arcana imperii :: the book of j

Op-Ed: Obama 'Devastating' For Civil Liberties

This is an incredible interview. Please have a listen or read the transcript at NPR. The link, further information and a brief excerpt follows.

Op-Ed: Obama 'Devastating' For Civil Liberties : NPR: «Jonathan Turley argues in a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that "the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties." He says President Obama has continued many of the most controversial Bush administration programs.»

«President Obama is a perfect nightmare when it comes to civil liberties. He not only adopted most of President Bush's policies in the civil liberties areas when it comes to terrorism, but he actually expanded on them. He outdid George Bush.

And they range. His position on torture and refusing to have people investigated or prosecuted for torture, on privacy lawsuits. He pushed aggressively for the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits brought by private interest organizations. He's for immunity for people who engaged in warrantless surveillance. He has fought standing for people even to be able to get courts to review his programs, much like George Bush. He kept military tribunals and the authority to make the discretionary choice of sending some people to a real court, some people to a military tribunal. He has asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens based solely on his own discretion, that he believes them to be a threat to the country.

His administration has, once again, as with the Bush administration, cited secret law, that - and including a case of assassinating citizens - a law that we're not allowed to see, but we have to trust them.»

'via Blog this'

Labels: Civil Liberties, Commentary, Obama's Presidency, Politics

Obama has decimated the progressive cause. Would he do it again?

An insightful (and brutal) analysis indeed.

"But, as liberal leaders already know, the young movement must be careful to avoid Obama’s embrace: He decimated the progressive cause once, and he would do it again if given the chance."

Labels: Commentary, Failure, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

The Seven Dwarfs Revamped

This cartoon seems to be passing the test of time. It is now 2011 and «The Seven Dwarfs Revamped for the 1990s...» still rings true! Of course we may now use more Zoloft and Effexor XR and Xanax than Prozac but the result is still the same, ha ha!

Labels: Cartoon, Commentary, History, Life, Snow White, The Seven Dwarfs

Germans are ruder

Are Germans ruder than the British and Americans? Are Britons and Americans more dishonest than Germans? Fortunately, we don't have to rely on blind prejudice for answers. BBC News reports that serious academic research has been performed.

There are Britons in Berlin who get taken aback by the directness of Germans. And there are Germans who get really annoyed when Britons and Americans, in an effort to be friendly, say things they might not really mean. Unsurprisingly, some Germans call this "lying".

So, what do the experts say on the matter?

Professor Juliane House, of the University of Hamburg, has studied groups of people interacting in controlled situations, watching with academic rigour how they behave as human guinea-pigs. She verified that Germans really don't do small talk, those little phrases so familiar to the British about the weather or a person's general well-being. To Germans this is "empty verbiage". In academic language, this is called "phatic" conversation - it's not meant to convey hard information but to perform a social function, such as making people feel good.

The German language doesn't even have an expression for "small talk". It is so alien that in the German translation of A Bear called Paddington - Paddington unser kleiner Baer - it was omitted. So this exchange of small talk occurs in the English original: "'Hallo Mrs Bird,' said Judy. 'It's nice to see you again. How's the rheumatism?' 'Worse than it's ever been' began Mrs. Bird." In the German edition, this passage is simply cut!

Might a German talk about the weather, then? "In a lift or a doctor's waiting room, talk about the weather in German? I don't think so," says Professor House.

So does that mean the British (and Americans) are more polite? Yes. It also means that they're different. So much so that Professor House, a German, describes this politeness as the "etiquette of simulation", asserting that the British feign an interest in someone. They pretend to want to meet again when they don't really. They simulate concern.Saying things like "It's nice to meet you" to her are statements rarely meant the way they are said. "It's just words. It's simulating interest in the other person." Can you believe it? so from a German perspective, this is uncomfortably close to deceit.Professor House adds that
"Some people say that the British and Americans lie when they say things like that.

We all know it's not a lie. It's lubricating social life. It's always nice to say things like that even if you don't mean them.

For Britons it's German directness that most often gives rise to bafflement or even fury. House, who married a Scouser - a native of Liverpool - gives an example from her own experience. She would tell her husband to bring something from another part of the house - without the British lardings of "would you mind...?" or "could you do me a favour...?" He would hear this as an abrupt - and rude - command. Wouldn't we all?

This gap between German directness and British indirectness is the source of much miscommunication, says Professor Derek Bousfield, the head of linguistics at the University of Central Lancashire, and one of the editors of the Journal of Politeness Research.

There are many documented cases where the British understate a very serious problem with phrases like "there seem to be one or two problems here" or "there seems to be a little bit of an issue with this", he says.

A British listener knows there is a gap between what is said and what is meant - and this can be a source of humour, as when the Grim Reaper's arrival at a dinner party in Monty Python's Meaning of Life "casts rather a gloom" over the evening.

Sometimes it's endearing, as when this announcement was made by British Airways pilot Eric Moody in 1982, after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash over Indonesia:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."

To the Germans this is all too confusing. When BMW bought the British car manufacturer, Rover, it took a while for the seriousness of some of the problems at Rover to sink in. All too often, British managers spoke in euphemisms that their German counterparts took at face value.

Both professors reject the idea that one nation's manners are better than the other's. I disagree. They say that each has its own rules of communication, or patterns of behaviour, and neither can be blamed when clashes occur. Absolute nonsense! I blame the Germans. I know, I lived and studied in Germany.

Lastly, What about those sun-loungers - the seats by the pool, which German holidaymakers always attempt to grab at the crack of dawn? Bousfield says that what we got here is a clash of prototypical German efficiency with the prototypical British sense of fair play". House reckons the British do get the sun-loungers in the end, by one means or another.

Labels: Commentary, Manners

Quotation of the Week

This is quotation quite appropriate when one thinks of the continued erosion of civil liberties in America, even under the Presidency of Barack Obama. Remember, for instance, that the so-called Patriot Act remains in the books rather unchanged and unread.

«Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.»
~Benjamin Franklin in the Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Labels: Commentary, International Affairs, Politics, quotations, War

A Sign at the Zoo

I just found a little note in an old travel journal about a sign at the San Diego Zoo. Upon entering, visitors are asked to please not «annoy, torment, pester, plague, molest, worry, badger, harry, harass, heckle, persecute, irk, bullyrag, vex, disquiet, grate, beset, bother, tease, nettle, tantalize, or ruffle the animals.»

I got the message. Indeed. But later I noticed that chimps, for instance, didn't have a similar warning against pulling the hair of tourists. Then again, I'd do worse things were I to be put on display in a cage...

Labels: Commentary, Signs, Travel

The 1895 US Eighth-grade Test

Noting the disastrous results of the test recently administered to American college and university students (see blog entry below), a high-school classmate sent me an article describing the test required to graduate the eighth grade in Salina, KS, back in 1895. The original document can be found at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salinas. The exam is divided into five sections. Five hours were allocated for the test. Do you think you could pass? Do you know anybody that could? Have a look!

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph.
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,' 'play,' and 'run'.
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6. What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 to 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs, what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs for tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7percent per annum.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft long at $20 per metre?
8. Find the bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

US History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which US History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour)

1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia , Odessa , Denver , Manitoba , Hecla , Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco .
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the US. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

Labels: Commentary, Education, History

Today's Japan earthquakes and tsunamis

Loss of life is almost always awful and tragic. Yet we must remain aware that our planet is here as a result of natural disasters and so is humanity. Natural disasters are part of life and it's our responsiblity as humans to listen to what science tells us and to prepare and protect ourselves the best way possible for no supreme being is ever going to come to our rescue. How much evidence do we need of this?!

It's also our responsibility to help one another after an event like today's and make certain that goverments remain also held responsible, requiring and enforcing appropriate building codes, establishing and protecting early warning systems, educating and preparing their citizens and managing emergencies as best possible.

To help:

The American Red Cross Disaster Relief.

The British Red Cross Disaster Fund.

New Zealan'd Red Cross 2011 Earthquake Appeal.

Labels: Commentary, Disaster, Help, Life, Science

Eminem, Misogyny and the Sounds of Silence

By Jackson Katz / The Huffington Post / 05 June 2009

Eminem is back and once again looming large over the pop cultural landscape. On the occasion of the release of his new album, Relapse, his full-length, full-color image appears literally larger than life on billboards in major cities from New York to Los Angeles, not to mention cities all over the world. Although the album itself has received mixed reviews, the elite arbiters of cultural taste and artistic merit have given the rapper’s return the red carpet treatment.

The New York Times ran a giant photo and story on the front of its Sunday Arts and Leisure section on May 24. Entertainment Weekly featured the 36-year-old on the cover of its summer music preview issue; Time magazine devoted two pages of its June 1 issue to a review of his album and discussion about the state of his life and career. Of course the online universe is also abuzz; at the time of this writing, a Google search with the words Eminem and relapse returned 2.7 million hits.

Despite a five-year hiatus, there is no doubt that Eminem remains a popular artist. Relapse debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, selling 608,000 units in its first week of release.

For those of us who had hoped that his cultural moment had passed, the return of Eminem forces us to confront the disturbing reality that our society remains in deep denial about misogyny and its myriad manifestations in the art and commerce of everyday life. Misogyny (the hatred of women) in rap preceded Eminem and has thrived in his absence. And in fairness, the fact that he is white makes it easier for this writer and other whites to criticize him than it is to call out Black artists whose work is similarly sexist and oppressive. These racial dynamics are important issues to examine in another time and place.

Nonetheless, the evidence of our culture’s unwillingness to address the reality and ubiquity of men’s violence against women is not merely contained in the lyrics on Eminem’s new album, which when they’re not exploring the depths to which the artist’s drug addiction had taken him, characteristically communicate a deep contempt for women and a violent rage at them. This unwillingness is most clearly seen in the music reviews and overall media coverage of the rapper’s comeback.

It is not what they say that is cause for concern, but what they studiously avoid. With a few notable exceptions, such as Alan Ranta on the web site Pop Matters calling Relapse “chauvinistic hate-speech,” the high priests of cultural criticism in the journalistic mainstream seem to have decided that Eminem’s virulent misogyny is no longer even worthy of a mention, much less an appropriate subject of extended commentary and critique. Is it truly possible that women’s lives have been so thoroughly devalued that a multi-platinum musical artist with nine Grammy awards to his name can sing multiple songs about raping and mutilating women and hip sophisticates can’t even bring themselves to utter the words “woman-hating?”

It is as if critics have decided that 1) there is (still) nothing wrong with one of the most celebrated musical artists in the world devoting multiple songs to verbal attacks on women and girls, as long as there’s a catchy beat and the content is rationalized as “dark comedy,” or 2) homicidal misogyny has become so commonplace in entertainment media that there is no further need to discuss it.

A survey of recent articles about Eminem in several major media outlets yields plenty of lines like “a stunning return to form from the man who is arguably rap’s most talented lyricist,” (Entertainment Weekly), but a near-absence of criticism directed at Eminem or Interscope/Universal Music Group for releasing an album with lyrics like the following from the song Stay Wide Awake:

«Fe Fi Fo Fum
I think I smell the scent of a placenta
I enter central park, it's dark, it's winter in December
I see my target with my car, and park and approach her tender
Young girl by the name of Brenda and I pretend to befriend her
Sit down beside her like a spider, hi there girl you mighta
Heard of me before, see whore you're the kinda girl that I'da
Assault and rape and figure why not try to make your pussy wider
Fuck you with an umbrella then open it up while that shits inside ya»

No thoughtful person would argue that music lyrics themselves cause men to be violent; that is the sort of simplistic argument which defenders of Eminem and other misogynous rappers and rockers raise and then ridicule whenever anyone mentions the possible “real world” effects of artistic portrayals. But just as it is reductive and problematic to draw a causal link between lyrics and actual behavior, it is similarly nonsensical to deny that the production and reception of art always has a social dimension. Popular art succeeds, at least commercially, precisely because it resonates with a certain audience – for whatever reason – in a given cultural and historical context.

In discussions of Eminem’s choice to feature on his comeback album a number of songs that explore the sadism of his misogynous serial killer alter ego, Slim Shady, is it not relevant to mention the ongoing pandemic of men’s violence against women, including the outrage of serial murder? Is it not relevant to ask why some men are so angry at women that they would derive a twisted sort of pleasure from singing along with a first-person narrator (Slim Shady) who delights in terrifying, degrading, raping and murdering them?

In addition to his predilection for writing “comic” lyrics in the voice of a serial murderer, Eminem continues to find lyrically inventive ways to joke about raping women by shoving objects into their bodies, like in the lyrics above, or in the song “3 a.m.,” where he casually raps about inserting “…a flashlight up Kim Kardashian’s ass.” This is in a country – ours – where one out of six women will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. And while the reality of rape is not funny anywhere, the global reach of the US entertainment industry means that boys and men can listen and laugh along to Eminem’s songs in countries where the rape and mutilation of women and girls are even more common and less socially stigmatized than they are here.

Consider the tragic case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the rape and murder of women are beyond pandemic and are closer in scope to genocide. For years Dr Denis Mukwege, a gynecologist, has operated daily on dozens of women and girls as young as two and three-years-old whose insides have been ripped apart by men who brutally gang rape them, shove sticks and bottles into their vaginas, and sadistically mutilate their sexual organs in unimaginable ways, causing the ones who survive a lifetime of excruciating pain, incontinence, disease and loneliness. In a New York Times article in 2007 Dr Mukwege said “We don’t know why these rapes are happening, but one thing is clear. They are done to destroy women.”

Is it going too far to suggest that when wealthy nations such as ours export music by the likes of Eminem to countries with that level of misogynous violence that we are practicing what might be considered a particularly insidious form of cultural imperialism?

Defenders of world-famous artists like Eminem would surely rush in to say: Eminem is not responsible for these unspeakable outrages! He is an artist! Of course. But is it unreasonable to suggest that when Eminem jokes about sticking umbrellas up women’s vaginas that one effect might be that it helps to desensitize his male (and even female) fans across the globe to the humanity and suffering of women? Desensitization is one of the key effects of exposure to violence, both in media and real life. An Alternet article entitled “Torture Chic: Why Is the Media Glorifying Inhumane, Sadistic Behavior?,” suggests that the increasing presence of torture in entertainment media, such as on the hit TV series 24, has helped to desensitize Americans to real torture done in our name, such as in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

The silence of mainstream music critics on such matters has been deafening. If an artist’s job is sometimes to be provocative and push boundaries, isn’t it a critic’s job at the very least to ask questions like: What does it say about our culture that Eminem’s lyrics resonate with millions of American men, and even many women? How can we discern the difference between artistic revelation and crass exploitation in Marshall Mathers’ art? Does his vaunted lyrical virtuosity provide us with any insight into the larger belief systems – along with individual motivations --- that lie behind men’s sexualized brutality toward women? Is he a brilliant artist exploring important artistic terrain, or is he merely going for cheap voyeuristic thrills at the expense of women, knowing full well that no one will hold him – or his record company -- accountable?

One piece of circumstantial evidence for the latter view is provided by Jon Pareles in The New York Times, who explains the process Eminem and his collaborators went through in deciding how to position his comeback:

Both Eminem and Dr Dre thought hard about how Eminem should re-emerge. And both concluded the world wanted more Slim Shady. “I talked to my son about it,” said Dr Dre, “and he was like: ‘The kids want to hear him act the fool. We want to hear him be crazy, we want to hear him be Slim Shady and nothing else.”

The tone of at least some of the coverage this time suggests there are a few authoritative voices in music criticism and commentary who have moved beyond the adulatory groupthink that characterized much writing about Eminem back in his heyday earlier this decade. In those headier days, when Eminem was both lionized and criticized for being the “Hip-Hop Elvis,” many in the cognoscenti actively sought to rationalize Eminem’s murderous lyrical misogyny and homophobia by claiming that the “Slim Shady” character Marshall Mathers hid behind was a creative fictional construct through which the artist sought to explore taboo topics with lyrical dexterity over an infectious beat produced by Dr Dre. If you didn’t get the joke or appreciate the humor, it was because you were too dense or politically correct to appreciate the brilliant artistry at play.

But at least some writers seem to have grown tired of parroting the debatable (and profitable) premise that Eminem is a major artist with important things to say. In one of the most dismissive pieces I reviewed, Josh Tyrangiel in Time magazine ridicules Eminem’s attempt to regain the title of America’s Most Outrageous:

Half of Relapse – the aggressively dull and stupid half – is devoted to re-establishing Eminem as a man so unhinged, he’s capable of anything or at least fantasizing about anything…. By the middle of the first song, ‘3 a.m.,’ Eminem, or one of his multiple alter egos, has masturbated to Hannah Montana and left a pile of bodies behind the counter of a McDonald’s….On ‘Medicine Ball’ he promises to rape the Pussycat Dolls and spits out a couplet of abuse for Madonna and Rihanna, while ‘Same Song and Dance’ has him raping Lindsay Lohan in one verse and Britney Spears in the next. Suffice it to say that many more rapes occur and I stopped taking notes.

The corporate media have played a crucial role in Eminem’s highly lucrative career in part by defining the parameters of how he can be criticized. As Jon Pareles writes in The New York Times, Eminem “quickly became an offensive scourge to those who took Shady’s fantasies literally, or worried that others might.” Note the narrow range of possibilities the writer offers to describe those who might be “offended” by Eminem’s art. Conveniently left out are Eminem’s detractors who possess a more complex understanding of the effects of violent, misogynous lyrics than whether or not people (men) take them literally.

Another distortion about Eminem and his detractors that many music critics have turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy is the idea that resistance is futile, because Marshall Mathers is just too clever. Pareles writes that when combined with Eminem’s murderous lyrics, the “bouncy beat and singsong choruses of kiddie music” that characterize Dr. Dre’s production constituted a “smiley-faced nastiness (that) was enough to make Eminem a target for the censorious, which in turn gave him a new bunch of antagonists to provoke.

So people who are concerned about the ongoing pandemic of men’s violence against women -- including thousands of domestic violence and sexual assault advocates and educators – are “censorious” if they have a problem with lyrics that normalize and find humor in (fictional) rapists’ misogynist fantasies of brutality and degradation? Pareles quotes Eminem’s response to (unspecified) criticisms of his work with yet another non sequitir: “I didn’t get in this game to be a role model.” As if criticism of his artistic contributions necessarily implies such an unsophisticated understanding of the social functions of art.

Many of the same people who defend Eminem and dismiss his feminist and gay rights critics are white people – including good liberals and progressives -- who long ago accepted the idea that racist depictions in media play an important ideological role in perpetuating racism, not because whites will go out and imitate the behavior of fictional racist characters, but because the institutional structures of racism require ideological and cultural apparati to sustain them.

It takes no great leap of logic to see that sexism works in the same way. One need not argue that boys and men who listen to Eminem will become rapist-murderers in order to maintain that misogynous music and lyrics play an important role in legitimating men’s mistreatment of women by making it culturally acceptable and even “cool” for men to express sexist rage against women and then hide behind the pretense that “it’s only a joke” if anyone takes it too seriously. That argument has long been discredited when it comes to racism. What’s the difference when the oppression in question is sexism, or heterosexism?

For women and men who work in the trenches of the sexual and domestic violence fields, and see daily the brutal results of male socialization played out on the bodies of girls and women (and other men), bearing witness to the continued success of Eminem, Inc. can be an emotionally excruciating experience. I know plenty of people who would prefer to crawl under the covers and pretend that none of this is really happening.

But those of us who take seriously the feminist idea that rapists teach us something about the society that produced them have no choice but to pay attention to Eminem -- both the content and context of his art, and how critics and others describe and make sense of it. With rare exceptions, men who rape are not anomalous monsters. They are products of their socialization and the deeply misogynist norms that prevail in their societies. In the long term, the only way to reduce dramatically the incidence of men’s violence against women is to change the social norms that help to produce abusive men – which includes critically examining what sort of art we choose to celebrate, and why.

In domestic violence advocacy, there is a term used to describe a situation where people contribute to an abusive man’s behavior by their conscious actions, by their minimization of his crimes, or by their silence. It is called “colluding with the batterer.” It is hard to avoid the conclusion that a society where radio stations continue to play Eminem’s records, people continue to buy them, and critics continue to write about them while leaving out any condemnation of their vicious sexism, is a society that is in profound collusion with the batterer.

Jackson Katz
Director, MVP Strategies
3860 Brayton Ave.
Long Beach, CA 90807
Ph: 562.997.3953
Fax: 562.997.3952
www.jacksonkatz.com

Jackson Katz's book The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help, is available at major bookstores and at Amazon.com.

Labels: Art, Commentary, Culture, Delusion, Ignorance, Music, Politics, Psychiatry, Sexuality

Michael Phelps shown smoking pot

so what?

Labels: Commentary, Culture, Sports

notice

if you're reading these long-neglected pages for the first time just be aware that this is mostly me, contra mundum. or shall be again. perchance.

Labels: Commentary

more ignorant theist nonsense

i just learned that an idiotic and ridiculous catholic priest in, surprise, surprise, South Carolina has decided that parishioners who voted for Barack Obama are not entitled to the «grace of jesus christ» through communion until they've done penance.

this is already enough for the man's church to loose its tax-exempt status and for free-thinkers to rise in revolt and offence at this example of the stupidity of faith, religion and the religious.

Labels: Commentary, Politics

«the manual for despots»

PETINA GAPPA: COMMENT - 28 July 2008

Robert Gabriel Mugabe and Morgan Richard Tsvangirai held hands. Mugabe tried to lift Tsvangirai's hand above the shoulder, to join it in his in a triumphant double fist, a gesture reminiscent of the moment he held up Joshua Nkomo's hand and with that gesture killed opposition politics in Zimbabwe for a long 12 years.

Tsvangirai may also have had Joshua Nkomo in mind, at that moment, because he seemed to resist this, his hand remained just below shoulder level, and Mugabe had to be content with a sideways shake and a toothy grin. Mugabe grinned. Tsvangirai grinned. Arthur Guseni Oliver Mutambara grinned. Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki grinned. They all grinned and were happy together.

It is surreal, this orgy of grinning, this sudden, blinding flashing of teeth: barely a month ago the pictures of torture camps filled television and computer screens, photographs of burnt bodies illustrated the stories of horror from Zimbabwe. Seared on the minds of millions were the story of the death of Abigail Chiroto, killed in an arson attack, and the haunting image of Joshua Bakacheza, diminished and fragile in his death, just two of the victims that made the front-page news of just about any newspaper that gave prominence to Zimbabwe. Tsvangirai was warning the world about genocide in Zimbabwe. Barely a month later he is sitting down to talk with the genocidaire-in-chief.

Such is the fluid world of high politics.

Like Kenya before it, Zimbabwe is to be another example of a new model of African elections. Losing an election, it seems, does not actually mean you have to give up the seat of office. The example of Zimbabwe should be particularly encouraging to Eduardo Dos Santos in Angola and Paul Biya in Cameroon, two incumbent leaders whose countries are next on the elections radar.

This is the lesson of Zimbabwe: if you are the incumbent and it looks like you are on your way out, for God's sake do not panic, just hang in there; beat the living daylights out of some of your people, just because you can, and the poorer they are the better; imprison those who would dare to oppose you, torture them, and if they are women, throw in a little spot of rape; kill them in horrible ways and burn their bodies and dump them in shallow graves, or no graves, as you please; in a word, intimidate your way back to power and, bingo, the African Union will very nicely ask you to accommodate your opponents in a government of national unity.

"The people of Zimbabwe have suffered long enough," is the mantra that is being used to push forward these talks. And indeed, the suffering is beyond levels that anyone with compassion can accept. Everyone knows the figures; the hyperinflation, the unemployment rate and now, yet again, the spectre of creeping starvation -- the United Nations reports that up to five million people face starvation. But how far should this mantra be carried? Have the people suffered so much that non-bread and butter issues to do with the dismantling of oppressive institutions, accountability, justice and reparations must be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency?

There is no doubt that, even if the MDC pushed for these issues to be at the forefront of the negotiations, Zanu-PF would not welcome any demands for justice, for truth and reconciliation, even at the very basic level of a public airing of the atrocities. An insistence on this point may well mean the end of any talks, any negotiation, any accommodation. And is it to be expected that Zanu-PF will approve the demilitarisation of state institutions and thus dismantle the very system that has ensured its survival?

The result of this negotiation, when it comes, may well be a political compromise of the kind that Zimbabwe saw in the 1980s when Joshua Nkomo's Zapu merged with Mugabe's Zanu-PF after a violent campaign of intimidation. That process of negotiation left unaddressed the violent suppression of Nkomo's supporters. The politicians got their Mercs and perks. And to this day the people of Matebeleland have reason to remain bitter that nothing was ever done to address their pain.

It is in this regard that the most disturbing element of these talks is that, as with the Zanu-Zapu talks, and the Lancaster House talks before them, they are yet again the exclusive preserve of politicians. If there is something Zimbabweans should have learned by now, it is that the fate of the country should not be entrusted to politicians. This is a political crisis, the thinking goes, and a crisis for politicians to address. When the MDC wanted the mediation expanded, it talked only of adding another mediator to watch over Mbeki, who has given the world reason to believe that he is Mugabe's most able and hard-working ambassador. The real expansion in the mediation should have been the inclusion of civil society, because the people who truly need watching over are not the mediators but the politicians.

The exclusion of civil society means that matters of justice, however broadly defined, may never be addressed. Nor will the many economic crimes of this brutish regime. And there is another dimension: not only redressing the evils of the past, but also laying a foundation for the future: one of the items on the agenda of the talks is a new Constitution. Certainly, this mediation presents an opportunity to jettison the Lancaster House agreement that was progressively amended to concentrate power in the hands of the executive, thus giving Zimbabwe the horrors of 28 years of Mugabe. The negotiators should agree to a new Constitution but not, as they have attempted to do in the past, come up with a draft themselves. To leave the process of Constitution-making to two political parties would be quite wrong.

The absence of civil society from the talks inevitably means that Zimbabweans, like Kenyans, will be held hostage to a political compromise. And because the people have suffered enough, they will have no choice but to accept what the politicians decide and try to rebuild their lives anew on a foundation of compromise and cheated dreams. If the MDC sings the praises of this new deal in dulcet enough tones and Zanu-PF accompanies with soothing sounds about healings and new visions and unity of purpose, the money for a rescue package will start to flow. Inflation will go down.

The politicians will serve their terms and campaign for new terms. They will make grand speeches at the opening of Parliament and schools. They will pose for photographs with visiting dignitaries. Zimbabweans will joke and laugh about the time inflation was 2 000 000% and they paid their bills in billions and trillions and the budget was set in quadrillions.

Joshua Bakacheza and Abigail Chiroto will fade out of memory; they will certainly not appear in any history books -- neither they nor the many victims whose beaten buttocks and burnt bodies served to stoke the flames and keep the story of Zimbabwe in the limelight. Having served their purpose, they will leave the limelight, appearing only in the memories of the people who loved them and in the occasional search on the internet, where nothing is deleted. And Zimbabwe will go on to a future rooted in grief and pain, where the accumulated resentments of the past will be daily reminders of the dangers of political compromise.

Petina Gappah is a Zimbabwean writer and lawyer who lives in Geneva. She recently won the Mukuru Nyaya prize for comic writing

Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-07-26-the-manual-for-despots

Labels: Commentary, News, Politics

Democratic response

The following is a transcript of the Democratic response by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to President Bush's radio address:

HARRY REID:

Good morning. I'm Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Majority leader of the United States Senate. Last November, Americans elected a new Democratic Congress to end business as usual in Washington and change America. This week marked the end of our first year in the majority, and in that time, Democrats have put working families first, given our troops the care and support they deserve, and made our country safer.

For working families: We cut middle class taxes; raised the minimum wage for the first time in ten years; helped families avoid foreclosure on their homes; made college more affordable for millions of students; and passed historic new energy legislation to lower gas prices, raise fuel economy standards on cars and trucks for the first time in 32 years, and begin to stem the tide of global warming.

To make America safer: We passed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission — to secure high-risk cities like Las Vegas — and provide first responders additional resources; and we improved security at our borders and ports so that we know who and what is coming into our country from overseas.

For our men and women in uniform: We passed an across-the-board pay raise; provided better protective combat gear; and funded the largest increase in veterans' health care in 70 years.

We have made progress in all of these areas this year — but that doesn't mean I am satisfied. Like you, I am frustrated by the direction of our country. We helped middle-class families make ends meet — but a possible recession still looms and millions may still lose their homes to foreclosure — including tens of thousands of Nevadans. We gave back to our men and women in uniform who are sacrificing so much — but because of President Bush, they remain in Iraq without a clear mission or endgame, and our Armed Forces are stretched to a breaking point. And we took steps to secure our country from terrorism, but Bin Laden remains free, Al Qaeda is growing stronger, and the President's focus on Iraq has allowed conditions in Afghanistan to deteriorate.

We need to do more to solve all these problems, but time after time, when Democrats have fought for change, President Bush and Republicans in Congress have stood in the way. We tried to give health care to 10 million poor children, but Republicans sided with tobacco companies. We tried to promote cleaner energy sources — by turning to the sun, the wind, and geothermal — but Republicans sided with the big oil companies. We chose to invest in priorities here at home, but Republicans chose to send billions more of your taxpayer dollars to Iraq.

This year has shown that Washington is divided between Democrats who want change and Republicans who are satisfied with the status quo. Republicans broke the all-time, two-year obstruction record in just one year with 62 filibusters.

Much of what we read in the papers or see on the news focuses on who's winning — Democrats or Bush Republicans. But this isn't a game to be measured by which party wins and loses. Democrats believe winning means solving our nation's problems. When we work together, we can. But Democrats can't do it alone. In January, we will return to Congress with much more to do for you and all Americans.

I hope the new year will find Republicans willing to join us to get that work done. I am glad to be back home in Searchlight, Nevada this weekend to spend the holiday season with my family and friends. On behalf of the United States Senate, which I have the honor of leading, I wish you and your family a season of health, happiness and joy.

Our thoughts and prayers are with our courageous men and women serving in the military, and with those families who have an empty place at the table this year, awaiting their safe return from war. This is Senator Harry Reid. Thank you for listening.

Labels: Commentary, Politics

enough!

Labels: Commentary, Politics, Religion

ignant Sherri Sheppard's ignorance hit new depths

Since starting her co-hosting role on The View, Sherri Shepherd has had her share of «Huh?» moments. Most famously, the actress said she wasn't quite convinced that the earth was round.

A new quote burning up the viral world may become even more infamous, as Shepherd on Monday's «View» got into a discussion about religion timelines with her fellow hosts. The ensuing discussion went in a head-scratching direction.

While talking about religion, Whoopi Goldberg suggests that ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus didn't have Jesus Christ or christianity.

«They still had Christians back then», Shepherd retorts, claiming that the religion existed 300 years before Jesus Christ was born. «They had Christians and they threw them to the lions», she continues.

«I think this might predate that», Goldberg added.

«I don't think anything predated Christians», Shepherd replied. [Excuse me, but how ignorant must one be to make such a statement. This baffles, enrages and troubles me greatly].

In September, during a similar discussion about religious and scientific beliefs, Goldberg asked Shepherd if she thought that the world was flat.

«I don't know», Shepherd answered, adding that if her son asked her whether the world was flat or round, she'd «go look it up».

source: aol.

So again, we see an ignorant theist and celebrity, earning thousands if not millions of dollars, lacking even basic education in history and science, co-hosting a show that influences the thoughts of millions of females and certainly a male or two almost daily. It also legitimises bad manners as all hosts speak at the same time and stifle proper communication and discussion. I find it stunning that the live audience did not boo Ms Shepherd off the stage. I would sack her and force her to attend junior and high school as well as university (again?) before ever allowing her to utter another word in public. She should also loose custody of her children to prevent them from growing up in the sea of ignorance that must be their theist home.

Labels: Commentary, History, Ignorance, Politics, Religion, Science, Television, The View

Princess Diana's Death

«I think opportunities were lost» said Dr Thomas Treasure, British surgeon involved with the inquest into Princess Diana's death saying she might have been saved if French medics had brought her to hospital sooner.

It's much simpler, say I. Princess Diana would have most certainly survived the crash, albeit with some injuries such as broken ribs, for instance, had she been wearing her seatbelt.

Labels: Commentary, Royalty

the Top 25

Spinner.com has named its list of the Top 25 opening pop song lyrics of all time. They're nearly all so bad, i'm only listing the Top 10 and saying: ugh.

«Superfreak» by Rick James
She's a very kinky girl. The kind you don't take home to momma...

«Jumpin' Jack Flash» by The Rolling Stones
I was born in a cross-fire hurricane.

«Blitzkrieg Bop» by The Ramones
Hey, ho, let's go!

«I Saw Her Standing There» by The Beatles
Well, she was just seventeen, if you know what I mean...

«Mama Said Knock You Out!» by LL Cool J
Don't call it a comeback...

«Close to You» by The Carpenters
Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?

«Loser» by Beck
In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey...

«Blue Suede Shoes» by Carl Perkins
Well, it's one for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, now go, cat, go!

«Gloria» by Patti Smith
Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine...

«Livin' on a Prayer» by Bon Jovi
Tommy used to work on the docks...

Labels: Commentary, lyrics

a message from «arcturus»

«American religio-insanity is as vacuous as it is silly. It's the difference between a dark and spooky and drafty Medieval cathedral with old women sitting there saying Rosaries (e.g. in Poland) and a shitty, two-bit tract development off the interstate next to the Wal-Mart, the McDonald's, and the used car lot with a gaggle of 300-pound clueless know-nothings who can't find their own country (America) on a world map and think that Clint Black's "Iraq and Roll" is poetry and sound foreign policy.»
~arcturus

Labels: Commentary, Politics, quotations, Religion

the fourth of july

i've previously written (also here) to indeed celebrate this day in history, but this year, with politics as they are here in the US (you've heard, the libby commutation and talk of pardon, the continued and flawed involvement in iraq's RELIGIOUS wars and the like), i'd rather sing to the United Kingdom, as they've just been under terrorist attack and remember a time when we were not quite free yet and Founding Brothers and Sisters invented a nation based on principles now often dismissed by government and citizenry alike.

Rule, Britannia!

When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sung this strain:
«Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
«Britons never will be slaves.»

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
«Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
«Britons never will be slaves.»

Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful, from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
«Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
«Britons never will be slaves.»

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
«Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
«Britons never will be slaves.»

To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine:
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
«Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
«Britons never will be slaves.»

The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crown'd,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
«Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
«Britons never will be slaves.»

note: please observe that «Rule, Britannia! rule the waves» is a COMMAND and so the verb is in the imperative and to sing, «Britannia, rules the waves» is a mistake. and one sings «never, never, never shall be slaves».

this version is taken from The Works of James Thomson by James Thomson, published 1763, Volume II, page 191.

Labels: Commentary, History, Politics