the most uninformed person in American
foreign policy and now running for president, number one."
THAT is what we need more of. Democrats willing to directly call out the Republicans. The only way to reclaim moral authority and integrity amongst the American people is to tell it like it is. Gravel sure as hell will, Kucinich fears no man, Biden is a force, Dodd even has some fire, Edwards was a born fighter, Richardson had change + experience... but what about the other two? Obama? Hillary?
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Hummingbirds sing, why do they hum
Question. Who's out there pollinating social change? Did Dennis Kucinich on his recent peace tour of the Middle East? Did Bono when he waved the white flag at Red Rocks? Did the Peace Czar when he littered Provincetown with flyers? Dubious on that one, but the harbingers of social change and progress are always floating around, in the soot and smog, the sewage runoff, the meadow tops. Don't discriminate. The brain pollen from the street mingles with the hermit high atop in the mountains.
Cue Arthur Lee and his psychedelic band:
Hummingbirds hum, why do they hum, little girls wearing
Pigtails in the morning, in the morning
La da da, da da da da
Friday, September 7, 2007
News & Notes Take 1
From the first few days on the road:
In what should be a more thorough commentary of traveling political sales on the road:
I start by thanking Big Sleepy and all the hospitality afforded by Vassar & Poughkeepsie, particularly The Dubliner, which had the greatest karaoke selection I've ever seen. When you're nearing a dozen-plus songs of both Blur and Pulp, you're doing something right. And special shout-out to Ben of Vassar for being the savviest of students to pick up on Bleeding Hearts Club. I hope many more catch on, too. SUNY New Paltz, you don't know what hit you! Peep my flyers, drop the BHC a line.
Sarah Lawrence, I hope you see the connection between the executive branch of our government and the trash receptacles upon which I adorned many flyers. That said, please don't throw my flyers in the trash... at least recycle them!
A staple gun would have served me well at SUNY Purchase, where my thumbs and index fingers are now raw from prying out staples from billboards, only to delicately press them back in with my flyers. I thank the visual arts building for being open 24 hours a day and having many remote workshops. One of which had a tattered pleather couch than I jostled upon for nearly 6 hours of welcome sleep, only to scurry out before the morning janitors may have found me.
Soon I embark upon a homecoming trip to Wesleyan for WesXC's season kickoff alumni race. Rousing shows of old man strength are sure to ensue. And to address Wesleyan as a mystical cultural entity for a moment... please show me that you've got a sense of humor about Warho. Pleeeeaaaaassssse?
The motto of my trip may not be found on the campuses I visit, but it permeates my thinking and what we need to combat. And it comes from a Canadian rock outfit, of all sources:
I was sick of America
And her screaming decay
In what should be a more thorough commentary of traveling political sales on the road:
I start by thanking Big Sleepy and all the hospitality afforded by Vassar & Poughkeepsie, particularly The Dubliner, which had the greatest karaoke selection I've ever seen. When you're nearing a dozen-plus songs of both Blur and Pulp, you're doing something right. And special shout-out to Ben of Vassar for being the savviest of students to pick up on Bleeding Hearts Club. I hope many more catch on, too. SUNY New Paltz, you don't know what hit you! Peep my flyers, drop the BHC a line.
Sarah Lawrence, I hope you see the connection between the executive branch of our government and the trash receptacles upon which I adorned many flyers. That said, please don't throw my flyers in the trash... at least recycle them!
A staple gun would have served me well at SUNY Purchase, where my thumbs and index fingers are now raw from prying out staples from billboards, only to delicately press them back in with my flyers. I thank the visual arts building for being open 24 hours a day and having many remote workshops. One of which had a tattered pleather couch than I jostled upon for nearly 6 hours of welcome sleep, only to scurry out before the morning janitors may have found me.
Soon I embark upon a homecoming trip to Wesleyan for WesXC's season kickoff alumni race. Rousing shows of old man strength are sure to ensue. And to address Wesleyan as a mystical cultural entity for a moment... please show me that you've got a sense of humor about Warho. Pleeeeaaaaassssse?
The motto of my trip may not be found on the campuses I visit, but it permeates my thinking and what we need to combat. And it comes from a Canadian rock outfit, of all sources:
I was sick of America
And her screaming decay
Monday, September 3, 2007
Soothsaying
As I embark upon the Bleeding Hearts Club's inaugural college tour, some prescient predictions:
Annoying hyper-politically-correct kids to contest Warho? Yes.
Heart palpitations from too many Steaz energy drinks? Possibly.
Feeling painfully out of place on college campuses and simultaneously wishing for undergrad freedom? You bet.
Scorning self-righteous hipsters, trustafarians and every other stereotype the college system has to offer? Do I really have a choice?
Endless cycling of early Elvis Costello, mid-era Super Furry Animals, and The New Pornographers album? Indubitably.
Annoying hyper-politically-correct kids to contest Warho? Yes.
Heart palpitations from too many Steaz energy drinks? Possibly.
Feeling painfully out of place on college campuses and simultaneously wishing for undergrad freedom? You bet.
Scorning self-righteous hipsters, trustafarians and every other stereotype the college system has to offer? Do I really have a choice?
Endless cycling of early Elvis Costello, mid-era Super Furry Animals, and The New Pornographers album? Indubitably.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
No joke
A prescient nugget of wisdom, even when first published in 1969:
Modern technology
Owes ecology
An apology
-Alan M. Eddison
Modern technology
Owes ecology
An apology
-Alan M. Eddison
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Homage to Cardiff
In light of recent readings and musings, I felt this tune was most appropriate. During my exploration of all things Britpop back in 2000/2001, I got into the Manic Street Preachers. They're not quite Blur, Pulp, or the Stone Roses, but they've got a trove of ace tunes in their catalog. At a Radiohead concert I attended in 2001 (the watershed Kid A tour), amidst phalanx after phalanx of self-important fans, Thom Yorke busted out a few lines from "If You Tolerate This Then Your Children Will Be Next". No one knew what was up, but my friend Alex and I smiled at each other in a truly enlightened moment. It was a clever nod to a fellow "New-Serious" band of Britrock, and arguably their finest song. With 2008 and Neocon sabotage ever looming in my mind (HERE, and even HERE), I can't find this any less pertinent. Especially considering the song was written about sympathizers who joined the Republican cause against Fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Still have to read that George Orwell...
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Cool Kids of Democracy
The following is an off-the-cuff commentary of the Democratic presidential candidates, primarily focusing on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. This comes in light of the incident at a recent debate, where the two discussed holding "smaller, more focused debates", and after which it seems as though Hillary shifted all blame and responsibility onto Edwards. Follow that with last week's YouTube debate, in which Edwards landed a nice swipe at Hillary's stuffiness and poor fashion sense. Not surprisingly, she was not amused. (This was also written before the Peace Czar and the Quabbin Quontry Querier caught Edwards speak in Windham, NH. More on that in the next few days.)
Seriously, John Edwards is out there rocking the passion, virtue, and charisma we’d expect out of a populist candidate. He doesn’t speak from the gut, per se—it’s more like a meeting of the heart and hands, the blood and the grit of real, regular
But people talk about and scrutinize what personality is most becoming a president, whose very demeanor is best suited for the job. On that note, I’ll examine the seeming characters of these two, considering for both positives and negatives. Hopefully I’ll draw some further conclusions along the way, perhaps conclude which qualities are yet lacking, and what other candidates may present those crucial assets. Bear in mind I have no PhD in social or clinical psychology, no experience on K Street or the campaign trail, but I have a pretty decent sense of people that suck and those that don’t.
I wouldn’t be good friends with a John Edwards type in my life, but an individual like that might be an acquaintance to someone in my coterie. Confident, smooth (a little too Ron Burgundy smooth?), very forthright yet clever enough to get in a few jabs to the ribs. Beautiful rhetoric, more an athlete of its form rather than a scholar, but very adept nonetheless. Probably a cool guy to hang out with, grab a beer or two and talk life. Probably a little tough to breach deeper subjects with, but a very keen listener, very perceptive, very reliable. Almost a bit of a trickster, one of those people using language to their advantage while respecting the medium. And that comes from the perspective of a performer, not as a politician. Which I hope validates the compliment. That bit comes from Hip: The History, which a sweet cultural history of “hip” culture as it has constantly evolved uniquely within
Conversely, we have Madam Hillary Rodham Clinton. I knew a few girls like her in high school; the cold, scheming-to-get-ahead girls in all the top classes and vying for all the top honors and clubs. Her friends consisted primarily of all the other top-tier, wound-up girls. But maybe one of her numerous autobiographies vindicates her!! Maybe, Hillary was everyone’s friend (as she envisions), knowing kids from all across the spectrum, both racially and socially. But hanging out with someone like this would be an exercise in tortured courtesy and politeness. Not really wanting to hear what she has to say, probably fearing the bland annoyance of whatever her interests and views are. Get her started on a subject and her bombastic complicity (or is it complacency?) will come right out into gaping view. And considering she hops around with the other ego-chariot drivers, what are you really going to relate on? A blunt opinion on how to accomplish something, but with no insight or real trust into what those means might be. Shadowy? Not quite, but enough to say, “what is this person all about?”
When it comes to sincerity, regarding the two aforementioned, we’re still lacking. Barack Obama presents some of that hopeful audacity (I paraphrase!), but I’m not sure if the stones are fully there to say and DO what he truly feels is right. His rise to a national figure is well merited and very valuable, but I’m not if him in a position as large as president is a wise choice yet. I contrast him to John Edwards in that both are charming, but Obama is far more precise, tactical in his speaking, while Edwards a bit more candid. I haven’t seen Obama at events, where his oratory flows better and is more uplifting, but if I can see him just loosen up a bit, I’d have restored faith that he’s an open and curious person. Politically bi-curious, Butters style?
Dennis Kucinich, certainly a fellow Bleeding Heart, exudes compassion and a genuine understanding of the “interconnectedness” of everything. If he wins, I’d love him to open a Department of Veganism along with his Department of Peace, so people could understand what a sustainable, plant-based lifestyle means on a broader scale of implications. Healthcare, the pharmaceutical industry, subsidized cattle grazing, and global warming are ALL intertwined. He knows it, I know it, and in one stream of consciousness speech to a jazz beat could explain it to any curious parties. The fact that other candidates don’t acknowledge, pay attention, or even recognize issues in these vital ways is seriously lacking in their world outlook.
Mike Gravel should be getting a lot more credit than just the curmudgeonly uncle up there on the podium. This man led a ONE MAN filibuster of the Senate for FOUR months in 1971 over
In contrast, Joe Biden has the grit to come down hard on people, but not often those within his own party. He has plenty of rhetoric and fire at Bush and the GOP and issues such as the war and international relations, but he is certainly not leading the Democratic opposition to the war. He could very well be a colonel in the Senate’s battle, but he is no general, fully leading the charge (I’m remiss to give Harry Reid that credit, as well).
Chris Dodd has a warmth and wisdom about his character, the Wise White Owl of Connecticut, as I like to call him (check out that wavy mane of white hair!). But he’ll put out some good ideas, and perhaps even push candidates with regard to environmental reform, but I wouldn’t see this man fit for anything higher than VP.
The lone candidate remaining, out on patrol in
Do I dare mention the “X-Factor”? Or the “G-Unit” I suppose, in the form of Big Al Gore? The guy has been out there taking care of business, constantly coordinating movements and efforts to raise awareness on global warming/climate change. He talks straight smack about Bush’s policy choices, and dissected their vile, still-squirming body in The Assault on Reason (I can’t call it a “cadaver” just yet). He seems to talk like he knows what the big corporations are doing, and what evil, unstoppable forces they truly are. From one egghead to another, I’d like to see him come on the scene as the Egon Spangler of restoring Washington, catching every last ghost and evil spirit that’s plagued our nation for the past 7 years. Tougher question; who’s his Peter Venkman? Obama or Edwards? Ray Stantz… Chris Dodd? Winston Zedimore? Gravel,
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Warho fo sho?
"So you think it's alright to call a black woman a ho?"
Oh boy. My first day hocking shirts in Union Square, and vast swaths of people come and go, even in my quiet nook on the southeast corner. You can tell when someone "gets" Warho. There's the initial observation, the moment of pondering the various elements and double entendres, followed by a flash of crystallization, and a look that blends shock, amusement, and dumbfounderment (according to Dictionary.com, that's the grammatical correct word). People grab their friend, come back over to see if what they just saw is in fact a mashup of Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe and a hard-lined diss of Condi Rice. And hopefully I sell a shirt or give a flyer for them to tack on the refrigerator.
I've heavily considered the sensitivity of such a word to certain demographics. Firstly, to women, but namely, black women. In the wake of the Imus controversy a few months back, skullfuck seems a modest term in comparison. On a side note, is there any other 2 letter combination in any language that packs such a whallop? Most of the truly satisfying expletives require at least 4.
As these things happen, the individual most expressive of being offended was not a woman. Granted, he was black, and rather peeved. I could tell it was coming, eyes glaring as he stepped onto the curb and nearer my table. When greeted with the same words that preface this post and a hostile, accusatory tone, I gave it even odds that things might escalate. Fortunately not, though I was labeled as an imperialist [sic] "white man" who can do anything he pleases. The closest I like to get to imperialism is cheering on English football and having the liberal gin & tonic or four. He did make some good points, particularly on the broad notion that racism is endemic and systematically ingrained into our society. But he became increasingly hyperbolic in his accusations, labeling anyone who buys (RED) products from The Gap as racist, and not caring about Africa. He also gave me a T-shirt design, "Peaceful Racist," because that's what many of us are by virtue of our daily lifestyles and choices. I suppose.
When offered the choices at the local mega mall, between Hollister, Polo, Wet Slut (I mean Seal, faux pas), Levi's and a Gap product that at least gives some money to African industry (cotton + manufacturing) and their perpetually crippled economies, I'll choose the latter. In all other circumstances, I'd be equally cynical to Gap T-shirts saving Africa, but at least it does something, and gets people to realize, albeit on so ever miniscule a level, that things are BAD over there. Blame the blanditudes of our corporate fashion monocultures, but don't transfer all the blame onto the indivuals. Stoke that anger and peg it on the system, maaaaan. Because most people won't think beyond the choices laid out in front of them.
At the very least, this little encounter helped me to consider and articulate a line of responses to any subsequent individuals who are incensed by le Warho.
1) Do you get the design, the spoof, the elements at work? Yes? Good, let's proceed.
2) If you observe the colors used, note how Condi is depicted. She is every color of the rainbow (red, orange, yellow, 3 shades of green, blue (sorry indigo) and violet. Further, she is showcased in the center as the American icon that she is, in red, WHITE, and blue. I could be wrong, but is Condi regarded as a prominent figure and pillar within the African-American community? How dedicated is she to her people, with her constant affections for W? Just watch 2 minutes of Lil' Bush to see what I'm talking about.
3) Finally, if you'd like to prioritize the racial implications of the word "ho" over the broader context and message, I won't deny anyone that right. But if you quantify whore/ho as someone who turns tricks for profit, in a culture regarded by many as lewd and shameless, then let's apply that definition to Iraq and our administration. Condi and every last individual who deceived the American people, profited off the war, and whored out our self-respect as a country, is a warho, a war criminal, a war rapist. So I'm not singling Condi out, but hasn't she escaped a good deal of criminal for the very reason that she is a woman... and perhaps, black? Plus, has the lady ever looked better? Honey, I think I gave her a great makeover, and that coifed hair just evokes Marilyn.
As a final qualifier, I call upon Dave Chappelle's epic Racial Draft '04, to finally put an end to individuals of multiple cultural associations. The white delegation made a surprise move, drafting Colin Powell. Nevertheless, Rondell and the black delegation consented, ONLY on the condition that they also accept Miss Condoleeza Rice. Done and done. You've got yourself a goddamn deal.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
When War was for Right, not Might?
Today I attended the funeral of my great uncle. Savvy man, got into the computer/data business back in the early sixties when key-punch cards were today's Wikipedia entries. Or something analogous. He served in World War II, stationed for nearly two years in Bombay. Contracted dengue fever while over there. At the service today, veterans from the American Legion gave him a three-gun military salute. Old soldiers, having served no later than Korea. Back when patriotism was a little more than a PVC bumper sticker (kudos, John Edwards). The flag was folded with precise reverence for what the three colors represent: the free sky above our heads, the bloodshed sacrificed to earn it, and the peace which it has ensured for our nation.
Really? That's what the flag represents? It's not the chlorine blue of an inground swimming pool, the red sheen on some dude's Camaro, or the white mayonnaise that gooshes out when someone chomps into a double quarter-pounder?
Because, as I said goodbye to Uncle Fred, a man I did not even know very well, I also said goodbye to another chink in the faded armor of a byegone generation. This was the last time that the nation went to war as a whole, with a firm, undeniable purpose in mind. Before Vietnam, before Iraq I and Iraq II: Neocon Boogaloo. That people still think, still deluded by the government and themselves, that the current war was some type of valiant quest to preserve freedom. Syriana is no Casablanca, and George Clooney is, regrettably, not Bogie. Things are muddier, blurrier, and not so crisp as a digitally restored black & white film. The emotions, the national consciousness that the older folks attending must have felt. Real pride, real spirit, not this lacquered, ultra-bleached smiling, factory-farmed eggshell-brittle notion we now have of freedom & patriotism. Sweetened with high fructose corn syrup before serving, how could I forget. But this war to end all wars also gave us the fallout: we can build and raze a flagship Target store in the time it took to secure Iwo Jima (now Iwo To). What shockwaves will come out of this national epic?
Better color interpretations yet: blue for all the pent-up hypermasculinity of today's society, red for our lusty flights of passion with the shopping mall, and white for the blank void of a national psyche that once stirred hearts and minds.
Really? That's what the flag represents? It's not the chlorine blue of an inground swimming pool, the red sheen on some dude's Camaro, or the white mayonnaise that gooshes out when someone chomps into a double quarter-pounder?
Because, as I said goodbye to Uncle Fred, a man I did not even know very well, I also said goodbye to another chink in the faded armor of a byegone generation. This was the last time that the nation went to war as a whole, with a firm, undeniable purpose in mind. Before Vietnam, before Iraq I and Iraq II: Neocon Boogaloo. That people still think, still deluded by the government and themselves, that the current war was some type of valiant quest to preserve freedom. Syriana is no Casablanca, and George Clooney is, regrettably, not Bogie. Things are muddier, blurrier, and not so crisp as a digitally restored black & white film. The emotions, the national consciousness that the older folks attending must have felt. Real pride, real spirit, not this lacquered, ultra-bleached smiling, factory-farmed eggshell-brittle notion we now have of freedom & patriotism. Sweetened with high fructose corn syrup before serving, how could I forget. But this war to end all wars also gave us the fallout: we can build and raze a flagship Target store in the time it took to secure Iwo Jima (now Iwo To). What shockwaves will come out of this national epic?
Better color interpretations yet: blue for all the pent-up hypermasculinity of today's society, red for our lusty flights of passion with the shopping mall, and white for the blank void of a national psyche that once stirred hearts and minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)