Well I go away for a while and all hell breaks loose. Oprah on the campaign trail with Obama, Hillary on the ropes for the first time, Huckabee making a serious bid for the nomination on the coat tails of Chuck Norris....am I conscious? Is this happening or have I somehow quantum tunneled into a parallel universe? Added to all this, the writers strike is depriving me of my nightly regimen of Paris Hilton and Larry Craig jokes. Oh, the trials I must endure! Next thing you know, gas will hit 5 bucks a gallon and I'll be forced to...WALK. Imagine that! Actually propelling myself along the surface of Our Good Sphere by using my...legs??!!? Nooooooooo!
With the Iowa Caucuses only weeks away, it's shaping up to be interesting. Despite the fact that Clinton isn't leading there, the Republican candidates are still taking shots at her as if she were the frontrunner. The media still treat her as The Annointed One, but her campaign has been on the defensive of late. She has likability issues, hence the constant toothy grin and spooky forced laugh. I must say, however, that she does have a nice collection of pantsuits.
I'm starting to think Obama actually could win in Iowa. Maybe it's wishful thinking, or perhaps I'm putting too much stock in polls, but the dynamics of the campaign have been shifting in his favor of late, making it hard for Clinton and the media to sell the "inevitability" narrative. An Iowa win could give him momentum for New Hampshire, where he trails Clinton by a small margin. Hell, it doesn't hurt to have Oprah in your corner either. She has the eerie power to convince her legions of almost anything. They'd chew on balls of tinfoil if she so commanded them.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Martial Law in Pakistan
Pakistan has declared Martial Law and dissolved the Supreme Court, in the name of fighting terrorism. To be more exact, Musharaff has done all this. I'm sure it had nothing at all to do with the imminent court decision which likely would have ruled his recent reelection invalid.
So: under guise of fighting "terrorism" but really to seize power, Musharaff has burned the Pakistani constitution and created a military state. Sound familiar? But seriously folks, this all stinks like rancid halibut. Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, was almost certainly complicit in the 2001 WTC attacks, and they are well known to be a closely allied with the CIA. In the 1970s Pakistan was essentially base of operations for the ISI and CIA's management of the Afghani resistance to Soviet occupation. And just who made his bona fides back then, under the watchful eye of his CIA/ISI masters? Unca Osama! And now Pakistan is home to the Taliban, who were banished but not destroyed during the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. By the way, Human Rights Watch recently released a report stating that hundreds (I can't remember the exact number...use the Google...200 I think) of Afghani civilians (read: woman and children) have been killed in the last several months by US bombing raids. I can hear the hearts and minds being won! But remember, when folks in other parts of the world hate us, it's only because we're so free. See?? It's just jealousy. They see us burning a gallon of gas to visit the mall so we can buy clothes made by kids in Indonesia and get fat on juicy American Hamburgers. Who wouldn't be jealous? The market really is the answer to everything. Mmhmm.
But I do love capitalism, I have to admit. I like clicking buttons online and having packages full of sweet products show up at my door days later, handed to me by a kindly old fellow driving a white government vehicle.
Oh, here are some paintings I've done recently.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
3 Quick Narratives
1
A man is employed stamping the papers of soliders being sent to war. Performing this job as a service to his country, he has purchased a comfortable upper class living for his wife and children. His Supervisor is a very patriotic man named Shepherd whose motto is, "let's win one for Victory and Freedom." One day like any other he arrives at work and finds his own son's papers on his desk. He hesiates for a moment, staring at them. He seems to falter just as Shepherd emerges, saying, "Well aren't you going to stamp those papers?"
He shakes his head as if waking from a dream and grumbles, "Of course, of course."
2
A man and a woman and their son were performers in a circus. They were trapeze gymnasts and performed inside of a massive, three-tiered tent. There were four trapezes, each at a different height. Their routine, a famous crowd favorite, went like this: all three would leap to the lowest swing, clinging to one another and acrobatically dangling upside-down, then each would toss the other up a level, until the family collectively occupied the first three swings. The son, displeased with what he felt to be an anticlimactic finale,always wanted to reach the fourth and uppermost swing. He was forbidden by his parents. One day, at the end of the family's act, the son leaped up to the top swing all on his own, defying his mother and father. His weight swung him up and through the highest wall of the tent, and he was gone.
They were going to search for him, but figured that leaving the tent was pointless.
3
Three fish were conversing inside of an shipwreck. One said, "I believe the things that lived inside of this were very square and probably noisy." The second said, "No, I think they were brown and quite possibly tube-shaped."
There was a pause and then the third said, "No, I don't believe anything ever lived inside of this."
A man is employed stamping the papers of soliders being sent to war. Performing this job as a service to his country, he has purchased a comfortable upper class living for his wife and children. His Supervisor is a very patriotic man named Shepherd whose motto is, "let's win one for Victory and Freedom." One day like any other he arrives at work and finds his own son's papers on his desk. He hesiates for a moment, staring at them. He seems to falter just as Shepherd emerges, saying, "Well aren't you going to stamp those papers?"
He shakes his head as if waking from a dream and grumbles, "Of course, of course."
2
A man and a woman and their son were performers in a circus. They were trapeze gymnasts and performed inside of a massive, three-tiered tent. There were four trapezes, each at a different height. Their routine, a famous crowd favorite, went like this: all three would leap to the lowest swing, clinging to one another and acrobatically dangling upside-down, then each would toss the other up a level, until the family collectively occupied the first three swings. The son, displeased with what he felt to be an anticlimactic finale,always wanted to reach the fourth and uppermost swing. He was forbidden by his parents. One day, at the end of the family's act, the son leaped up to the top swing all on his own, defying his mother and father. His weight swung him up and through the highest wall of the tent, and he was gone.
They were going to search for him, but figured that leaving the tent was pointless.
3
Three fish were conversing inside of an shipwreck. One said, "I believe the things that lived inside of this were very square and probably noisy." The second said, "No, I think they were brown and quite possibly tube-shaped."
There was a pause and then the third said, "No, I don't believe anything ever lived inside of this."
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Politics, Artifical Sweeteners, and Zen
David Broder wrote an op-ed declaring that "it's not over for Obama." No, really? It's nearly three months until the first primary for chrissake. Jim Lehrer, the PBS newsanchor, was on Charlie Rose last night praising the longer campaign cycle. This way, his argument went, we won't be able to complain later on that we didn't know such-and-such about any of the candidates. But doesn't this presume that a longer campaign is also a more informative campaign? Is it more nourishing to eat three hot pockets instead of two? I submit that given the nature of modern presidential campaigning, longer is not better. Who needs an additional six months of prepackaged soundbytes, phony debates, and "expert" analysis? This just in: Clinton raised more money than Obama! Barack hasn't been wearing his American flag pin!
I can't help but suspect that the media's consistent portrayal of Clinton as "the Frontrunner" serves to reinforce her lead in the polls. As Broder points out, when Obama gave his big foreign policy speech on October 2nd, the headlines splayed across every front page the next day were not about his stances on these issues, but rather the fact that Clinton's camp had raised more money than his.
Regarding the obsession with constant polling, I think we'd be better off without it. A pipe dream, I know, but think about it: the "major" candidates (ie, the ones with money and press coverage) are slaves to poll results, creating a situation in which their handlers discourage authenticity in favor of carefully managed public relations statements. The end result of all this is that instead of a campaign designed to inform voters, we get an extended advertisement. As Noam Chomsky said, the techniques used to sell these wannabe presidents are the same as those used to sell toothpaste. Some call broadcast news "infotainment." I agree with that, except for the "info" part. that's right, it's tainment.
I've been wondering whether or not aspartame is bad for you. Aspartame is a chemical used in many products as a low calorie sweetener ("Nutrasweet.") Or how about sucralose (Splenda?) I found a website (aspartame.org) intended to assuage fears spawned by what it refers to as "myths." But who pays for that website? Is it really an unbiased arbiter of hard facts? It's difficult to know what to believe when there's so much contradictory information floating around. Perhaps we are suffering from what the great Murray Jay Siskind termed "brain fade." Too much information. More "facts" available than ever before, so consequently we know less and less. And just what does it mean to "know" something anyway? Two people are walking. A small bird flies by. One person says to the other, "I don't know what kind of bird that is." The other says, "It is a dove." Does knowing the name of something indicate any real knowledge of that thing? The same bird could be called "sparrow"; then one would know that it was a sparrow. Words are not things, they are symbols. They point to something beyond themselves. The thing-in-itself might be essentially unknowable, like Kant thought. Or is that a meaningless statement? Zen says that behind forms is empitness. Void. This sounds absurd but modern physics suggests it could be in some sense correct. Take a rock for instance. Nothing better exemplifies our notion of matter than a rock. It's hard, it's heavy, it's solid. It's made of stuff. But take a closer look and things get confusing. Almost all of the rock is actually empty space. Vast tracts of nothing with the occasional proton or electron or other subatomic particle. But those particles aren't really particles in the usual sense of the word. Take the electrons as an example. They're constantly in flux, whizzing about. The electron is more of an energy cloud than a particle; it only takes on particle like properties when observed (ie, interacted with physically.) Otherwise, it has no well-defined position in space. This was a big point of contention between Einsten and Neils Bohr; Einstein said that the electron "really has" well defined properties such as position and momentum, even when nobody is looking. Bohr said these properties do not exist until an observation takes place. It was later shown that Bohr was right (sorry Albert old sport!)
I can't remember now how I got off on this tangent. Oh yeah, aspartame! So it would seem that putting an artifical chemical in your body has potential for harm. It's hard to trust the FDA, which is an organization infiltrated by money and politics. How can they really be sure it's safe if no longitudinal studies on humans have been performed? Also: it tastes terrible. Unnatural, like one would expect a laboratory made chemical to taste. Are my tastebuds trying to tell me something? In their own inimitable tastebud language? Do they know something I don't?
Check out aspartame.org. The website has all the appearances of a big PR scam: witness the photos of children happily lapping up foods and beverages full of aspartame. Do I smell a rat??
I can't help but suspect that the media's consistent portrayal of Clinton as "the Frontrunner" serves to reinforce her lead in the polls. As Broder points out, when Obama gave his big foreign policy speech on October 2nd, the headlines splayed across every front page the next day were not about his stances on these issues, but rather the fact that Clinton's camp had raised more money than his.
Regarding the obsession with constant polling, I think we'd be better off without it. A pipe dream, I know, but think about it: the "major" candidates (ie, the ones with money and press coverage) are slaves to poll results, creating a situation in which their handlers discourage authenticity in favor of carefully managed public relations statements. The end result of all this is that instead of a campaign designed to inform voters, we get an extended advertisement. As Noam Chomsky said, the techniques used to sell these wannabe presidents are the same as those used to sell toothpaste. Some call broadcast news "infotainment." I agree with that, except for the "info" part. that's right, it's tainment.
I've been wondering whether or not aspartame is bad for you. Aspartame is a chemical used in many products as a low calorie sweetener ("Nutrasweet.") Or how about sucralose (Splenda?) I found a website (aspartame.org) intended to assuage fears spawned by what it refers to as "myths." But who pays for that website? Is it really an unbiased arbiter of hard facts? It's difficult to know what to believe when there's so much contradictory information floating around. Perhaps we are suffering from what the great Murray Jay Siskind termed "brain fade." Too much information. More "facts" available than ever before, so consequently we know less and less. And just what does it mean to "know" something anyway? Two people are walking. A small bird flies by. One person says to the other, "I don't know what kind of bird that is." The other says, "It is a dove." Does knowing the name of something indicate any real knowledge of that thing? The same bird could be called "sparrow"; then one would know that it was a sparrow. Words are not things, they are symbols. They point to something beyond themselves. The thing-in-itself might be essentially unknowable, like Kant thought. Or is that a meaningless statement? Zen says that behind forms is empitness. Void. This sounds absurd but modern physics suggests it could be in some sense correct. Take a rock for instance. Nothing better exemplifies our notion of matter than a rock. It's hard, it's heavy, it's solid. It's made of stuff. But take a closer look and things get confusing. Almost all of the rock is actually empty space. Vast tracts of nothing with the occasional proton or electron or other subatomic particle. But those particles aren't really particles in the usual sense of the word. Take the electrons as an example. They're constantly in flux, whizzing about. The electron is more of an energy cloud than a particle; it only takes on particle like properties when observed (ie, interacted with physically.) Otherwise, it has no well-defined position in space. This was a big point of contention between Einsten and Neils Bohr; Einstein said that the electron "really has" well defined properties such as position and momentum, even when nobody is looking. Bohr said these properties do not exist until an observation takes place. It was later shown that Bohr was right (sorry Albert old sport!)
I can't remember now how I got off on this tangent. Oh yeah, aspartame! So it would seem that putting an artifical chemical in your body has potential for harm. It's hard to trust the FDA, which is an organization infiltrated by money and politics. How can they really be sure it's safe if no longitudinal studies on humans have been performed? Also: it tastes terrible. Unnatural, like one would expect a laboratory made chemical to taste. Are my tastebuds trying to tell me something? In their own inimitable tastebud language? Do they know something I don't?
Check out aspartame.org. The website has all the appearances of a big PR scam: witness the photos of children happily lapping up foods and beverages full of aspartame. Do I smell a rat??
Saturday, October 20, 2007
I-Am-A-Lazy-Sonofabitch, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Condoleeza Rice
I haven't posted in eons, because I've been busy practicing my nostril flaring in the bathroom mirror. I figure it's important to know how to give a really good nostril flare....you know, just make the old honker throb for a while to stay intense and limber. There is so much to comment on that I don't know where to start, or even where to finish or stop for a pee break or what-have-you. Here goes.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee, and this fills me with a nameless dread. Why? Well, her chief P.R. hack is the same guy who's advising Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater. I rest my case. I'm sure the right will cart out the usual dreck about how she's a crazy tax raising liberal, but she's so in bed with Corporate power and globalization and privatized healthcare that calling her a liberal is a, like, total misnomer dude. Regarding her proposed healthcare plan, I believe that it functions through standardization and tax breaks. It is certainly not "socialized medicine" as the wingnuts would have you believe. It would probably be an improvement, much like a blow to the head from a small rock would be an improvement over a blow to the head from a larger one. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate proposing a comprehensive universal healthcare plan, and the media keeps him around for comedic purposes only.
Condoleeza Rice ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange is an image that haunts my dreams. Wearing a sensible suit of earthtones, she grinned maniacally as she rang-dang-a-langed. Witnessing this tableau, I could not help but entertain beliefs that maybe Wall Street really is run by the CIA and maybe Paul Wellstone was murdered, etc. How appropriate, though. Good old 'Doleeza ringing that bell. What other image do you need? It's all right there. All those wicked suits applauding like unthinking rubes as she rings that goddamn bell. Jesus!
I bought a xylophone. This is very exciting for me. Here's my favorite thing about the xylophone: the notes are written on the keys. Clearly intended for those disinclined to commit things to memory, like me. I've never played percussion before and frankly I don't know how great I am at it. I'm trying, dammit. Shortly after I bought it I realized something: the xylophone is not a cool instrument. Other instruments, like guitar and all that, are, you know, cool. Not so with xylophone. The xylophone is not a "pussy magnet", as the kids say. Just YouTube search xylophone players and you will see a homely, awkward lot beating out ragtime melodies without meeting the audience's gaze. You never think of hotshot xylophone players, spinning their mallets and striking cocky poses. I hope to change this.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee, and this fills me with a nameless dread. Why? Well, her chief P.R. hack is the same guy who's advising Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater. I rest my case. I'm sure the right will cart out the usual dreck about how she's a crazy tax raising liberal, but she's so in bed with Corporate power and globalization and privatized healthcare that calling her a liberal is a, like, total misnomer dude. Regarding her proposed healthcare plan, I believe that it functions through standardization and tax breaks. It is certainly not "socialized medicine" as the wingnuts would have you believe. It would probably be an improvement, much like a blow to the head from a small rock would be an improvement over a blow to the head from a larger one. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate proposing a comprehensive universal healthcare plan, and the media keeps him around for comedic purposes only.
Condoleeza Rice ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange is an image that haunts my dreams. Wearing a sensible suit of earthtones, she grinned maniacally as she rang-dang-a-langed. Witnessing this tableau, I could not help but entertain beliefs that maybe Wall Street really is run by the CIA and maybe Paul Wellstone was murdered, etc. How appropriate, though. Good old 'Doleeza ringing that bell. What other image do you need? It's all right there. All those wicked suits applauding like unthinking rubes as she rings that goddamn bell. Jesus!
I bought a xylophone. This is very exciting for me. Here's my favorite thing about the xylophone: the notes are written on the keys. Clearly intended for those disinclined to commit things to memory, like me. I've never played percussion before and frankly I don't know how great I am at it. I'm trying, dammit. Shortly after I bought it I realized something: the xylophone is not a cool instrument. Other instruments, like guitar and all that, are, you know, cool. Not so with xylophone. The xylophone is not a "pussy magnet", as the kids say. Just YouTube search xylophone players and you will see a homely, awkward lot beating out ragtime melodies without meeting the audience's gaze. You never think of hotshot xylophone players, spinning their mallets and striking cocky poses. I hope to change this.
Friday, August 24, 2007
This Just In..."Telejournalism" Sucks
I was in a masochistic mood this morning, so I tuned in to CNN's hard-hitting program American Morning. This show runs every weekday starting at 6:00 a.m., and it features the lean-jawed, salt-and-pepper haired John Roberts and the photogenic Kiran Chetry occupying the "anchor" chairs.
The theme of this morning's show was the pre-trial hearing of former astronaut Lisa Nowak. I was treated to live feeds from inside the courtroom, while in a separate window off to the side CNN had a couple of smirking correspondents offering what passes for "analysis"; it primarily consisted of one guy repeatedly saying to the other, "Well we've got Lisa Nowak and Colleen Shipman here, now all we need is William Oefelein to complete the love triangle!" No kidding, he must have said that at least three times. Each time he said it, the other correspondent would give a half-smirk. Throughout it all they both gave the impression that they were barely suppressing a round of hearty guffaws. There wasn't much of interest going on at the hearing, mostly testimony concerning whether or not Nowak would have to continue to wear her GPS bracelet. CNN made up for this lack of substance by rehashing the facts of the case, interspersing this riveting material with more crowing about "love triangles" along with close-ups of their grinning correspondents. This would go on for a few minutes, then they would cut back to the studio, promising to return if anything exciting happened. CNN assured me that their people were "monitoring" the hearing in their "newsroom."
Cut to studio: the guest is a local legislator from (I think) Virginia. The topic? A law being considered that would make it illegal for anyone to display their boxer shorts or other undergarments in public! Lots of file footage of young kids walking around in hiphop clothes.
This ought to give you a general feel for the tenor of the show. The most amusing part of it all was probably the excrutiating banter between the hosts. Their strained attempts at chirpy small talk made me wish I had a gun to reach for. I know their morning show isn't supposed to be as "serious" as the afternoon stuff with Wolf Blitzer, but Wolf's segments aren't much different.
Oh yeah, and how about those cool effects? The true hallmark of a successful corporate news spectacle is the professional sparkle. The Iraq graphics crack me up. Every Iraq segment has to have a cool map border, accompanied by dramatic intro music. I can't help but picture the guys who put this stuff together, sitting in front of a computer. "Does the sepia look cooler? Which font looks the most important? Which music best conveys the majesty and drama of war?" Bwahaha, it's so funny and sick.
Not to single out CNN. They're all more or less the same. The really scary part is that most Americans who follow the news at all get their information from television, which does very little original reporting and investigation; they cannibilize stuff from the newspapers instead. Even the newspapers, which do most of the real journalistic gruntwork, are slashing newsroom budgets in response to declining sales. This does not bode well for the future of journalism.
The theme of this morning's show was the pre-trial hearing of former astronaut Lisa Nowak. I was treated to live feeds from inside the courtroom, while in a separate window off to the side CNN had a couple of smirking correspondents offering what passes for "analysis"; it primarily consisted of one guy repeatedly saying to the other, "Well we've got Lisa Nowak and Colleen Shipman here, now all we need is William Oefelein to complete the love triangle!" No kidding, he must have said that at least three times. Each time he said it, the other correspondent would give a half-smirk. Throughout it all they both gave the impression that they were barely suppressing a round of hearty guffaws. There wasn't much of interest going on at the hearing, mostly testimony concerning whether or not Nowak would have to continue to wear her GPS bracelet. CNN made up for this lack of substance by rehashing the facts of the case, interspersing this riveting material with more crowing about "love triangles" along with close-ups of their grinning correspondents. This would go on for a few minutes, then they would cut back to the studio, promising to return if anything exciting happened. CNN assured me that their people were "monitoring" the hearing in their "newsroom."
Cut to studio: the guest is a local legislator from (I think) Virginia. The topic? A law being considered that would make it illegal for anyone to display their boxer shorts or other undergarments in public! Lots of file footage of young kids walking around in hiphop clothes.
This ought to give you a general feel for the tenor of the show. The most amusing part of it all was probably the excrutiating banter between the hosts. Their strained attempts at chirpy small talk made me wish I had a gun to reach for. I know their morning show isn't supposed to be as "serious" as the afternoon stuff with Wolf Blitzer, but Wolf's segments aren't much different.
Oh yeah, and how about those cool effects? The true hallmark of a successful corporate news spectacle is the professional sparkle. The Iraq graphics crack me up. Every Iraq segment has to have a cool map border, accompanied by dramatic intro music. I can't help but picture the guys who put this stuff together, sitting in front of a computer. "Does the sepia look cooler? Which font looks the most important? Which music best conveys the majesty and drama of war?" Bwahaha, it's so funny and sick.
Not to single out CNN. They're all more or less the same. The really scary part is that most Americans who follow the news at all get their information from television, which does very little original reporting and investigation; they cannibilize stuff from the newspapers instead. Even the newspapers, which do most of the real journalistic gruntwork, are slashing newsroom budgets in response to declining sales. This does not bode well for the future of journalism.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
They're Anti-War...Sort Of
From a recent New York Times article entitled "Democrats Flexible on Iraq Exit":
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
Our top three liberals sure are all over the map on this one, eh? Talk about hive mentality. The problem with the "well, we have to stay to prevent genocide" meme is that the genocide has started, and the U.S. military is not getting involved. The number of areas controlled by the United States is quite small compared to those ruled by local militias and death squads. "In case" of a genocide? What do you call it when roving bands of murderers demand to see people's I.D. cards, and then execute them if they have the wrong kind of name? And just what is going on when these gangs of armed thugs are often government police forces?
It is obvious by now that Bush ordered the toppling of a violent despot in order to install in his place a government that routinely uses torture and murder to punish its political enemies. The difference is that this corrupt government has allowed the privatization of Iraq's vast oil wealth, and has raised no objections to denominating said wealth in dollars instead of euros. The carnage we see on the news each day and the current parliamentary strife between Sunni and Shia political factions are two peaks of an iceberg visible above the surface; if we could see underwater it would be obvious that they are, in actuality, one and the same.
In light of this, the absurdity of the statements made by the Democratic candidates is patently obvious, and the real reasons that the United States is staying in Iraq begin to take shape. The only way we can retain control of the oil and maintain Iraq as our permanent middle eastern stronghold is for the al-Maliki government to stay in power, even if that grip on power is a precarious one (as it certainly is right now.) In our national debate about Iraq, oil is the elephant in the room. The mainstream media treats those who cite oil as the reason for the invasion like naive children: oh they just don't get it, it's much more complicated than that. Well it isn't. Would we have invaded Iraq if its national export was asparagus?
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
Our top three liberals sure are all over the map on this one, eh? Talk about hive mentality. The problem with the "well, we have to stay to prevent genocide" meme is that the genocide has started, and the U.S. military is not getting involved. The number of areas controlled by the United States is quite small compared to those ruled by local militias and death squads. "In case" of a genocide? What do you call it when roving bands of murderers demand to see people's I.D. cards, and then execute them if they have the wrong kind of name? And just what is going on when these gangs of armed thugs are often government police forces?
It is obvious by now that Bush ordered the toppling of a violent despot in order to install in his place a government that routinely uses torture and murder to punish its political enemies. The difference is that this corrupt government has allowed the privatization of Iraq's vast oil wealth, and has raised no objections to denominating said wealth in dollars instead of euros. The carnage we see on the news each day and the current parliamentary strife between Sunni and Shia political factions are two peaks of an iceberg visible above the surface; if we could see underwater it would be obvious that they are, in actuality, one and the same.
In light of this, the absurdity of the statements made by the Democratic candidates is patently obvious, and the real reasons that the United States is staying in Iraq begin to take shape. The only way we can retain control of the oil and maintain Iraq as our permanent middle eastern stronghold is for the al-Maliki government to stay in power, even if that grip on power is a precarious one (as it certainly is right now.) In our national debate about Iraq, oil is the elephant in the room. The mainstream media treats those who cite oil as the reason for the invasion like naive children: oh they just don't get it, it's much more complicated than that. Well it isn't. Would we have invaded Iraq if its national export was asparagus?
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Industrial Revolution Will Not Be Televised
I took these on Sunday afternoon. Some of them came out a little dark; I'm still trying to figure out how to use my camera properly.
The stretch of Adamo Drive leading up to the Port of Tampa is a veritable horn o'plenty of industrial goodness. The area boasts numerous features including but not limited to: homeless people (in the spirit of the current administration let's call them shelter deprived), cracked and weed-infested sidewalks, dingy warehouses that seem to radiate death and squalor, rusted out railroad depots, neon strip clubs, faded billboards, cigarette butts, crushed soda cans and water bottles, etc etc. I can't think of a better place to park on a romantic evening than the vomit-stained crosstown overpass. There aren't many restaurants if you get hungry, but there is one convenience store where you can buy beef jerky and American flag keychains (not to mention the current issue of Swank.)
I like these parts of town. They are rough around the edges and no-nonsense. These are the bleak streets that the mayor desperately hopes out-of-towners won't see. She would rather have you visit Centro Ybor, where you'll find a multiplex and a deadly, soul-sucking gamut of overpriced novelty stores. Or how about Channelside? There's, um...another multiplex. And, uh, novelty stores. And corporate bars with $10 cover charges and a white guy playing Bob Marley on acoustic guitar. Sing those songs of freedom brother!
The stretch of Adamo Drive leading up to the Port of Tampa is a veritable horn o'plenty of industrial goodness. The area boasts numerous features including but not limited to: homeless people (in the spirit of the current administration let's call them shelter deprived), cracked and weed-infested sidewalks, dingy warehouses that seem to radiate death and squalor, rusted out railroad depots, neon strip clubs, faded billboards, cigarette butts, crushed soda cans and water bottles, etc etc. I can't think of a better place to park on a romantic evening than the vomit-stained crosstown overpass. There aren't many restaurants if you get hungry, but there is one convenience store where you can buy beef jerky and American flag keychains (not to mention the current issue of Swank.)I like these parts of town. They are rough around the edges and no-nonsense. These are the bleak streets that the mayor desperately hopes out-of-towners won't see. She would rather have you visit Centro Ybor, where you'll find a multiplex and a deadly, soul-sucking gamut of overpriced novelty stores. Or how about Channelside? There's, um...another multiplex. And, uh, novelty stores. And corporate bars with $10 cover charges and a white guy playing Bob Marley on acoustic guitar. Sing those songs of freedom brother!
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Petrodollars vs. Petroeuros
From an article by Ed Haas:
"In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for their oil. Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in their U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely."
"In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for their oil. Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in their U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely."
"Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Universal global dollar supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest recession that the United States endured began and ended within the same timeframe as when Iraq was trading oil for euros. Whether this is a coincidence or related, the American people may never know."
Remember when the saber rattling against Iran began last year? Iran had been threatening to convert their oil from petrodollars to petroeuros. This would mean that the euro, which has been gaining on the dollar steadily over the past few years, would be strengthened even more at the dollar's expense. Oil is the biggest business on the planet and Iran is one of the main suppliers.
Moreover, Iran has already requested that its European and Asian oil customers pay in euros instead of dollars:
"Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations."
"The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data)."
The above is quoted from this article by William Clark.
So what does this all add up to? Well, given the decline of the United States' manufacturing infrastructure, we are increasingly dependent upon the power to trade dollars for real goods from countries like China. This is all well and good, except for the fact that if demand for the dollar falls, as it certainly would if Iran were to go through with its promise of creating a euro-based oil bourse, the buying power of the dollar and consequently the U.S. economy would fall with it. Again, William Clark:
"A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an 'Operation Iranian Freedom,' or perhaps another CIA-backed coup such as operation "Ajax" from 1953. Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military, and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate 'interventions,' it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S. to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq."
I believe that these are all things to keep in mind any time you hear about Iran waging a proxy war in Iraq or planning to nuke Israel. There is always much more to geopolitics than meets the eye. Seymour Hersh recently wrote a story detailing accelerated Pentagon planning of airstrikes and clandestine ground operations in Iran; could we be witnessing the seeds of yet another war in the middle east? Is it mere coincidence that both our current president and vice-president are former oilmen?
The above is quoted from this article by William Clark.
So what does this all add up to? Well, given the decline of the United States' manufacturing infrastructure, we are increasingly dependent upon the power to trade dollars for real goods from countries like China. This is all well and good, except for the fact that if demand for the dollar falls, as it certainly would if Iran were to go through with its promise of creating a euro-based oil bourse, the buying power of the dollar and consequently the U.S. economy would fall with it. Again, William Clark:
"A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an 'Operation Iranian Freedom,' or perhaps another CIA-backed coup such as operation "Ajax" from 1953. Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military, and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate 'interventions,' it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S. to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq."
I believe that these are all things to keep in mind any time you hear about Iran waging a proxy war in Iraq or planning to nuke Israel. There is always much more to geopolitics than meets the eye. Seymour Hersh recently wrote a story detailing accelerated Pentagon planning of airstrikes and clandestine ground operations in Iran; could we be witnessing the seeds of yet another war in the middle east? Is it mere coincidence that both our current president and vice-president are former oilmen?
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
One Down, One Up
I recently saw the movies The Fountain and Zodiac. Both were anything but straightforward, though in very different ways.
The Fountain is the latest effort from Darren Aronofsky, whose previous films were Requiem for a Dream and Pi (both excellent.) Hugh Jackman (sans sideburns and pointy hair) and Rachel Weisz portray three parallel sets of characters, who exist in different time periods (different universes?) There's 16th century Spanish conquistador Hugh, who accepts a mission given to him by Weisz's Queen of Spain, modern day scientist Hugh, who is is searching for a way to cure his terminally ill wife, again played by Weisz, and finally bald space yoga master Hugh, who floats toward a nebula while living inside of a magical bubble. No, seriously.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Bald space yoga master Hugh isn't alone in his bubble. He has company in the form of a gnarled tree, which he talks to. Confused? Apparently, 16th century Hugh has been sent on a mission by Queen Isabel to find the Fountain of Eternal Life (actually the aforementioned tree), which is in the heart of the ancient Mayan kingdom. It is said that the tree's sap staves of death forever. The viewer is led to believe that this sap is the same stuff that modern day Hugh has found can reverse the aging process. This magical anti-death elixir takes different forms dependent upon the time frame of the narrative; for future yoga master Hugh the elixir is a nebula wrapped around a dying star (the nebula is also seen in the present-day narrative; there is a scene in which the couple peers through a telescope on the rooftop.)
Aronofsky shoots the film almost exclusively in yellows and browns, with lots of darkness to boot. It all feels claustrophobic and quite atmospheric, and the actors' performances are strong all around. The problem with The Fountain is its abtractness. Normally I love a good head-scratcher, but this one didn't give me enough to chew on; the symbols, such as the recurring image of the wedding ring and the tree, felt contrived, as if the film was trying a little too hard to be deep. While it has its share of memorable images, in the end it just doesn't seem to gel.
Zodiac, on the other hand, is a work of great focus and restraint. David Fincher, director of The Game, Seven, and Fight Club, tells a story based on the novel by Robert Graysmith detailing the real-life case of the Zodiac Killer, a serial murderer who claimed numerous victims in California during the 1960's. Unlike most movies of this genre, Zodiac is anything but sensationalistic and gratuitous. Fincher sticks only to the known facts (many of which were given by victims who somehow survived), dramatizing as little as possible. Gone also are his signature "tricks"; the jump cutting and surreal zooms of Fight Club have been replaced by a sober and austere style. This one is awash in atmosphere, however. The nighttime city scenes are dark and gritty, in true Fincher fashion.
The story here goes back and forth between two San Francisco homicide detectives and two news reporters, all of who are attempting to find the identity of the enigmatic Zodiac. Interspersed are re-creations of the murders. It is here that Fincher shows the restraint I mentioned earlier; these scenes have a calmness and detachment that makes them all the more realistic and horrifying.
Zodiac is a complex film; its ruminations and logical mazes are byzantine. This is what makes it great; the viewer is bombarded with facts, theories, and police procedure for a solid two and a half hours, and yet the story manages never to get bogged down. This depth of thought adds weight to the proceedings and makes Zodiac worth watching over and over. Highly recommended!
The Fountain is the latest effort from Darren Aronofsky, whose previous films were Requiem for a Dream and Pi (both excellent.) Hugh Jackman (sans sideburns and pointy hair) and Rachel Weisz portray three parallel sets of characters, who exist in different time periods (different universes?) There's 16th century Spanish conquistador Hugh, who accepts a mission given to him by Weisz's Queen of Spain, modern day scientist Hugh, who is is searching for a way to cure his terminally ill wife, again played by Weisz, and finally bald space yoga master Hugh, who floats toward a nebula while living inside of a magical bubble. No, seriously.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Bald space yoga master Hugh isn't alone in his bubble. He has company in the form of a gnarled tree, which he talks to. Confused? Apparently, 16th century Hugh has been sent on a mission by Queen Isabel to find the Fountain of Eternal Life (actually the aforementioned tree), which is in the heart of the ancient Mayan kingdom. It is said that the tree's sap staves of death forever. The viewer is led to believe that this sap is the same stuff that modern day Hugh has found can reverse the aging process. This magical anti-death elixir takes different forms dependent upon the time frame of the narrative; for future yoga master Hugh the elixir is a nebula wrapped around a dying star (the nebula is also seen in the present-day narrative; there is a scene in which the couple peers through a telescope on the rooftop.)
Aronofsky shoots the film almost exclusively in yellows and browns, with lots of darkness to boot. It all feels claustrophobic and quite atmospheric, and the actors' performances are strong all around. The problem with The Fountain is its abtractness. Normally I love a good head-scratcher, but this one didn't give me enough to chew on; the symbols, such as the recurring image of the wedding ring and the tree, felt contrived, as if the film was trying a little too hard to be deep. While it has its share of memorable images, in the end it just doesn't seem to gel.
Zodiac, on the other hand, is a work of great focus and restraint. David Fincher, director of The Game, Seven, and Fight Club, tells a story based on the novel by Robert Graysmith detailing the real-life case of the Zodiac Killer, a serial murderer who claimed numerous victims in California during the 1960's. Unlike most movies of this genre, Zodiac is anything but sensationalistic and gratuitous. Fincher sticks only to the known facts (many of which were given by victims who somehow survived), dramatizing as little as possible. Gone also are his signature "tricks"; the jump cutting and surreal zooms of Fight Club have been replaced by a sober and austere style. This one is awash in atmosphere, however. The nighttime city scenes are dark and gritty, in true Fincher fashion.
The story here goes back and forth between two San Francisco homicide detectives and two news reporters, all of who are attempting to find the identity of the enigmatic Zodiac. Interspersed are re-creations of the murders. It is here that Fincher shows the restraint I mentioned earlier; these scenes have a calmness and detachment that makes them all the more realistic and horrifying.
Zodiac is a complex film; its ruminations and logical mazes are byzantine. This is what makes it great; the viewer is bombarded with facts, theories, and police procedure for a solid two and a half hours, and yet the story manages never to get bogged down. This depth of thought adds weight to the proceedings and makes Zodiac worth watching over and over. Highly recommended!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
