I would be honored to one day write a book or a screenplay inspired by Hesse's "Demian." It would really be about me and Hesse. An interplay of sorts. And the main character would not necessarily be me. Just a version of me in modern times.
It would be a truly hallucinogetic experience. We'd watch a young man grow up in the eighties and nineties...a loner in a world that he feels alienated by. He has many mentors, the main one is a more advanced, Nietzchian version of himself: Demian.
By the end, as the story builds, as it does in Demian, he realizes that what happened to himself (his painful inner-renewal) is about to happen to the world. He can sense that something is coming. And as in Demian, something does come: September 11. And the world is at war. The old stone age gods want to be overthrown. And our main character finds himself in a hospital in Baghdad next to him is the Demian character lying in bed smiling, dying but before he does, telling the main character that the two of them had been integrated. That he need only look within himself if he ever needs to find Demian again. Wow. Suddenly putting the story in a modern context helps me understand the fervor around it back in 1919 after the first World War.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Leaning Tower of Records
Cynicism is a dangerous thing. By nature, I think it's not very healthy. But here I go any way, experimenting with cynicism.
I shall start with an uncynical thought, one that I once discussed with my dear friend and coblogger, Dr. Bellowsair. The thought actually came from the doctor himself, but I am going to put it in my words: No one need cry that Tower Records closed thanks to Internet purhcases. Tower Records and other chain stores like it destroyed independent music stores. The destruction of Tower Records was just them getting what they deserved.
But then here's where I get cynical (or experiment with cynicism): we often talk about the importance of independent stores. Of watching chain stores like Wal-Mart come in and destroy family owned businesses. It's a terrible thing.
But in some ways (here we go with some dangerous cynicism) it's nothing more than watching the White Man get fucked by an even bigger White Man. Every square inch of the US was essentially stolen on broken promises and cultural genocide to American Indians. Land that once was free became imprisoned and riddled with what we now call "independent stores" but are also just another tattoo of the White Man's culture degrading what once did not belong to them and which they stole. And so when the corporate chain which is a greater personification of the White Man culture comes in and destroys the weaker version of the White Man, should any body shed a tear? Or should we be happy to watch the White Man get eaten in a dog eat dog fight as the spirit of things gets pulled into a sort of figurative hell?
I think it's an interesting point, but I would advocate that we should not rejoice when independent stores close. Even though one model of reality shows us that the US is sitting on stolen land and ideals (since many believe that land is a spirit...not an object that can be owned, so how can you even steal it?) there are other models of realities to consider. And in the end, it's important for all of us to understand the danger of the White Man's culture and to fight that with community...which these independent stores often foster.
In the end, it's not productive to always throw your hands in the air and say, "This land was stolen!" Because the reality is that it was, but that we need to live in the present and deal healthfully and soberly with the past. Not binge on destructive behavior which chains often represent.
And on that note, the collapse of Tower Records...that was probably a good thing.
I shall start with an uncynical thought, one that I once discussed with my dear friend and coblogger, Dr. Bellowsair. The thought actually came from the doctor himself, but I am going to put it in my words: No one need cry that Tower Records closed thanks to Internet purhcases. Tower Records and other chain stores like it destroyed independent music stores. The destruction of Tower Records was just them getting what they deserved.
But then here's where I get cynical (or experiment with cynicism): we often talk about the importance of independent stores. Of watching chain stores like Wal-Mart come in and destroy family owned businesses. It's a terrible thing.
But in some ways (here we go with some dangerous cynicism) it's nothing more than watching the White Man get fucked by an even bigger White Man. Every square inch of the US was essentially stolen on broken promises and cultural genocide to American Indians. Land that once was free became imprisoned and riddled with what we now call "independent stores" but are also just another tattoo of the White Man's culture degrading what once did not belong to them and which they stole. And so when the corporate chain which is a greater personification of the White Man culture comes in and destroys the weaker version of the White Man, should any body shed a tear? Or should we be happy to watch the White Man get eaten in a dog eat dog fight as the spirit of things gets pulled into a sort of figurative hell?
I think it's an interesting point, but I would advocate that we should not rejoice when independent stores close. Even though one model of reality shows us that the US is sitting on stolen land and ideals (since many believe that land is a spirit...not an object that can be owned, so how can you even steal it?) there are other models of realities to consider. And in the end, it's important for all of us to understand the danger of the White Man's culture and to fight that with community...which these independent stores often foster.
In the end, it's not productive to always throw your hands in the air and say, "This land was stolen!" Because the reality is that it was, but that we need to live in the present and deal healthfully and soberly with the past. Not binge on destructive behavior which chains often represent.
And on that note, the collapse of Tower Records...that was probably a good thing.
Hillary "Nader" Clinton
I think this name is beginning to suit her more and more. I'm not sure if being an Obama partisan in this way is even constructive. I am afraid that it isn't but also think that referring to Hillary as a Nader puts into perspective what she's doing by using Florida and Michigan as well as big donors to take the Democratic Party hostage. And therefore, I offer it to any one who wants to use it.
Simply substitute "Rodham" with "Nader" and there's your brand.
Simply substitute "Rodham" with "Nader" and there's your brand.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Has The Twenty First Century Even Started?
Modernism is not thought to have started in the year 1900 and for that matter neither did the twentieth century. History, is of course, a strange little bird and how we interpret it is very subjective. But most of us don't see the twentieth century starting on "day one" of the year 1900. Most of us don't see the Sixties having started on day one of 1960. Nor do we think the Sixties ended on day one of 1970. Normally, the Sixties are thought to either have ended in 1968 or somewhere between 1972 and 1974.
So why should we artificially think that history will view the twenty-first century as beginning in the year 2000? Perhaps, some will contend that it began with the appointment of George Bush Junior. Others may argue that it began on September 11, 2001. Still others may say that it began with the anthrax scare in October of 2001 or perhaps the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
But there may be others who will one day contend that the twenty first century did not start during the Bush presidency at all.
It is not an altogether unpopular thought to consider that the twentieth century did not begin until WWI in 1914.
So there's really no telling what will trigger off the birth of the twenty-first century.
I would contend that our present era starts with the birth of modernism. And that most of the issues facing the modernists are very much the same issues that plague today. The postmodern movement in my opinion is just an extension of modernism. And the post-post-modern era is just an extension of modernism as well. The Age of Modernism, which is of course a rather stupid name, is the age in which we find ourselves.
It is an age where human beings are more widely able to examine ourselves and our civilization in a way that has hitherto been improbable. It is an age where our destructive instincts are only matched by our creative instincts. It is an age that began some time ago and is still going.
Whatever bridge to the twenty-first century Bill Clinton "built" for us has since been washed away except in our memory. But the deeper existential questions that were posed and probed throughout the modern era have not been washed away. They have at times appeared more dormant than others, but they have only been latent waiting for their next appearance on the world stage.
Progressives and Conservatives take note: whether Obama, Hillary, or McCain are to be our next president will not mean an end to the "modern" era. The main difference is that each presents some sort of attitudinal shift in how the US and world approach the modern era. And perhaps McCain's terribleness and Obama's hopefulness are enough to do a decent job of shaping attitudes. But they will be in the end, more impermanent than the far more lasting (yet still impermanent) modern age that we are, I believe still in and have been in for well over one hundred years.
In fact, to take this a step further and border on the ridiculous for a moment: perhaps part of the dilemma is that the "Modern Age" is by definition Humanity itself. Perhaps every age prior has simply not had to face the same insecurity and doubt that have come with the close examination of Modernism. Perhaps Modernism is nothing more than an overthinking magnifying glass that has been placed over a humanity that has primarily been the same regardless of the era it has occupied. Perhaps modernism is simply a more direct way to approach humanity than the other eras before it.
Of course, this kind of talk just shows a conceit that comes from living inside an era and being the product of time. But perhaps such a conceit is a useful tool for helping to make manifest the era that you are in. Then again, most self-proclaimed modernists did that constantly. And yet they were a minority living amongst masses that were still intellectually clinging to prior ages without realizing the current awakening that was happening for all of Western civilization.
No matter. Western civilization is oddly becoming a very strange thing as China and India occupy greater importance on the economic stage.
So what of these ramblings? All I can say is that modernism is dormant, not dead. And perhaps it would be useful if Westerners began to consciously become aware of and embrace this fact on a wide scale. But I am really just a fool who does not have the faculty to answer these questions. I can only ask. And ask. And ask again. And for what purpose, I'm not quite sure.
Suffice it to say, the twenty first century has most probably not started in the subjective and silly eyes of historians who have yet to be born.
So why should we artificially think that history will view the twenty-first century as beginning in the year 2000? Perhaps, some will contend that it began with the appointment of George Bush Junior. Others may argue that it began on September 11, 2001. Still others may say that it began with the anthrax scare in October of 2001 or perhaps the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
But there may be others who will one day contend that the twenty first century did not start during the Bush presidency at all.
It is not an altogether unpopular thought to consider that the twentieth century did not begin until WWI in 1914.
So there's really no telling what will trigger off the birth of the twenty-first century.
I would contend that our present era starts with the birth of modernism. And that most of the issues facing the modernists are very much the same issues that plague today. The postmodern movement in my opinion is just an extension of modernism. And the post-post-modern era is just an extension of modernism as well. The Age of Modernism, which is of course a rather stupid name, is the age in which we find ourselves.
It is an age where human beings are more widely able to examine ourselves and our civilization in a way that has hitherto been improbable. It is an age where our destructive instincts are only matched by our creative instincts. It is an age that began some time ago and is still going.
Whatever bridge to the twenty-first century Bill Clinton "built" for us has since been washed away except in our memory. But the deeper existential questions that were posed and probed throughout the modern era have not been washed away. They have at times appeared more dormant than others, but they have only been latent waiting for their next appearance on the world stage.
Progressives and Conservatives take note: whether Obama, Hillary, or McCain are to be our next president will not mean an end to the "modern" era. The main difference is that each presents some sort of attitudinal shift in how the US and world approach the modern era. And perhaps McCain's terribleness and Obama's hopefulness are enough to do a decent job of shaping attitudes. But they will be in the end, more impermanent than the far more lasting (yet still impermanent) modern age that we are, I believe still in and have been in for well over one hundred years.
In fact, to take this a step further and border on the ridiculous for a moment: perhaps part of the dilemma is that the "Modern Age" is by definition Humanity itself. Perhaps every age prior has simply not had to face the same insecurity and doubt that have come with the close examination of Modernism. Perhaps Modernism is nothing more than an overthinking magnifying glass that has been placed over a humanity that has primarily been the same regardless of the era it has occupied. Perhaps modernism is simply a more direct way to approach humanity than the other eras before it.
Of course, this kind of talk just shows a conceit that comes from living inside an era and being the product of time. But perhaps such a conceit is a useful tool for helping to make manifest the era that you are in. Then again, most self-proclaimed modernists did that constantly. And yet they were a minority living amongst masses that were still intellectually clinging to prior ages without realizing the current awakening that was happening for all of Western civilization.
No matter. Western civilization is oddly becoming a very strange thing as China and India occupy greater importance on the economic stage.
So what of these ramblings? All I can say is that modernism is dormant, not dead. And perhaps it would be useful if Westerners began to consciously become aware of and embrace this fact on a wide scale. But I am really just a fool who does not have the faculty to answer these questions. I can only ask. And ask. And ask again. And for what purpose, I'm not quite sure.
Suffice it to say, the twenty first century has most probably not started in the subjective and silly eyes of historians who have yet to be born.
Moving Beyond the Nineties
Bill Clinton may go down in history as one of the most skilled politicians in US history. In the face of a "historical" movement against progressive ideas he managed to charm his way through. Clinton and it seems those who most intimately surround the current Clinton Campaign have a strong wish to win. They understand winning and they seem ready to go to the ends of the Earth in order to win. This desire to win in politics often means a high capacity to compromise. And the question arises: if one's core principle is to win, then what other principles are they willing to compromise in the process of winning?
It seems to me that "winning" should not be a core principle in any thing. Winning is a tactic in manifesting one's core principles. But winning by itself is a rather shallow principle. It was one that Bill was able to go to in the midst of Newt Gingrich's historic revolution against the Great Society and the New Deal...and survive. But at what cost? He left his presidency with a Party that lost its sense of direction and inspiration and in the end, allowed the Gingrich revolution to become more manifest in the Bush presidency. In the wake of September 11, the Democratic Party did not have Bill Clinton's charm. And it no longer had an intimate understanding of its own principles. Instead, all it had left was a wish to win. A feeble wish to win in comparison to the well greased right wing machine that it was on its march to "greatness."
Now look: I will admit that I am oversimplifying and perhaps even unfairly making a villain out of Bill Clinton. But let's not look back to his days as president as a heyday for progressivism. Instead, they were simply a well choreographed/well improvised game of backing off for survival's sake and eventually losing so much ground that we were unaware of the oncoming cliff.
I don't think I'm saying much new here. But the legacy of the Nineties, the only time that the US has had a notable era of peace since the 1920's was lost to the premise of Jerry Seinfeld's wonderful tv show. It was an era about nothing. In reality though, it was like the 1920's, an era focused on nothing while everything was taking place.
There will always be Bill Clintons who can charm their way to the top and keep things nice "in the mean time." But in the end, their work proves no more useful than the nice little tune that had come out of Nero's fiddle. Entertaining perhaps, but at the cost of something dearly profound.
This is one of the reasons why I feel an aversion to Hillary being president (though I would of course be happy about it in comparison to McCain). And besides that, Obama has shown that he can inspire in a way that Bill Clinton can charm. And this will prove most useful in the years ahead.
But let's also not be naive. What Bill Clinton proved is that politics will always be a safe haven for the Bill Clintons and therefore, is not the prime arena for change to take place. Obama seems to understand this despite his own shortcomings. Change in the US does not take place without the work of people outside the Beltway. Fortunately, unlike the Clinton years and even unlike 2004, there is a burgeoning progressive infrastructure that is ready to support the kind of leader that Bill Clinton could have been had he been elected at a different time or perhaps had he himself been different in character.
In the end, however, it always useful to look upon politicians with some doubt and criticism for they do not deliver us from our shortcomings. On the contrary, the infrastructure that we build helps deliver them from the shortcomings that we all share.
It seems to me that "winning" should not be a core principle in any thing. Winning is a tactic in manifesting one's core principles. But winning by itself is a rather shallow principle. It was one that Bill was able to go to in the midst of Newt Gingrich's historic revolution against the Great Society and the New Deal...and survive. But at what cost? He left his presidency with a Party that lost its sense of direction and inspiration and in the end, allowed the Gingrich revolution to become more manifest in the Bush presidency. In the wake of September 11, the Democratic Party did not have Bill Clinton's charm. And it no longer had an intimate understanding of its own principles. Instead, all it had left was a wish to win. A feeble wish to win in comparison to the well greased right wing machine that it was on its march to "greatness."
Now look: I will admit that I am oversimplifying and perhaps even unfairly making a villain out of Bill Clinton. But let's not look back to his days as president as a heyday for progressivism. Instead, they were simply a well choreographed/well improvised game of backing off for survival's sake and eventually losing so much ground that we were unaware of the oncoming cliff.
I don't think I'm saying much new here. But the legacy of the Nineties, the only time that the US has had a notable era of peace since the 1920's was lost to the premise of Jerry Seinfeld's wonderful tv show. It was an era about nothing. In reality though, it was like the 1920's, an era focused on nothing while everything was taking place.
There will always be Bill Clintons who can charm their way to the top and keep things nice "in the mean time." But in the end, their work proves no more useful than the nice little tune that had come out of Nero's fiddle. Entertaining perhaps, but at the cost of something dearly profound.
This is one of the reasons why I feel an aversion to Hillary being president (though I would of course be happy about it in comparison to McCain). And besides that, Obama has shown that he can inspire in a way that Bill Clinton can charm. And this will prove most useful in the years ahead.
But let's also not be naive. What Bill Clinton proved is that politics will always be a safe haven for the Bill Clintons and therefore, is not the prime arena for change to take place. Obama seems to understand this despite his own shortcomings. Change in the US does not take place without the work of people outside the Beltway. Fortunately, unlike the Clinton years and even unlike 2004, there is a burgeoning progressive infrastructure that is ready to support the kind of leader that Bill Clinton could have been had he been elected at a different time or perhaps had he himself been different in character.
In the end, however, it always useful to look upon politicians with some doubt and criticism for they do not deliver us from our shortcomings. On the contrary, the infrastructure that we build helps deliver them from the shortcomings that we all share.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Beginning of the Beginning of the Beginning of the End of this Primary, Part Nineteen
Some big news in the ongoing Democratic primary this morning:
Exhibit A: Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey is supporting Obama. As of now, the biggest players in Pennsylvania politics seem to be with Clinton including Governor Ed Rendell and Rep John Murtha.
As of now, Obama is losing to Clinton in the keystone state by double digits. A simple endorsement will probably not allow Obama to win the state. Nonetheless, Casey who hails from Western PA, speaks to the Pennsylvania demographic that seems most resistant to the Illinois Senator: white, working class voters. This could help close the gap in a state that is critical for Clinton.
Exhibit B: Obama is apparently widening his lead in North Carolina.
Exhibit C: Perhaps this is saving the best for last. Senator Leahy is requesting that Clinton resign from the campaign, echoing Senator Dodd's recent statement that the primary is over and that Obama has won.
Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are all eager for this thing to end but aren't taking sides. With the party leadership wishing to get this thing done and over with coupled by the beginning of Senatorial Dominos starting to fall with the request that Clinton quit and endorse Obama, it may be time to say, "Mr. Carville, tear down that job!"*
*your job
Exhibit A: Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey is supporting Obama. As of now, the biggest players in Pennsylvania politics seem to be with Clinton including Governor Ed Rendell and Rep John Murtha.
As of now, Obama is losing to Clinton in the keystone state by double digits. A simple endorsement will probably not allow Obama to win the state. Nonetheless, Casey who hails from Western PA, speaks to the Pennsylvania demographic that seems most resistant to the Illinois Senator: white, working class voters. This could help close the gap in a state that is critical for Clinton.
Exhibit B: Obama is apparently widening his lead in North Carolina.
Exhibit C: Perhaps this is saving the best for last. Senator Leahy is requesting that Clinton resign from the campaign, echoing Senator Dodd's recent statement that the primary is over and that Obama has won.
Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are all eager for this thing to end but aren't taking sides. With the party leadership wishing to get this thing done and over with coupled by the beginning of Senatorial Dominos starting to fall with the request that Clinton quit and endorse Obama, it may be time to say, "Mr. Carville, tear down that job!"*
*your job
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Senator, Could You Please Be Less Specific?
If Harry Reid were any more vague on what "the plan" is, he'd be George Bush.
"Love Is A Full Length Mirror"- Stephen Colbert
Alright. This is going to speak for itself. But as someone who has done a bit of dabbling in sketch comedy not to mention been a member of many a sketch comedy audience, I give this the Watersmouth Sketch Comedy Seal of Approval. Watch as High Brow meets Low Brow meets pop culture, politics, and poetry and prepare to shed some laughter:
Exploiting Jewish Fears of Anti-Semitism is NOT Kosher
And that's exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. I hope there's a backlash against them for this. Every Jew in the United States and beyond has the right to be UP IN ARMS right now that theClinton campaign is exploiting our fears and our history. It's not only throwing mud at Obama, it's throwing mud at the Jewish people and this is just another step too far.
As an American Jew let me say to the Clinton campaign quite seriously, what a good friend of mine likes to say as a joke: "SHALOM! And I don't mean 'hello' or 'peace.'"
As an American Jew let me say to the Clinton campaign quite seriously, what a good friend of mine likes to say as a joke: "SHALOM! And I don't mean 'hello' or 'peace.'"
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Dear Sir or Madam, Sorry But We Need You To Return The Last Thing We Sent You. It Was The Atom Bomb. Much Obliged, The USA
One time I mistakenly sent a letter to the wrong friend. You can imagine my embarrassment!
"'Oh well," I thought, "it's not like I sent materials linked to the building of nuclear war heads to the wrong country."
I mean, the idea that me or even a Republican controlled Pentagon could send nuclear war heads to the wrong country....that's just not possible. Right? RIGHT?
UPDATE 1: Will this influence us to consider that Republicans are pathetically weak on security?
UPDATE 2: If by some miracle the answer to update one was "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: could this help foster a real dialogue on whether nuclear weapons by nature should exist?
UPDATE 3: If by some miracle the answer to updates 1 and 2 were "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: will my dad ever genuinely say he's sorry?
"'Oh well," I thought, "it's not like I sent materials linked to the building of nuclear war heads to the wrong country."
I mean, the idea that me or even a Republican controlled Pentagon could send nuclear war heads to the wrong country....that's just not possible. Right? RIGHT?
UPDATE 1: Will this influence us to consider that Republicans are pathetically weak on security?
UPDATE 2: If by some miracle the answer to update one was "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: could this help foster a real dialogue on whether nuclear weapons by nature should exist?
UPDATE 3: If by some miracle the answer to updates 1 and 2 were "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: will my dad ever genuinely say he's sorry?
What You Talkin' About Bubba?
I'm trying to remember why many of us have ever thought Bill Clinton was charming. Maybe there was a time that he was. But what is going on now? Is his blood sugar always low or something? I mean, this is not charming. It's downright obnoxious behavior to young people who are asking him perfectly legitimate questions.
Bill. Please. Shut up.
Bill. Please. Shut up.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Obama Doctrine
In 2004 the presidential election for me was less about being FOR John Kerry (who I happen to like quite a lot) and more about being AGAINST George Bush. 2008 is very different because I am FOR Barack Obama, who unlike Kerry and Hillary has a similar vibe to the HPA.
He has put together one of the most exciting foreign policy teams imaginable: a team that interested in actually targeting Al Qaeda, in targeting genocide, and targeting poverty and disease in third world countries. The cornerstone of his policy is not about spreading democracy, but about spreading DIGNITY. This is fundamentally different because it doesn’t impose any thing on any one other than their right to be human. What his team is referring to as the Obama doctrine seems to be exactly what we need at this exact moment in history.
Obama stands for the principles and leadership that we need in a post-9/11 society. He is the September 12 President.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
"Is Our Economy Learning?"
Nick Kristoff's excellent piece today, in which he explains that not only is the US occupation of Iraq costing us lives, it's dare we say it?!, costing us money. Though sarcasm aside, it's costing us money that is costing us lives. And that's effed up.
But what could we be doing besides keeping our troops in a war that has no direction or strategy and is fundamentally undermining our national security, economy, and the core principles of a healthy society and world?
Kristoff has some suggestions:
Imagine the possibilities. We could hire more police and border patrol agents, expand Head Start and rehabilitate America’s image in the world by underwriting a global drive to slash maternal mortality, eradicate malaria and deworm every child in Africa.
But if children are dewormed than the terrorists win!
But what could we be doing besides keeping our troops in a war that has no direction or strategy and is fundamentally undermining our national security, economy, and the core principles of a healthy society and world?
Kristoff has some suggestions:
Imagine the possibilities. We could hire more police and border patrol agents, expand Head Start and rehabilitate America’s image in the world by underwriting a global drive to slash maternal mortality, eradicate malaria and deworm every child in Africa.
But if children are dewormed than the terrorists win!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
I Fought Saddam, I Was a Terrorist
Get a whiff of this logic:
Ahmad, a Kurd, once served in the KDP's military force, which is part of the new Iraqi army. A U.S. ally, the KDP is now part of the elected government of the Kurdish region and holds seats in the Iraqi parliament. After consulting public Web sites, however, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services determined that KDP forces "conducted full-scale armed attacks and helped incite rebellions against Hussein's government, most notably during the Iran-Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Ahmad's association with a group that had attempted to overthrow a government -- even as allies in U.S.-led wars against Hussein -- rendered him "inadmissible," the agency concluded in a three-page letter dated Feb. 26.
Saman Ahmad, who helped keep US marines alive in Iraq, had his green card request denied, on the grounds that prior to 2003 he was fighting Saddam!
The only thing I can add to this, from my own experience in Ahmad's home town in 2006, is that the civilian agencies of the US government have been worse than useless in Iraq. Not only have they failed to involve themselves in reconstruction projects like Halabja, but they have actively discouraged such work from private groups (in the case of the State Department), and have obstructed visas and green cards (in the case of the State and Homeland Security Departments).
In other words, we might actually all be better off without them. That's your government at work.
Ahmad, a Kurd, once served in the KDP's military force, which is part of the new Iraqi army. A U.S. ally, the KDP is now part of the elected government of the Kurdish region and holds seats in the Iraqi parliament. After consulting public Web sites, however, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services determined that KDP forces "conducted full-scale armed attacks and helped incite rebellions against Hussein's government, most notably during the Iran-Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Ahmad's association with a group that had attempted to overthrow a government -- even as allies in U.S.-led wars against Hussein -- rendered him "inadmissible," the agency concluded in a three-page letter dated Feb. 26.
Saman Ahmad, who helped keep US marines alive in Iraq, had his green card request denied, on the grounds that prior to 2003 he was fighting Saddam!
The only thing I can add to this, from my own experience in Ahmad's home town in 2006, is that the civilian agencies of the US government have been worse than useless in Iraq. Not only have they failed to involve themselves in reconstruction projects like Halabja, but they have actively discouraged such work from private groups (in the case of the State Department), and have obstructed visas and green cards (in the case of the State and Homeland Security Departments).
In other words, we might actually all be better off without them. That's your government at work.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Before and After
I want to make a little ad for "SENTIENT LIFE" that shows a picture of BEFORE and it's an image from an ultra sound juxtaposed next to a picture that says AFTER and it's an image of a skeleton or a rotting corpse.
Or on a less morbid note, it would say BEFORE and it's an image of an ultra sound and AFTER and it's an image of a beautiful child smiling. Or maybe, dare I say it, an adult smiling.
I think both have important things to say.
Or on a less morbid note, it would say BEFORE and it's an image of an ultra sound and AFTER and it's an image of a beautiful child smiling. Or maybe, dare I say it, an adult smiling.
I think both have important things to say.
Fat Tuesday
Doesn't any one feel bad for Tuesday? I mean our culture has "Good Friday," "Manic Monday," "Palm Sunday," "Thirsty Thursday," and "Fat Tuesday." If these days were children, poor little Tuesday would be the outcast at a fat kid's camp.
Thank goodness for Mitch Albom not increasing Tuesday's complex by naming his book "Fat Tuesdays With Morrie." Though he could have named it "Phat Tuesdays With Morrie" because Mitch's time with Morrie could be described as PHAT (in other words, "fun," "enjoyable," and "profound).
But the point is, I love you Tuesday and I don't care how much you weigh. I love you for who you are.
Thank goodness for Mitch Albom not increasing Tuesday's complex by naming his book "Fat Tuesdays With Morrie." Though he could have named it "Phat Tuesdays With Morrie" because Mitch's time with Morrie could be described as PHAT (in other words, "fun," "enjoyable," and "profound).
But the point is, I love you Tuesday and I don't care how much you weigh. I love you for who you are.
Good Friday
Today is Good Friday, which I believe is a beautiful holiday if looked at in certain ways. But in other ways, why do they call it good? I mean, it's the crucifixion. But then again, this is also from the only religion in the world that generates thousands upon thousands of strange statues of mothers with serious expressions and a half naked man who came down to Earth to help people, only to be tortured on a cross. It's more guilt ridden than morbid. And that is why I believe that Christianity is more Jewish than Judaism.
In all seriousness though, Good Friday.
In all seriousness though, Good Friday.
Poopyhead Productions
I think that's a great name for a production company. And if any of you weren't cowards, you'd start that production company right now. But the fact is that every one of you, including me is a coward! And that's just all there is to it.
Florida and Michigan
I am so biased toward Obama's candidacy at this point that I have a hard time getting angry about the injustice done to voters in Florida and Michigan. After all, if Clinton had an issue with their votes not counting she should have taken an issue with it back when Howard Dean said that that's what was happening. But she was too busy playing "the inevitable candidate" to care about those states working something out (at least that's the impression I'm under). So now she cares because she's no longer the inevitable candidate.
But in truth, in all fairness, voters in Florida and Michigan SHOULD have a say. It's not fair. Suddenly they can't have a say because their state's party leaders and the national party leaders got into a clash that to them was nothing more than obscure? I mean, that's just a really bad symptom of representative democracy at work. And Obama did not try his best to get their votes to count and most likely, that's because he wants to win this primary. But that's not fair. Hillary may be right: if Obama were to be consistent with his message, he would be fighting for them to have a right to vote. Yet then again, he didn't cause a stink about it a while ago either.
So the whole thing stinks. It really stinks. And disempowering Florida Democrats doesn't sound like such a bright idea nor does it end up helping Dean's 50 state strategy. I don't really know what went wrong but all I got to say is that it's not fair.
But in truth, in all fairness, voters in Florida and Michigan SHOULD have a say. It's not fair. Suddenly they can't have a say because their state's party leaders and the national party leaders got into a clash that to them was nothing more than obscure? I mean, that's just a really bad symptom of representative democracy at work. And Obama did not try his best to get their votes to count and most likely, that's because he wants to win this primary. But that's not fair. Hillary may be right: if Obama were to be consistent with his message, he would be fighting for them to have a right to vote. Yet then again, he didn't cause a stink about it a while ago either.
So the whole thing stinks. It really stinks. And disempowering Florida Democrats doesn't sound like such a bright idea nor does it end up helping Dean's 50 state strategy. I don't really know what went wrong but all I got to say is that it's not fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)