California Goddam! (With apologies to Nina Simone )

Election elation… like a spiritual orgasm or simply a loosening of a long held burden, Tuesday was a night of bliss for anyone who has suffered through these past eight years of treason, mediocrity, veniality, and incompetence. The election of Barack Obama is in every way poignant and meaningful. Symbols matters. Pathos matters. There has been a perceptible shift in public consciousness and the moment will live on as its own entity forever, like a man on the moon.

And like a man on the moon, the moment itself will be of no practical importance save for what it serves as a catalyst for. Four days later is not the time to start registering cynicism. I think I can live off the glow from Tuesday night for at least eleven weeks. And perhaps even eleven weeks and one day further, because seeing Barack Obama sworn in with Michelle and his little girls by his side, I can say to anyone, in any country, that’s MY president. That’s what WE are all about.

But that was a true statement in 2000 and 2004 as well. Symbols matter. We carry darkness in our hearts. George Bush was my president, and for eight years we DID stand for torture, ignorance, war, and, recently, economic degradation due to criminal greed.

This is why, in the midst of the euphoria of seeing a man named Obama win the presidency of the United States of America… I have to look to my own state, and say “California, Goddam!”

Goddam you, California for saying YES to bigotry and hatred in the form of Proposition 8!

“Can't you see it
Can't you feel it
It's all in the air
I can't stand the pressure much longer
Somebody say a prayer”

Goddam you, California for looking with love and affection at an African-American man and then spitting in the faces of men and women simply because you cannot accept secular consecrations of same-sex matrimony!

“Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer”

Goddam you, California for putting the comfort of chickens and pigs raised for slaughter above the civil rights of your fellow citizens!

Goddam you, California for running the YES on 8 campaign premised on the fear that parents are too stupid to speak to their children about issues of sexuality!

Goddam you, California for running a cowardly NO on 8 campaign that further stigmatized same-sex marriage by tacitly apologizing for bigotry (“no matter how you feel about marriage…”)!

“You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality”

Goddam you, California for being on the front lines of the civil rights marches, student demonstrations, sit-ins, and immigration rallies of the past and not stepping up to help your brothers and sisters in their time of need!

Goddam ME for letting the enthusiasms of the moment distract me from the fight against ignorance and oppression… just because I’m not one of those directly impacted!

This is one of those times I used to wonder about, times in history when individuals and groups were being oppressed. I used to wonder where were the people of conscious? How could this have happened? Where was the courage? Where was the organized outrage? Where was political will?

“I've been there so I know
They keep on saying ‘Go slow!’”

I used to assume that in our enlightened day things would be different. Naturally we would be more rational, more fair, more graceful in our dealings with our fellow citizens. We are California. We have a Republican governor who thinks universal health care is a good idea. We have a Hispanic mayor for one of the largest, most diverse cities in the world. We have a three-tiered higher education system and research facilities that are the envy of world.

We have medical marijuana!

I thought WE were different from those “hick” states that want to ban the teaching of evolution or restrict a woman’s access to health care. I thought we were the “New Frontier,” the zenith of the best of moderate progressivism.

I thought… but I forgot, too. I forgot about Rodney King. I forgot about Japanese internment. I forgot about Armenian exclusion laws. I forgot about Pete Wilson. I forgot about Zoot Suit riots. I forgot about May 1 and Macarthur Park. I forgot about “local’s only” surf Nazis. I forgot about Daryl Gates and choke-holds. I forgot about Rampart. I forgot about Prop. 187 .

I forgot about a lot because you don’t want to remember the stuff that hurts. The stuff that makes you think that maybe we aren’t that good. We aren’t that liberal. We aren’t that civilized.

What hurts is that, this time, I can’t point my finger at the LAPD, or a Republican governor or a big corporation and say “you are to blame!” I can only look at my fellow Californians. I can only look at myself.

We aren’t that good.

Goddam!

In case, at some future moment...

... I forget, I put away, the things of the heart
I want some keepsake of the time
when that which was possible
became actual. When the promise
affirmed the better portion
of our nature and said
"Yes, this is who we are
and this is how we will
move forward."

Election 2008: A "Close-Enough" Democracy

Election 2008: A “close enough” democracy


The United States has a rancid method for selecting its chief executive. Two presidential elections are held on the first Tuesday in November every four years… the first is the ceremonial popular vote and the second is the “for real” electoral vote. Only the latter really counts.

Ask 100 Americans what the electoral college is and perhaps 40 of them will even know what the hell you are talking about. Most Americans, even after the elections of 2000, believe that their votes matters when it comes to choosing the President. Even those who feel they understand the electoral system are bound to say that somewhere along the line, their vote does matter because, somewhere along the line, the elector is popularly chosen.

You remember that campaign for elector, don’t you? Gosh, it seemed it would never end… all those negative ads…

Truth to be told, the electoral system is complex by design. Complexity is hard to communicate, which is why the whole subject is glossed over when we discuss democracy in America. We would rather believe the mythology of “one person, one vote,” rather than the more uncomfortable truth that the electoral college is in place to assure the hegemony of the two party system.

We trust you to vote for EVERY office except the most important one, because god-knows what would happen if someone from outside the club got in. Ross Perot… unhinged, perhaps paranoid though he may be, at least knew when he was outgunned. It’s not so much that he couldn’t get the votes in ’92, but that he simply couldn’t win, not without causing a constitutional crisis. Of course, the fact that the electoral college IS a constitutional crisis (in spirit if not in law) is overlooked.

Inertia has taken over. Most of the time the voting public is so doggedly apathetic of Federal politics that it is happy to look the other way. When scandal and catastrophe reach the front pages (as it did in 2000 and as it should have done in 2004) the thought of fundamental problems being at the heart of our democracy creates a kind of aphasia of the political consciousness. We can’t talk about these things because it would mean upsetting the underpinnings of our beliefs about ourselves. It is much easier to look at the “stupid” voters in Florida who couldn’t navigate a ballot, to blame Nader, or the nerd who might cause trouble by acting like a sore loser.

Political stability is not one guarantees of a free society, but at least at the Federal level, it is kind of cult which trumps our revolutionary ideals.


That being said, I am thrilled to go to the polls tomorrow. Here’s a quick rundown of how I am voting. I am including the state-wide ballot initiatives because, though flawed, California’s system of initiative, referendum and recall is a model for the nation. If I were to construct the perfect democracy, initiative, referendum, and recall would join proportional representation, parliamentarianism, election day holiday, and public campaign financing as foundations for that political utopia.

President of the United States
OBAMA - Naturally. Barack Obama has his charms and his drawbacks. But a president is not just a noun, he is an adjective. For eight years, “President of the USA” has been a byword for incompetence, belligerence, and willful ignorance. I believe that Obama has the energy, guile and the necessary narcissism to speak as America, and not simply for America. Symbols are meaningful, but substance counts, too. If Obama is “just” another JFK then little will get done in the next four years (and let’s hope that is the ONLY comparison that will be made with the late president). If he presses genius into service… and by all accounts, he just might… and he can win over detractors the way Regan and Clinton could (and I have my doubts) then things might get done.

But great, good, or indifferent, it is important that the psychic bleeding be stopped. Obama, on a very fundamental level, represents that basic change.

Also, it IS meaningful that Obama is an African-American… and more so that his is mixed. At my core I am a Woody Guthrie, Mark Twain, Studs Terkel (RIP) kind of patriot. I love that I can point to a guy like Obama and say “my President. That’s what WE are all about.”

Congressional Representative
SHERMAN – A nerd. A guy who embarrassed himself on The Colbert Report. The sort of fellow who if you saw him, you might want him to do your taxes (he is a CPA!) but not necessarily run your life. But he is also a progressive in a time when that means something. He cares about human rights. He knows that this Federal takeover of the banks is un-American, and he’s not afraid to go against the party line. Also, he is responsive to his constituents, which, out here could be a college professor or a porn actress.

State Senator
PAVLEY - The Greens (the party to which I, for the moment, affiliate with) are not running very many candidates at the moment. In any case, I do have some affinity for the Democrats at this moment, if only because we find common cause in ridding ourselves of the stinking corpse of the current administration. Fran Paveley is a Dem, which is good enough for me in 2008, but she’s also an environmentalist who gets things done. It helps that she actually knows what she’s talking about as well.

State Assembly
BROWNLEY – A down-the-middle kind of Dem with an interest in education. Essentially “ho-hum” but we have two choices… the Democrat or the Republican. That’s the way it goes in two-party, winner-take-all land. In a proportion system it might be worth-while for a Green or a progressive independent to run but things being what they are… also, I can’t bear NOT to vote.


Judicial
NO VOTE
That being said… so we live in a country where we can’t directly elect a president – an office that the electorate could conceivably study up on, but we are expected to make decisions between ten different judgeships? Who follows these careers? One candidate, Cynthia Loo, has spent time as a “Superior Court Referee.” Another, Steve Simons, has been a “Consumer Rights Advocate.” I can probably come up with a reasonable narrative for these careers, but is this really an office that should be left to a ballot? I have no problem leaving this choice in the hands of a qualified executive… a Mayor, a Governor, a City Council. Isn’t this what we do with the Supreme Court?

State Measures
1A - YES Money for the bullet train linking LA and the Bay Area. It’s about fucking time! They’ve only been talking about it for 30 years. Every governor has turned it down. Never the right time. Meanwhile, England is linked to France by a high speed train UNDER the fucking water! Meanwhile, Japan yawns in apathy over their bullet train. California probably should watch her purse (god, how sexist!) but this is a project that, when completed, will generate a lot of income for the state via tourism and interstate travel. Two hours to San Francisco? Punch my ticket, sweetie!

2 - YES Requires higher standards for animal confinement at farms. Animals raised for our consumption should be treated humanely before they are killed. Scare tactics on the “NO” side focus on racist suggestions of “Mexican” eggs and concerns for increases in cost of food. I doubt anyone will fall for that weak tea. The fact of the matter is that we are completely detached from our food. Maybe we think a chicken is running round free and an occasional egg drops out or that a pig is somehow “caught” while living free and wild on a farm. No. Think trash compactors. Think horrors.

3 - YES Money for children’s hospitals. I support hospitals for sick children.

4 - NO Requires parents to be notified if the daughter seeks an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure which should be available to all women. Presumably, a daughter with an open, loving relationship with her parents will communicate her heath concerns to them. But, sadly, many parents suck. What if it wasn’t abortion… what if it was a blood transfusion and the parents are religiously opposed to such a procedure? For this reason, Operation Rescue must be disappointed on Tuesday.

5 - NO Changes existing drug offense sentencing rules. Drug laws are absurd. All drug use should be decriminalized. But we don’t live in Fairy-land. There are ways of moderating the draconian legislations in this State, but Prop 5 isn’t it. Good intentions, poorly construed.

6 - NO State money for local law enforcement. The usual “the criminal element is taking over” argument. Police and firemen always need more money. In a different time, a different election, I might say yes to a $965 million allocation to crime fighters. But not in 2008.

7 - YES* We are in an energy crisis. We will not drill our way out, and hybrid and ethanol are dead ends. We need big government. We need mandates. We need FDR. What we get is a sloppily-written piece of potential legislation with more holes than a good emantaller. A lot of good people are on both sides. But California needs to be in the vanguard of the green economy. We can tinker with the details later. But 7 needs to pass. UPDATE: I ended up voting NO at the last minute. I kept seeing the face of T Boone Pickens and remembering how he destroyed John Kerry in 2004. A disgusting human being who is seeking to make loads of dough now that his wells have dried up.

8 - NO Would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. This is known as discrimination. Opponents are homophobic and/or simply stupid. No reasonable thinking person can make an argument that two people of the same sex marrying would undermine the legitimacy of so-called “traditional marriage.” Similar arguments were made to keep whites and blacks from marrying not so many years ago. Let’s get over it as a people. Let’s enter the 21st century.

9 - YES Keeps the victim of a crime informed about the machinations of the criminal. Seems common sense. Surprised it isn’t common law.

10 - NO Helps consumers buy alternative fuel vehicles. Good intentions but I fear that it would favor hybrid vehicles. Prop 7 is the more comprehensive plan.

11 - NO Gives a small cabal of power brokers the authority to redraw district lines in the State. Wholly anti-democratic.

12 - YES Gives nearly a billion dollars to veterans to buy homes and farms. It is a pitiful recompense for the lies and, frankly, abuse of the armed services by the exiting administration.

Other People's Toilets - Part 2

Other People's Toilets – Part 2

photo credit: Adam Rompel


I temped for about four years back in the late '90s/early naughts. Much has been written about the topic of temping by better writers than me so I will leave it to them to tell the big narrative.
I worked a couple of six-month stints at the corporate office of a major banking concern. I was pretty anonymous there. I did heavy lifting, loads of filing, and various other menial, degrading tasks that they still saw fit to pay me $15 an hour for (well, the agency paid me $15. I probably cost about $20 an hour to the company.) It was a stiff, joyless place with people well-ensconced in cubicles, and overly serious about bits of paper going this way and that.
My own cubicle was in a wilderness of empty cubicles so I was seldom seen or heard. I did my work efficiently and quickly and always had time to fart around on the Internet and make little sculptures with my office supplies. (I will say that this company has THE BEST office supplies I've ever experienced. I particularly adore the mollusk-shaped tape-corrector device. A true object d'art). By the end of my tenure, my little space was a testament to man's desire to free his bonds of servitude. It was Dilbert meets Fluxus.

Anyway, I only mention this because on my last day of work I merrily went around the building slapping Avery labels on undersides of desks, sides of urinals, on the insides of light fixtures, under the cushions of ergonomic chairs, etc. On these labels I had printed snotty, smart-ass slogans meant to satirize this degrading, soul less workspace. I found a bunch of these labels while cleaning out my home office and am prepared to ditch them in the bin, but some of them still make me giggle. So I figured I'd consign them to blogspace in perpetuity.

In no particular order:
“Ask yourself:'what have I done to piss GOD off?'”

“Cheer up! In a few years... you'll still be doing the same thing!”

“You'd be surprised where they hide cameras nowadays” (NOTE: this one was stuck on the upper-underside of a urinal.)

“REMEMBER: It's not who wins or loses, but where the hell is my fucking coffee?!?!”

“How's that English degree working out for you?”

“DON'T WORRY! In the next life you will make them summer as you have suffered.”

“RIGHT NOW someone is coveting your parking spot.”

“FREE SPANISH LESSONS! Just ask your custodian!” (NOTE: I realize now that that comments is indeed racist, however, at the time I meant it as a commentary on the segregation of labor by race and class. But in retrospect, I wish I would have given this one more thought.)

“Cheer Up! At Lunchtime you can go kill yourself!”

“The boss thinks you're CUTE”

“Office Tip #33: Take your 15 minute break ten minutes before you go home. That way, they'll have to pay you overtime!”

“All temps are ARMED”

Where are those German Linguists When you need them?

We need a new word, people.

Schadenfreude is one of those words that lets people know you’ve been to graduate school. It is an extremely useful word in that it gives a name to a phenomenon which we had not heretofore had a name for. (Well, technically, there is the Greek word epicaricacy, but that’s still a borrowed word, isn’t it?) We needed schadenfreude because it is rather common in our complex society to take pleasure in the suffering and misfortune of others. Celebrity culture is primarily a machine which produces individuals who are built up, adored, and then summarily destroyed. We like seeing the beautiful and the famous humiliated. Closer to home, the thought that a co-worker who seems more on the ball than you gets passed over for a promotion makes us giddy. Yes, we’ve all had the feeling, even if we didn’t have the word. Having the word, however, makes it all somehow more delicious because it suggests that this is a natural, and therefore common state of mind. We don’t need to feel as though we are bad people because we take Satanic joy in the miseries which befall our fellow human beings. After all, if we name it, we can assume that many people claim it.

But as common as the schadenfreude experience is, there are other equally common states of mind having to do with our interactions with others. I feel these states of mind should have a noun into which we can collect their aspects. For example… think of a person you are acquainted with on a casual or professional basis. You see them occasionally and are not close by any means. Whenever you meet them, the small talk quickly turns to this person unloading their problems on you. Thus, a passing conversation which ordinarily would take approximately thirty seconds, soup to nuts, stretches on and on like a real engagement…. like you would have with your friend. But you are contributing. You are not asking searching questions. And you are certainly not curious.

I experience this in the workplace Without going into the particulars, there is someone for whom I occasionally do some work. This person brings me the works. I do it. This person then pays me. That is the extent of the relationship. The face time should last about twenty five seconds… tell me what you want me to do; tell me how soon you need the work back, and have a nice day. But in the midst of this I am made to suffer through the minutiae of this person’s personal travails – children running rampant… husband with a goiter… aunt with loose bowels… car with achy oil filter… wood-chipper at midnight… cat with goiter… exhausting. And I am sure all these things are causing maximal stress…. but why me? Is my face that kindly? Do I look like someone who’s got it together enough to give advice? Do I sell Calgon?

But between sympathy and simply ignoring these agonies. I find that what I want is for this person’s sufferings to be amplified so that I can experience schadenfreude. In other words, this person communicating her problems perverts empathy and sends it to the Bizarro world. I want this person to suffer so that I can receive some recompense for having to listen to the moaning.

Yes, I know it sounds evil, but it really isn’t. It isn’t because I don’t really have that sort of power. If I did, chances are I wouldn’t want to experience this anti-empathy will-to-punish. But the helplessness of being in the midst of this upchucking of problems and catastrophes creates the perversion. It does not come from me.

So we need a word for this sensation… this anti-empathy will-to-punish. Something like “punitive empathy.”

Schadenfreude, the Surge, and the Ethics of Pulling out of Iraq

Does It Make It Easier…You’ve got someone to blame…

Five years is a short marriage but a long war. The news media, with its usual shoulder-shrugging has been spending time looking at polls and showing scenes of the statue of Saddam Hussein being torn down and smacked with sandal heels. A handful of stalwarts on the right continue to view Iraq as a frontline in a real global war (rather than as a distraction from the continuing criminal activities of terrorists in just about every country except where we are); Goldwater/Regan Republicans (the “realists?”) bite their lower lips, rend their garments in disdain over the incompetence of the “aftermath follies” of Rumsfeld, Bremer, et al, while simultaneously speaking in terms of “victory” and playing up the modest successes of Bush’s surge strategy; Democrats drool over November and forward bromides about withdrawals, and progressives and democratic socialists (a few of them around. Never in the media.) want to wash their hands of the whole fiasco. Leave. Don’t look back.

These are, of course, extremely crude, sweeping generalizations. I wouldn’t want to be categorized by someone like me. Pigeon-holing and defining the narrative arc of complex individuals is the role of the media and politicians. But the categories serve a purpose. Namely, they force a libertarian/progressive/lib-dem like myself to confront a very dicey ethical dilemma. To put name to myself, to place myself in the spectrum of political thought, is to take up the chorus of that old union song “Which Side are You On” and say, finally, this is what I believe, not what I’ve been told to believe. This is what I own.

“My side” hates Bush (often personally) and his administration. This is a club which is becoming increasingly diverse in its membership. Truly, these past eight years have been disastrous on so many levels – from the criminal negligence of ignoring intelligence reports about al-Qaida prior to September 11th, to the lying about links between al-Qaida and Iraq as a pretext for war, to illegal surveillance, to the illegal detentions, to a generalized shift towards a unitary executive office, to an embarrassingly mishandling of the economy (amazing how Democrats are seen as bad for business when two generations of Bushes have been responsible for recessions), to a whole-sale erosion of our diplomatic clout on the world’s stage – but if it’s been bad for us, think for a moment about the lives of typical Iraqis have been turned upside down for years to come. The “successes” of the surge have done nothing to improve the daily lives of Iraqis who have had to endure up to 22 hours without electricity, scarce sanitation, and the daily terror of not knowing whether wearing a particular color of scarf will get you killed or save your life when you go to get your groceries.

Meanwhile, solider number 4,000 just left the planet after being destroyed by a roadside IED while another 130,000 play the four-out-of-a-hundred game of Russian Roulette. (Perversely, the fact that it took until this week to reach the 4K mark is seen as evidence of the surge’s success by boosters. Presumably, if things were worse, we would have been at this number in… January?)The law of averages, of course, is on the side of the average solider. The good money is on them coming home. Of course, what condition they will be in when they arrive is another question. There are no flag-draped coffins for missing limbs or tortured psyches.

All these things make it easy dig a fork into Bush. It is easy to look at that vacant visage and find the taproot all of the problems of the past eight years. It is easy to view Bush’s reign as a petty powergrab by bottom-feeding opportunists spurred by a Freudian drive to destroy his father (himself a lumpen, though by all accounts, a serviceable functionary.). It is easy, because it is probably true that he is the worst executive we have ever had.

The ethical problem, however, has little to do with Bush himself, or the coven of incestuousness that is his “team,” but rather my personal investment in a narrative that views his failures as evidence of validation. That validation – that “we” were right in 2000 and 2004 – requires that Bush succeed at nothing and fail at everything. This is beyond mere schadenfreude, and a good deal more than sour grapes. It is a notion that in order for things to get better, they have to get a lot worse. “Success” for Bush means emboldening him for possible future actions… a sense that “well, if this worked… maybe we can do the next thing…” such as saying yes to war with Iran or a continuation of the fascistic unitarianism that has become the hallmark of the Bush reign. Failure and humiliation will somehow redeem us as a nation. It will allow us – Democrats and Republicans alike – to point at a single individual and say “it wasn’t us… it was always him.” Scapegoat or sacrificial lamb… either way, the fiascos of the past eight years suggest a way out for all concerned; a possibility for renewal.

Were that the case, then there would be no ethical problem. If we fail the Iraqis or the Afghanis, if we don’t return some semblance of social order and material infrastructure, we will be responsible for a slow, indirect genocide that will result from civil wars, intolerable poverty, disease, and generalized hopelessness. For them, the war is not a “folly,” or an example of extreme hubris on the part of a cadre of neo-cons, it is a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions. It is not an embarrassment which will go away on January 9, 2009, it is a daily smothering of civilization within its very cradle.

This desire to see the surge fail informs the instinct for withdrawal. I say instinct because one naturally recoils from the flame when it first licks the underside of the palm. But we lit that fire and fed it with gasoline before we ever started getting burned ourselves. Now we want to pull away because our flesh is being seared, leaving the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to put out the fire with little more than sand.

It is unethical…immoral, possibly criminal… to leave Iraq in this state. Far beyond the “you broke it, you bought it” platitudes coming from the apologists there is simple humanitarianism to be considered. We did the wrong thing for the wrong reason. I liken it to taking over for a quack surgeon. The wrong limb has been amputated… the kidneys are shot… gangrene is spreading like kudzu… for sure the quack needs to be removed from scene (and punished), and his support crew should be changed over as well. But the man on the table will die and organ harvesters will crawl out from the dark corners of the operating theater to collect whatever is left that isn’t rotting. … It may not be the world’s greatest metaphor, but I think it does demonstrate a simple fact: we have a responsibility to the those for whom the invasion and the occupation has meant a lingering death sentence. This concern must trump any concerns we might have for our “standing on the international stage” or our strategic interests in the region. And on the left, this concern must trump any fear that a kind of success and peace in Iraq down the line will be credited to Bush. (I simply don’t think that sentence will ever be written in a high school text book, but if it doesn’t I hope to hell there are better historians TEACHING the class.)

Any success must be measured by the quality of life for Iraqis rather than Halliburton stockholders, military pragmatists, and campaigning politicians. Ideally, we should remove or downgrade our own military presence in favor of UN Peacekeepers. ( I realize this can’t happen under current conditions. But I don’t think our military can keep a civil war from happening. I think it is essentially inevitable and we should do what we can to shelter and protect “average” Iraqis… whoever or where they might be.) Ideally, the blue helmets would work in concert with an international coalition of NGOs and local organizations to Marshall-plan the hell out of the country. 18 hours of guaranteed electricity will speak much louder than an insane mullah calling for jihad.

These programs will not be popular with Americans as we enter the long recession. They will want more money for their own programs and the will rage over the sky-rocketing price of flour due to the ethanol bubble. Politician will forward populist rants about how we need to focus on our poor and our children. And they will be right. But we must pay this debt that we owe to Iraq. Not because it is the American way, but because it is merely the right thing to do.

Running Along the Margins: Nader in 2008

Only in a political culture as moribund, dysfunctional, and undemocratic as America’s could Ralph Nader’s presidential bid be considered an evil among progressives and a Machiavellian treat for the Republicans. I have to confess, when Nader made his announcement this morning on “Meet the Press” I cringed. I feel that it is a kind of desperation; a very expensive way to actually get the press to discuss the issues that Clinton and Obama don’t seem to want to discuss.

(Busy as they are trying to find ways of scraping a few delegates away from the other on the road to an eventual anointing by a super-delegate. )

The press isn’t really interested in talking about how corporate influence corrupts the democratic process, or how deregulation has undermined trust public trust and – not incidentally, the economy. The cringe is really a recognition of how quickly Nader will be relegated to the margins after his “spike” of being on “Meet the Press.” He will be talked about briefly. Obama has already politely acknowledged Nader’s heroic status (Thus shoring up something like progressive bona fides) while Clinton almost instantly dismissed Nader’s run as a “passing fancy.” Tomorrow, Nader will be again sent to the back pages along with Ron Paul. There will be no debate invites forthcoming. No ruminations by pundits, and certainly no traction on the important issues he has always brought up. After all, if major party dissenters like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or even John Edwards can’t sustain a conversation in the public forum, what chance does Nader have? His narrative has already been spun: the “spoiler,” The man responsible for Bush’s election in 2000.

(Yes, despite the fact that Gore won Florida and that the blame lies squarely with a corrupt Republican political machine in Florida and a Supreme Court who went on to make one of top five worst legal decisions in US history, somehow Nader and his puny 2.7% somehow destroyed America. It is almost like a variety of psychosis the way Americans seem unable to place the blame where it correctly lies. It is much easier to accuse the least powerful entities in our society for the ills of the world than it is to actually look squarely at those with actual power and influence. If the economy and the health care system are broken, then it MUST be illegal immigrants who are to blame. If Bush won Florida in 2000, then it must be Nader’s tiny presidential run which destroyed our dreams and sent us down this near-decade long path of darkness. But let’s put corruption and voter disenfranchisement aside for the moment. Let’s say Bush won Florida fair and square. What does that say about the Democrats that they could not beat this guy who, in 2000, seemed as hollow, vapid, and clichéd as he does today? And what’s their excuse for 2004?)

Nader is not running to win, and I don’t believe he ever has. He himself has said that if the Democrats can’t “landslide” the Republicans this November against a super-hawk war lover like McCain (he of the 100-year plan for Iraq) they really need to reconsider their place in the meager two-party plutocracy that is the American national political system. I don’t begrudge him his run, but I also don’t know what it is really going to do except spend money and send him to speak in front of college students or get interviewed on Amy Goodman’s show. \

What he says needs to be heard, of course. I just wish there was a smarter, more efficient way of getting that message out there other than running for elected office (has he ever considered running for a state office or the Senate?). This protest-run won’t really do what he wants it to, and it may further erode his ethos, which will further marginalize a man who was once (and, by all rights, should continue to be) a giant in our culture.

Any I don’t know if Nader is interested in sniffing around and asking other questions, such as why Israel’s bombing of Syria in the Summer of 2007 has essentially been unreported, or why we talk so tough about Cuba while we turn a blind eye to China’s continued abuse of human rights at home and in her dealings in Africa. Or, why have the Democrats (and the American people in general) allowed a unitary presidency to come into ascendancy?

I don’t know if Nader will go to these places, but I have never doubted his courage to make the trip.

America: You had me, then you lost me.

Super Tuesday did something that I didn’t think was possible anymore… filled me with something like pride in my country of birth. Specifically, the American people voted as though they were politically involved and curious. By all accounts they turned out in droves on the Democratic side (or “Democrat Side” if you are Bushish. The new Normalcy.) to vote for either the first woman or the first African American to run this joint. On the GOP side, citizens rode their John Deers and Hummers to the local Elk’s club to say “yes” to sunstroked McCain or “yes” to what-the-Huck and definite “no” to that Fuller Brushman, Romney. Actually – the voters on the Republicans side said “no” to the machine of the anointed.

But then Super-Tuesday gave way to “give me a cigarette” Wednesday, and then to possibly the most depressing day in recent memory – the day an American presidential administration said “yes” to torture. I suppose they thought that the shameful debate about the “nature” of water boarding (whether it is an “according-to-Hoyle,” Webster’s definition of torture) had gone on long enough and they said “fuck it. We’ve got eleven months. They already hate us. Why not own our evil?” But the surprising thing is how it’s not really an issue… even a few days later. No one seems to care that people are being tortured as a matter of course… as a matter of public policy.

Worst of all, that tired, anemic old “ticking bomb” canard has found legs in the debate. You know the one. Freshman writing teachers always roll it out for their students to chew on. “Well, if it’s the choice between torture and a bomb going off…” etc. The fact is, the moral argument is moot on that level. Think about it: the interrogator is the person who makes the choice between the guilt of inflicting torture and the guilt of having allowed a bomb off. He/she not going to consider policy in a situation like that. It is your typical strawman argument. The day-to-day needs of interrogators are more like “does this guy know of a training camp in Lahore?” or “does this guy know where Bin Laden is hiding out?” in other words, important strategic concerns. Bomb builders. Not bombs ticking.

Somehow forgotten in all this “debate” is the fact that we (the US of A) convicted and executed Japanese military representatives for using (wait for it!) WATER BOARDING on AMERICAN soldiers.

Costanza!!!

My Seinfeld Moment


Scene: A local grocery store chain in Los Angeles. No names, but they all have a bakery attached to them. I am shopping, buying some stuff. It’s coffee time. So I bebop over to the bakery for a coffee. But I don’t need a lot of coffee. My caffeine needs are minor. I need a hot, caffeinated beverage in a not-large container. Ok…

Attendant: Can I help you?
Me; Yes, a regular coffee of the day, please?
Attendant: What size?
Me: Small, please.
Attendant: We don’t have small. We have medium and large.
Me: uh…
[At this point, the Attendant is pointing to the demo cups.]
Attendant: [holding a small cup up] Medium… [holding the large cup up] Large…
Me: I’ll take the smaller of the two.
Attendant: [holding up the small cup] Medium?
Me: That’s the smaller cup. That’s the one I want.
[The attendant sets the small cup down and starts to ring me up.]
Me: Why do you call the small cup “medium?”
Attendant: That’s all we have. Medium and large.
Me: Yes, but medium only exists when there is a small and a large size to compare it to. It comes between large and small.
Attendant: [annoyed] This is all we have. Do you want this or not?
Me: I just want you to recognize that it is silly to have a medium size of something but not a small. It doesn’t make.
Attendant: I don’t need this…
[She storms off. I am standing waiting for someone to give my money to. Meantime, another customer comes up and asks another attendant for a small coffee. This other attendant agreeably serves the customer and completes the transaction without fuss. I then pay this understanding attendant.]
Me; Uh, so I’m paying for what?
Attendant 2: Small coffee?
Me: Yes, But why is it called “medium?”
Attendant 2: It’s actually called “regular.”

Bill, Shut the Fuck up!

Bill Clinton minimizes Obama's massive victory in South Carolina by noting how Jesse Jackson ALSO won South Carolina twice, in 1984 and '88. Does this suggest that Bill has noticed that Jackson and Obama are both black? Does it suggest that he is simply an enthusiastic supporter of another candidate who happens to be his spouse?

Or does it suggest a degree of desperation from a former candidate who himself won South Carolina in two straight elections? (1992 & '96 - although, granted, he was running again Lyndon LaRouche in the latter primary.) Is it just something to say in defeat? There is no way Bill is doing a "Jesse = Obama" equating. I assume that he Bill is incapable of just letting certain things go.

Maybe he should have. After all, California will give it to Hillary, good and proper. Tea leaves may not have any relevance in this election cycle. So much is in the air. Serious candidates representing Americans who have been historically shit-canned. Clinton (women), Obama (African-Americans), and Edwards (the working poor). This should be the proudest moment in history of the Democratic party.

If Hillary wins, will Obama join her cabinet? Edwards would be a smart choice for either's Attorney General. How do we like the sound of Secretary of State Clinton? (But WHICH Clinton?) Or Chief Justice Clinton? (Well, is Bill eligible?)

Meanwhile,on the other side... is there a 21st century Republican in the bunch? Is there a non-pandering, non-whack job in that fruit salad?

A Case of the Clap: Blinking at the State of the Union

- Bush doesn't want us to sacrifice or to serve because when we are "doing for our country" we aren't spending money and creating personal debt. When we volunteer, we come together as a community and we become more invested in our political culture. When we serve, we own the country. When we are served, when we are pandered to, mommy and daddy can continue drinking through their lost weekend.

- Washington DC is a kind of political Vatican. What goes on there, the rituals, the ceremony, is totally disconnected from the laity. How can simple civility take precedent over the fact that this failed president has bankrupted this country?

- Governor Sebelius of Kansas wants to be Obama's running mate.

- Republicans are more committed to their party then they are to the country. It is peculiarly American form of fascism. I doubt very much that they all believe that the answer to terrorism creating a surveillance state via the FISA court?

- Bush will self-rapture after he leaves office.

A Quick Sniff Ahead of New Hampshire

POST- NEW HAMPSHIRE SNORT: I like how the news is reporting Hil's win as "an upset" while Obama's win in Iowa was an "upset." Clearly, folks of a democratic bent are thinking "we don't give a shit! Black dude, Bill's wife, Pretty-boy John... we'll take him! Just get the Bushies out!"

Cynical like any good Gen-X denizen who hollers from the sidelines, I have been bored witless by the political process that is Iowa. But now I am caught-up in the whoopdeedoo. So here are some quick observations about the candies:

Obama – Charismatic, super-smart, glib. Attractive to old-school liberals. Not terribly substantive. Would cause the racists to organize into a massive militia.

H. Clinton – Cold, confused, cowardly with regards to her support of the Iraq war. BUT, probably an effective executive on her own terms. She certainly has the Rolodex for a dynamic, experienced cabinet. PLUS would have access to the most qualified adviser in the history of the Republic. Super curious about whom would be the running mate. Technically, hubby could. Wouldn't he fucking love that?

Edwards – The real deal. Kennedyesque. Very sympathetic. More like B. Clinton during his “Man from Hope” era. Nightmare for corporate America or the biggest disappointment to the progressive Democrats. Might pull Greens. (whoopee! 17,000 votes!) Nader likes him.

Richardson – Probably the most qualified to be chief executive. All but invisible. Was he too fat?

Kucinich/Ron Paul – The usual angry populists who get the margins. Good ideas. Sane critiques. Very European in some ways. They’d do well if we had a genuine democracy. (i.e. proportional representation.) Proof of media and machine manipulation of the process. I like how Paul’s significant percentages in Iowa are relegated to a second graphic page on CNN as though he were a pesky Nader or John Anderson. – Kucinich: most appealing wife…. Next to Hilary’s.

Huckabee – Kindly. Friendly. Experienced. Funny. Absurd name. Anti-Evolution. Anti-Abortion. A nightmare.

Romney – above, but add $$$.

McCain – Dream-team with Colin Powell. Beloved of Reagan Democrats. Quietly corrupt. Slightly mental. Cowardly (in present incarnation). Wouldn’t fight back against Bush Jr. and pandered to Falwell. The choice of Lieberman. ‘Nuff said.

Guliani – Biggest fiction in Republican politics since Harding. Hero by default (like Junior). Exploits 9/11 at every turn. Destroyed crime scene (9/11). Hates ferrets. An unfunny joke.

Thompson – Evidently lost a bet. Complete non-entity. Hot wife.


Bottom line – A Green since 1990, I will vote for whatever Dem gets the numbers. I would prefer Edwards, but I am, like “whatever.” Not apathetic. Not slackering. More like, “just get us the fuck out of this abyss.” We are in a dark, dark place, people. And since no one in the House or Senate has the balls to get the impeachment ball rolling, we have to suffer another year of this loathsome, demonic, administration. - Still, there is something 40-Year Old Virginy about electing an African-American or a Woman... in other words, it would be about fucking time. I wouldn't kick them out of bed for snoring.

A Letter to Roger Ebert

Los Angeles has a few tresures. One of those jewels is The New Beverly Cinema. It is the ONLY repertory movie theater in LA. Sherman Torgan, founder and jack-of-all-trades at the New Bev, died recently. The following is a letter I wrote to film critic Roger Ebert about Torgan and the New Bev.

If you are lucky enough to have a rep movie house in your area, give them your business.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Roger – I hope this letter finds you well and improving.

I am writing today because Los Angeles lost one of its angels. Sherman
Torgan, the founder and proprietor of The New Beverly Cinema, here in
Los Angeles. The details, biographical and otherwise, can be found
here
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-torgan21jul21,1,2652698.story?coll=la-news-obituaries%3A&ctrack=1&cset=true

I'm not sure if you were familiar with Mr. Trogran. Something tells me
that you might have been. I have this image of you popping into small
theaters wherever you find you yourself. But the reason I am writing
is not so much to eulogize Mr. Torgan but to express anxiety. You see,
"The Bev" is the ONLY repertory movie house in Los Angeles.

This bears repeating: in Los Angeles… Hollywood… a town built on and
supported by the film industry, there is only a SINGLE rep theater. I
actually didn't know this fact prior to this week. Living in LA, you
take for granted that you can find whatever you want if you are
willing to drive. But reading the various obituaries and tributes, it
became clear that Mr. Torgan and his small movie house provided an
exclusive service. Three times a week the Bev changes its offerings.
Three nights of Brando followed by two nights of Peter Sellers
followed by two nights of Keaton (and maybe even a midnight of Repo
Man thrown in for good measure). The sheer variety of the offerings;
the eclectic, eccentric, idiosyncratic selections communicated to the
moviegoer that someone loves movies as much as I do. High-brow,
low-brow, middle-brow, Mr. Torgan understood that variety was the
spice of life and the life's blood of a cinemaphile.

Sadly, with the passing of Mr. Torgan, the Bev's days may be numbered.
Years of providing the best bargain in town (a double-feature for $7
is what they charge NOW!) to an increasingly select audience have
taken it's toll. Perpetually on the verge of closing since it opened
in 1978, the Bev may finally be on its last legs without its
benefactor.

My ulterior motive in writing to you, Roger, is not so much to lament
the passing of a great Angelino and friend of cinema, but to touch on
your inherent sympathy for the cottage industry that is the repertory
cinema house. If I can walk ten block in Paris, France and find two
rep houses, it is scandalous that in 500 square miles only one house
can be found to honor the diversity of world cinema. Perhaps you can
use your bully-pulpit to sermonize and perhaps evangelize the need to
maintain and expand this invaluable cultural resource.

Thank you, Roger, for taking the time to read my petition.

Deconstructing a Movie I've Never Seen Based on a Single Image from the Film

In the vein of one of my old professors at CSUN:

I don’t know anything about this film but I can tell you everything you need to know about the relationships based on the poses of the characters. Wilson, head half-tilted, eyebrows up, arms in a shrug, hands up-turned to catch his juggles; Dillon, body towards Hudson, face turned towards Wilson. Hand in pocket, teasing his cock with the hand closest to Wilson, left arm disappears behind Hudson/support-wall. Eyes frowning in disbelief over some Rabelaisian nonsense perpetrated by Wilson, and yet, a half smile, still. Hudson, stiff as a board at right angles from Wilson. Her arms folded like an angry mother, but also framing her breasts because she does want Wilson to find her attractive (co-Nordics?). The only thing out of place… she is smiling. Her body is saying yes/no, her face is saying “I’m just a girl.” COLOR: Hudson: brown (fecal); Dillon: dark blue (invisibility); Wilson: red (sexual passion; excitement); light blue shirt (homo-erotic harmony with Dillon); brown pants: (corprophilic harmony with Hudson; desire for sexual humiliation).

EXCLUSIVE! Excerpt from Anna-Nicole's final diary entry!

2/7/2007

To the degree we are uncertain, we must confess that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Rather there are degrees of refutability and falsification. “The sun rose today and has done so for billions of years; therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.” We would say that this inductive statement, rather than being “true” has a very low degree of refutability. In other words, in order to falsify that statement, a refutation would have to have to be of a very high order. Whereas, the statement, “the moon looks like a wheel of blue-cheese; the moon therefore is made of cheese” has a very high degree of refutability because what is required to falsify the argument would be of a very low order.

Another problem with scientific knowledge is that language itself is inadequate to the task of expressing truth. Early scientists realized this and created mathematics. However, though math is a more refined language, it is nonetheless still a language. For example, while it clear that a number can be divided into fractions to an infinite degree, we can nonetheless move from “1” to “2” instantly and without issue. In the material world, there is nothing which can be infinitely divided. At a point, matter breaks down into its constituent atomic parts which then further divide into sub-atomica, then onto a quantum stage, and possibly, etcetera. But at that point, the “thing” itself is no longer the “thing” but rather a part of what might be termed “the general composite” (matter, space, gravity, etc.). If we were attempting to generate an inductive conclusion from this, we must admit that there are no divisions whatsoever, but rather a wholeness within an implicit, universal order.

However, everything I have said must be rendered suspect by the very fact that I am using language to describe it. Any notion that a fundamental truth has been forwarded must be rubbished until such time as direct access can be obtained.

Hidden History: Remembering Jerry Ford and James Brown

Jerry Ford once made a promise or prediction that, regardless of how clumsy or ineffectual he was, he would outlive James Brown. The media has traditionally overlooked the quiet but bitter rivalry between the Godfather of Soul and the former president, but history may eventually attest to the sometimes nasty relationship the two had.

“Fuck that cracker mother-fucker,” Brown famously exclaimed to a reporter from Rolling Stone when asked in 1975 why he refused to accept an invitation to dine with the president at an all-star gala which included Mummenschantz, Paul Harvey, and TV’s Sally Struthers. “I’ve got better things to do than sit around eating hash with that stupid, Ban-roll-on-deodorant-looking, can’t-get-elected, fool.”

The snub originated from an incident in May of 1965 when the then up-and-coming Funkster met the then Congressman Ford at a celebrity football match. Ford, hallucinating from sunstroke and mistaking James Brown for the famous running-back Jim Brown. tackled Brown while he was bent over the Gatorade cooler. Afterwards, despite Ford’s attempt to publicly apologize, a feud ensued. Years later, on the eve of the 1976 elections, Ford was at a press conference where he was asked about the current state of play vis a vis the James Brown situation. Ford, in his typically no-nonsense, button-down way, explained that he would consider the matter settled once one or both of them were dead. After a beat, the President added “and I don’t plan on going first. For what it’s worth, I’ve got a legion of secret services agents and a direct line to several Freemasons. ‘Nuff said.” That night, at a show at Carnegie Hall, Brown used the time between songs to declare his continued enmity towards Ford, alternating “fuck that mother-fucker” with “fuck him and his strung-out bitch.”

Things cooled down over the course of the next thirty years and the two eventually reached a kind of détente when both were invited to Mr. and Mrs. PW Botha’s housewarming party in Decatur in 1986. Ford, who was busy surruptiously feeling up the bust of a statue of Queen Beatrix , did not notice Brown’s entry (despite the confetti and gong). The two hovered at opposite ends of the room, occasionally leering at one another from afar before feigning to studying the molding on the wall. Fearing the party would turn sour due to the palpable tension in the air, PW (whom Brown affectionately referred to as “Pee-Wee”) called for Elkie Summers to bring out her “special brownies” which Botha had been saving for the after dinner brandy. Soon, everyone at the party was high and feeling no pain. Charles Nelson Riley began hammering away on the piano and Joan Dideon piped in for a stirring rendition of “I’ve got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts” in honor of Merv Griffin whom, for some reason, everyone thought had recently died. Afterwards, Riley asked if President Ford had any requests, and, in a moment of cannabinoidal good-will, said, “I’d love to hear ‘Sex Machine,’” and gave a tearful nod to Brown, who just about broke into tears himself. Brown obliged the former president and when the song was over the two shook hands. Ford said “I still think you are a dirty son-of-a-bitch” to which Brown replied “ you old cracker motherfucker.”

Banking on Fear

This past weekend, I like many John and Jane Paychecks, took an hour to balance my accounts for the end of the month. I wanted to make sure the money was where it was supposed to be. And, like many folks, I keep the bulk of my money in savings, transferring only what I need for bill-coverage into my checking account. I do this because I belong to a credit union and I get a decent rate in savings.

However, when I attempted to perform the transfer, the site came back with a message saying “Transfer Failed Due to Reg – D.” I tried several more times only to receive the same failure message. Assuming this was a simple website glitch, I waited until Monday (today) to call my bank to find out what the problem was/is. What I was told was chilling.

“Reg – D” has to do with a provision in the Patriot Act which is supposedly aimed at money laundering. Individuals are not allowed to transfer money between accounts more than six times in a 30 days period. It does not matter whether the institution is a bank or credit union or between a savings and a checking account. You simply aren’t allowed to make these sorts of transfers electronically. You must call the financial institution and request that someone at the bank do it for you. In other words, the government is saying how and when you can manage your own money.

Like many left-leaning, suburban working class people, I have been angry about the so-called Patriot Act since the day it went from punditland to law. I hated the idea that we would become “that kind of country” - a culture of finks and snoops with our government treating its citizens as suspects. But, honestly, I never went much beyond theoretical outrage.

As with many things that have happened since 9/11, the so-called “war on terrorism” really means a war on the citizens. Granted, being inconvenienced in my personal banking does not compare to being rounded up and sent to a darkened cell at Camp X-Ray, but it is telling. It is a gutting example of the sort of day-to-day variety of creeping-fascism which has been engendered in a climate of fear. What is worse, the heavy-handed actions of our government infantilize the citizen; making him or her “subjects” to the largess of a paternalistic overseer.

In what ways is this “conservative?” How is this “small government?”

I did call my Congressman. I did write him a letter. He’s out campaigning and probably not talking about The Patriot Act (which he did not support. Good for him) because Democrats are talking about everything BUT the war and the Patriot Act is “old news.” I hope that, somehow, somewhere, November 7^th 2006 means the beginning of the end of this six year nightmare.

God's Got a Sick Sense of Humour (hopefully)

About 15 years ago I started writing a book of essays about the UK electro-pop band, Depeche Mode. I am finally in the final-final edit of the book and while doing the final read-through I found an essay which I feel is germaine to the whole Danish-anti-Muslim-comic-strip flap. In 1984, Depeche Mode released a single in the UK called "Blasphemous Rumours." The single was a flop but it caused a bit of controversy and the BBC refused to play it due to it's supposedly anti-Christian message. Interestingly enough, the JACK-FM format in the US rotates the song A LOT and I do hear it on college radio "flash-back" hours from time to time. It is a great tune, sonically speaking, and, though perhaps a bit over-wrought, asks some difficult questions about the nature of faith. So, here's the essay in its entirety.

--------------------------------------------------

from "Depeche Mode: Your Favorite Darkness" © 2006 by David Fulton.

‘Blasphemous Rumours’ - The enduring power of this song is best embodied in the effect it has on long-time fans when the band perform it live. In the film of 101 there is a moving and somewhat disturbing scene in which the camera captures a young woman in the throes of hysterics as she sings along with Gahan. She is given over to total emotional abandon like nothing short of Beatlemania. This moment manages to encapsulate in one stunning visual everything that needs to be understood about the relationship between Depeche Mode and its audience. The words and the music create a dialog for a voiceless and often ignored, generation of middle-class kids who have big thoughts and important concerns but lack the language and the public platform that a pop act can provide. ‘Blasphemous Rumours’ (‘BR’), though it has ceased to be featured in the band's live set since that historic Pasadena show in 1988, exemplifies the sort of song that Depeche Mode does better than any other pop act outside of U2 or REM: a song of ideas and consequence.

Musically, ‘BR’ is the band's most complex and challenging track to date. It manages to walk the line between the dark minimalism of ‘Pipeline’ and the thickly-layered sounds found on Black Celebration Indeed, ‘Pipeline’, with its sparse instrumentation blending eastern drum patterns with industrial sterility, offers an ersatz sonic template for the production crew on ‘BR’. Tension builds in both songs from the onset with enigmatic percussion signifying an almost religious solemnity. While ‘Pipeline’ is a quasi-work song, ‘Blasphemous Rumours’ suggests something no less dire than a funeral procession. In this case, the death of the god of Martin Gore's youth.

Gore presents us with two superficially similar situations involving young women. The first, a sixteen year old girl in the midst of adolescence attempts suicide because she is “bored with life.” The attempt is a failure and there is a strange, dark sarcasm from Gore who “thanks” God for the “small mercies” of “allowing” her to fall short of her intended goal of self-annihilation. The second verse deals with the girl's mother and her reaction to the events. The suicide note is read while “16 candles burn in her mind,” and the guilt and a sense of responsibility is assuaged “once again” by prayer. The chorus then kicks in; a black nursery rhyme, not unlike the one heard on ‘Everything Counts’, infuses the song with acid irony as God is giving, in the words of one critic (Neil Tennant), “a severe ticking off.” To be sure, Gore does not mince words in his accusing the Almighty of a sort of spiritual hubris. By declaring that God has a less than empathetic attitude toward the suffering of mankind, Gore is also calling into question the whole franchise of Christianity. The songwriter does not cull from the headlines, as he does later on ‘New Dress’, stories of famine and war. Instead, he chooses to focus on a home-grown microcosm of domestic, middle-class suffering. The second young woman dies after being hit by a car despite her finding “new life in Jesus Christ.” Although Gore does not explicitly say so, he is obviously outraged by the absurd irony of, on the one hand, a girl who wants to die being made to live by the grace of God while another, who was ostensibly “in love with everything” dies senselessly at the hands of a capricious fate. The world which Gore chooses to ground his discontent is assuredly the world of a decidedly English form of Christianity which buttresses the meager spiritual lives of its island-bound population with fatalism and a clock-work sensibility about the workings of the universe. It is easier, in the case of the sixteen year old suicide and the eighteen year old car crash victim, to accept the nature of “God's will” rather than to look at the underlying and often difficult questions: what drives a young girl to attempt suicide? What sort of God allows such a tragic and senseless death as the one the befalls “one of His own?” The latter is obviously the more dangerous of the two questions. To investigate the problem of why God allows suffering would mean an acceptance of three uncomfortable and disturbing possibilities - a) that of an absentee deity; a god that created and then subsequently retired, b) Gore's God of the “sick sense of humour;” a malevolent, even evil god that actually enjoys watching the travails of humankind, or c) the utter lack of God.

It is telling that the discourse that ensued upon the release of the ‘Blasphemous Rumours’ single focuses almost exclusively on the accusation of irreligion and not the difficult questions raised by Gore. The songwriter was attacked for his lack of piety and sensitivity and the debate soon became one of censorship versus free speech. Gore's inability to properly frame the debate in the press when it was his turn to speak did little to further the discussion. Eventually, the controversy wore off once the single's brief, four week stay on the singles chart ended. Sadly, little if any attention has ever been given to the significant problems raised by the song. Discussions in the modern era on the subject of God are themselves not modern and seem to begin and end with the tired dialectic of evolution and creationism. The thorny topic of the place of God in a postmodern, highly mobile, multicultural society (and I am referring specifically to the so-called “global west,” encompassing Western Europe and North America) is seldom broached with any depth on any media. The occasional ten minute back-and-forth on the BBC simply begins the approach.

What Gore is hoping to do with ‘Blasphemous Rumours’ is to express a very real, though seldom articulated, frustration with the God of Christianity. Can it offer anything other than the most rudimentary comfort, like that sought by the praying mother over her suicidal daughter, or is the faith found hollow and lacking in the late twentieth century? For Gore, the trappings and ceremonies of conventional religion are simply relics of a bygone era and what is required is a new, more relevant way into God. He will not find it on Some Great Reward, and the next album will sink him deeper into an agnostic darkness where a desperate hedonism is invoked to combat feelings of imminent doom and despair. It will nearly 20 years before Gore can imagine a God suitable to his temperment and needs. Until then, it is a long road of struggle and searching.

Letter to Congressman Brad Sherman

Brad Sherman is my Congressional Representative. He is also the House Ranking Member on the Committee on International Relations.

Congressman Brad Sherman

500 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 420

Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403-1791

Dear Congressman Sherman:

I recently received a communication from your office stating your position on women’s reproductive rights, hand-gun control, and the environment. While these stances are gratifying to one who adheres to traditional, Democratic progressive values, recent developments in the so-called “war on terrorism” have prompted me to write to you today.

By now I am sure you are aware of the UN report on the human rights abuses occurring at Guantanamo Bay (see enclosed article). Of particular concern is the on-going policy of violent force-feeding of prisoners by military personnel in an effort to quash hunger-striking detainees. Listening to a report of the goings-on at the camp on the CBC last week, I was sickened to hear that US soldiers are engaged in behaviors which at best could be termed abuse, and at worst, torture. How can we, as a nation, export the ideals of a liberty, democracy, and free speech if our own agents (presumably acting on our proxy in the theater of war) carry out actions associated with the worst abuses of fascists dictatorships?

More generally, I remain greatly disturbed by the status of these prisoners as “enemy combatants.” This example of what I characterize as typical White House double-speak, allows the government to maintain these individuals in legal limbo indefinitely, thus violating nearly every treaty the US has been signatory to since the Geneva Conventions.

When these detentions began three-years ago, I doubt many of us imagined that, in 2006, we would continue to house population of individuals who have never been charged with any crime, in any court, in any district (civil, federal, or military). While this circumstance alone would suffice to cause alarm in any conscientious American, the fact that our own soldiers may be responsible for the continued abuse of prisoners under our care is odious, reprehensible, and must not be allowed to stand.

Congressman, I hope you will continue to work in your capacity as ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Human Rights to see that these prisoners are transferred into the American criminal justice system and processed with the full complement of rights outlined in the Constitution. We cannot allow these violations of basic human freedoms to continue, and we cannot tacitly endorse torture under any circumstance.

You constituent,

David DeWitt Fulton

Force-feeding breaks protest at Guantánamo

· Lawyers say abuse has left only four on hunger strike
· Pentagon denies policy of punishing detainees

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday February 10, 2006

Guardian

The Pentagon faced a groundswell of protest about its treatment of detainees at Guantánamo yesterday after it emerged that a hunger strike had been broken by force-feeding inmates and putting them in restraints.

Five months after inmates at Guantánamo began the strike to protest against their indefinite detention at the US naval base only four remain on hunger strike. Three of those are being force-fed with tubes through the nose, a Pentagon spokesman said.

He denied charges that the Pentagon was trying to break the hunger strike by punishing the protesters. "They are not trying to reduce the hunger strike, but they are going to feed people to protect life," he said. The feeding was administered by medical professionals in "a humane and compassionate manner" using the same process as in civilian prisons.

The spokesman said the men were stable, and their condition was being monitored by doctors - a claim disputed by lawyers who have recently visited Guantánamo. The lawyers described the four hunger strikers as being extremely ill, and said that one was close to death.

The lawyers also accused the military of trying to break the protest through painful force-feeding, or by subjecting the hunger strikers to isolation and restraints, to avoid the risk of detainees committing suicide by starvation.

"The military at Guantánamo has reacted extremely violently against the detainees who have been involved in the hunger strike protest. They have come down very harshly," said Gitanjali Gutierrez, a lawyer for the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents more than 100 inmates. Ms Gutierrez visited the base last month.

In court documents inmates have accused their jailers of being overly rough in the insertion and removal of feeding tubes - a charge the Pentagon denies. In addition, the New York Times reported yesterday that guards had strapped detainees into restraint chairs for hours at a time to prevent them from vomiting after being force-fed. Other hunger strikers have been placed in isolation for long periods, or deprived of blankets or books.

The newspaper said the tougher measures were imposed in recent weeks amid fears at the Pentagon that some of the prisoners were determined to kill themselves. Since the resort to restraints and forcefeeding there has been a steep drop in the number of hunger strikers, from 84 in December to four.

"They are abusing them psychologically, they are abusing them physically to the point where it becomes too painful to continue in the strike. They harass them until they begin to eat again," it claimed.

Amnesty International called for independent medical experts to be allowed to visit the hunger strikers.

"These fresh reports concerning the cruel treatment of hunger strikers are disturbing," Amnesty's UK director, Kate Allen, said.

There have been periodic hunger strikes at Guantánamo since the Bush administration established the prison in January 2002 to hold suspects in the war on terror beyond the oversight of the US courts. However, since last year the hunger strikes have intensified, with the inmates reportedly in despair that they will ever be released.

At the height of the protest last September more than 130 prisoners were on hunger strike, according to the Pentagon. However, detainees' lawyers fear the true numbers are even higher because the US military will only consider a detainee is on hunger strike if he misses nine consecutive meals.

The Pentagon spokesman would not be drawn yesterday on why so many detainees had abandoned their protest. However, one official said: "The hunger strike issue is more of a publicity ploy than anything else. Al-Qaida training manuals tell them what type of resistance to offer when detained."

He added: "Maybe they started eating again since it didn't work."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Annoying Bush Thing #10,092

Herr Bush’s recent pat on the back for thwarting an alleged plot to ram a plane into downtown LA’s Library Towers annoys me on many levels. For one, it is Bush and he annoys me in general. Notice the way he talks when he is trying to be authoritative… he over enunciates and goes to the nth degree to be deliberate, as though we are the ones with the coke-addled brain and the possum’s IQ. Second, it is annoying because the speech is an obvious ploy to make the clearly illegal wire taps seem worthwhile… as though Al Qaida is actually phoning the US and saying “hey, the world famous Library Towers! Let’s Rol!” As though the terrorists are as lame-brained as this administration. As though they don’t know how to communicate with each other through smoke signals and secret handshakes. But what really cheeses my potato is the fact that no one in Los Angeles was told about this alleged plot on the city’s tallest building. Mayor Villaragosa had to find out by listening to Bush’s speech:

‘"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor told The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president - but somebody” – Mayor Villargosa to the AP.

What this tells me is two things: ONE, there is NO interest in really preventing terrorism. If there was, there really would be information sharing between local and federal agencies. TWO, Bush doesn’t really care about Los Angeles. So it’s worse than Kanye thinks. It’s not so much that Bush don’t care about Black people, he don’t care about PEOPLE. PERIOD. He is the narcissist’s narcissist.

In LA, we are sitting ducks and, sadly, it is just a matter of time before something happens. We are vulnerable in so many places that it is stupid to even think we could “give something away” to the terrorists (not that I am going to present any idea here.) The only hope is that the fat man in Sacramento and the legislative circus act will consider spending some time constructing some plan for ourselves rather than rely on the Feds to provide the answer.