Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Rue de Ghouliani: A Street To Be Avoided At All Cost
Headline:
NPR JOINS PAT ROBERTSON AND THROWS IN ITS LOT WITH GIULIANI
At least that's what it sounded like on that there 'All Things Considered' today. There was the usual chucklesome review of those darn Democrats, and then a CrunchTime (TM) segment on Ghouliani. It was nothing short of reverent. Their soundbyte that demonstrated the epic heroism of the Mayor had something to do with 'people south of Canal St. should walk out to the south' - or something. Moses he ain't. Oh, sure, there was a sentence or two of lite criticism in the piece, but the upshot was that most criticism 'wasn't sticking'.
To me, Rudy is a mere retread. He's today's version of Bush2: a figure with minimal background but all the right connections.
This is not are era of great leaders. Great minds exist, but they are not in power. When I saw TV coverage of Bush and Rudy on the scene during the 9/11 saga, I was waiting for some sort of extraordinariness to emanate from them, whether it was manufactured or not. Even their handlers and scriptwriters couldn't come up with remarkable material. So these two figures came off, at least to me, as rather ordinary inspectors who were just doing their obligatory jobs. No poetry was necessary, but what we got was about as inspiring as a leftover eggroll. It was left to the media to build up the 'bullhorn' and 'podium' moments. On repeated viewings, Bush looks like he's merely inspecting a construction site, but no one would dare make fun of his 'nukular-isms' now. And Rudy, in his golden moments of screen time, sounds like he's dealing with a transportation strike or something. No one would dare make fun of his lisp now. In the meantime, the people down in the trenches were doing all the work while these pinwheels took all the credit. I just don't know why people were so impressed with Rudy's performance, even now. Letterman's emotionalism was to be expected, but it looks pretty feeble today.
I have to admit, contemporary real-life heroism has been spoiled by the movies. The power of the cinema has more 'stuff' than real life persons, but leaders are at least supposed to fake something impressive. Bush could have learned a lot about crowd control if he'd caught the last hour of DeMille's 'The Ten Commandments' in the chopper on the way to Ground Zero. He could have taken his pointers from Chuck Heston instead of God. A portable DVD player was all he needed. And Rudy, why hadn't it been required viewing for every big city mayor to watch Irwin Allen's 'The Towering Inferno' at least once? Steve McQueen was the guy to pay attention to. If you had, Rudy, not so many firemen would have needlessly perished, you contemptible fool. And now, you're supposed to be the one to lead this immense nation to a state of 'safety'?
As Lord Byron said, 'I want a hero: an uncommon want, when every year and month sends forth a new one . ..' Well, in media-managed America, and in such an emergency as 9/11, heroes had to be created, and fast. Who better than Hizzoner, who, despite his flaws and botches, his balding skullface, his history of transvestism, and yes, his lisp, was nevertheless readily available for hero-dom. Keeping cool is part of an actor's skill, and apparently, Rudy wowed 'em on his stage. He failed to wow this child though, and I don't trust him further than I could spit in a hurricane. It is a sad fact that most of the heroes of 9/11 . . . are dead.
Plus, I still think 9/11 was preventable, but we'd better not get into that here. Freedom of speech still ostensibly provides for us to theorize, but not necessarily as part of a conspiracy. 'Conspiracy theories' isn't the only term for variant possibilities in town.
As far as Rudy's world view is concerned, he fits in nicely with wacko/toxic opinionist Tom Friedman's feeling that, in order to fight terrorism, you have to have leaders who are crazier than the terrorists. It's a hollow comfort zone, a veritable hallucination for a public that wants to be swayed. To keep us safe. Hell, I feel more vulnerable walking to work, dodging SUV-driving, backwards baseballcap-wearing, cellphone-dialing goofballs than the prospect of the looming Islam-o-fascists, who are waiting to pounce. But - how petty of me.
As the 'thinking' - (ha-hah; ha-ha-ha-hah!) part of the mainstream media, NPR is happy to go along with all of this. They have prospered under Bush, and it is certain that Rudy's machine would keep them a going concern. With a more 'liberal' administration overseeing public broadcasting, things might revert to the bad old days of low ratings and indeterminate audiences out there in the wilderness somewhere.
Monday, November 19, 2007
PakPanic - PakPanic - PakPanic, or, A Yak About Pak
Recently I heard Andy Rooney on '60 Minutes' make a funny and accurate statement about Pakistan stories dominating the western media these days. He doubted that any of them even really knew anything about Pakistan. Not only do I think it's a true statement, but it is a woeful indicator of what happens when the media spotlight is turned on a 'hot zone' and every newsie in Christendom descends, looking for glory.
In the old days, an editor would say, 'get out there, kid, on the double, and bring back a story!' The kid would bust ass to get there, but if they were worth anything, the route to the story would be taken up with cramming any info that was available in order to achieve some kind of background status in order to deliver a credible story. Today it seems that reporters just show up and expect the story to present itself for convenient packaging.
Such is the status of Pakistan in the western media's impatient eye. I've hardly heard any reports from or about Pakistan that really deliver much depth of understanding or even displaying much interest. (Philip Reeves, who supplies stories for NPR, is a rare exception.) The wretched branding of Pakistan being the 'world's most dangerous place' is now the rallying cry. East Timor or Rwanda in all their awful turmoil presented no perceived threat to the world at large, regardless of the fact that they were, for their inhabitants, right up there with hell as being on the most dangerous list. But you see, they aren't nuclear nations, so who cares?
Pakistan: nuke nation. Run by a dictator. Overrun with jabbering fanatics. Dealing nukes on the sly. Surrounded by either hot conflict (permanently-ruined Afghanistan) or simmering potential conflict (kooky Iran, lurking India, further-but-still-lurking China). A returning challenger immediately deported (Nawaz Sharif). A returning challenger almost bumped off (Benazir Bhutto). Trouble. Trouble. Trouble. Trouble. Everywhere you look. Trouble in River City. That's what the western media thinks about Pakistan.
Well, I guess some of that stuff can't be denied. Far be it from me to be an apologist for Pakistan's current situations. I am, however, irked, annoyed, and consummately pissed off by much of the western media's choices in covering this misunderstood entity in the world. 'Misunderstood' is too easy a label to slap on it, but in an era of sloppy-seconds coverage of the world's affairs, a sloppy term might be appropriate.
Without turning this into a bloody thesis, let's get right to the essentials:
- Pakistan is not the Middle East. It is not Central Asia. It is Indic. For only 60 of its multiple thousands of years amassed as a cultural hearth, the territory now delineated as Pakistan has been Pakistan. Before that it was as diverse a part of India (and I'm not at all referring to greater India, but India as a cultural unit) as anywhere in the subcontinent, with the subcontinent's myriad of variations appearing under the Indic super-category, as it were. In addition to these regional basics, the long era of British domination (which for Pakistan really only extends back to the mid-19th century) brought with it English language medium in education, British-created modern infrastructure, and, very importantly, a British-model military. Since the military crisis of 1857, the Indian Army was intentionally crafted to be one of the most disciplined in the world, and this tradition survived Partition in 1947 intact. It is precisely this tradition of discipline that has enabled it - the military - to run Pakistan for many of its 60 years.
- Pakistan is 99% Muslim. The enveloping culture though, is Indic, not Arabic, nor Persian. Taxila and Harappa are sites that are among the world's most ancient civilizations. There are extensive and highly-honored ancient Buddhist remains throughout the land. Alexandrine associations abound. Hindu and Sikh influences are built into daily life. Urdu is the language of the majority, but it is basically Hindi with Persian script. Other languages (to mention only a few) are Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pushtun, Kashmiri and Afghani. Like India, diversity is what Pakistan is all about. But the Indic culture, combined with British and post-British modern systems, with widespread English-speakers, all combine to form a considerably durable entity. Despite its current duress, Pakistan is in no way a failed state.
- Women in Pakistan encounter adversities which are worthy of criticism and ripe for reform. Yet, Pakistan is one of the more liberal Muslim societies regarding women. Indic culture has had strong matriarchal traditions since time immemorial. Pakistan has elected a woman as prime minister twice. So has India. So has Bangladesh. So has Sri Lanka. This is the Indian subcontinent. It is different.
- Most of the conventions that westerners apply to terms like 'dictator' do not necessarily apply to Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf is no Saddam, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Bob Mugabe or even Marcos. When Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India in 1975, she was immediately branded as a dictator. But after the crisis passed, she was still Mrs Gandhi first, and the dictator label faded, but not completely. Musharraf has without a doubt performed dictatorial gestures, but with variations that are simply not compatible with western journalistic interpretations. On the other hand, just because Musharraf appeared on 'The Daily Show' and seems not to be a snarly bastard doesn't mean he's a dictator that we can feel wholly comfortable with. Dubya's cuddled up to him because of his dumbass but precious War on Amorphous Terror, but for wholly opportunistic reasons.
- Much of Pakistan's very being has to do with the most important factor in its daily existence. More important that Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iran, the USA and terror put together. That factor is: India. Three wars, losing East Pakistan and seeing it become Bangladesh, and yes, because of the nuclear issue, India has everything to do with how governing Pakistan is handled. And it's not all bad. India and Pakistan are part of the same super-family. A high percentage of people in both countries have or have had relatives in the other. The Indian subcontinent was a house divided, but the house has essentially stood, with annexes, so to speak. Back in the days when the US didn't give a shit about the subcontinent except how it affected the Cold War, letting things drift didn't matter so much. Now that India is more 'OK' with the US, and Pakistan is more important to the Bush Machine's immediate needs, the western media has landed. And they are generally dumbos who treat the place as if it's Iraq or something.
- Pakistan's army, efficient instrument that it is, is oriented to India, whether in the defensive or offensive mode (it has usually been offensive). Kashmir is officially unsettled, but it is a stalemate that has gone on so long it will probably add up to a settlement to new generations who have known nothing else. The Pak army is not geared to fighting a bogus 'war on terror.' The Tribal Areas on the Northwest Frontier were never conquered by anybody. The British were still dusting up with them right up to 1947. The Pakistani government has had agreements with them that have been relatively functional, until recently.
These factoids, among many others, are extremely important, because they add up to a considerably complex and sophisticated array of challenges that must be dealt with carefully at any one moment, and most of them cannot be reduced any further into sound bytes. Indeed, there is so much to keep in mind in this part of the world that the average journalist is not up to the task. Yet the dabblers are at it, packaging the Pak puzzle for public consumption, and perpetuating misunderstandings right and left with the greatest of ease. Lost in the frenzy are, surprise, surprise, the Pakistani people, who have been reduced in western sensibilities to non-entities, largely in stock shots of autistic-appearing kids in madrassas and other generic cliches. 160 million can be reduced to a convenient barcode, so to speak, I suppose. It's nothing short of disgusting.
When I heard NPR's Jackie Northam, a proudly seasoned reporter supposedly used to Asiatic climes, refer to a particular area in northwestern Pakistan as 'something called the Swat Valley', then blithely called it a 'tourist zone', I thought, stupid, stupid people. They make my eyeteeth curl. A minor detail, perhaps, but it speaks volumes of the dismissive tone of some of these worthless hacks. Philip Reeves never would have engaged in such a blatant lack of meticulousness, in a region where meticulousness is absolutely required. This 'thing' called the Swat Valley is, or was, a profoundly beautiful region with a hospitable populace, whose splendid isolation has been ruined by Bush's mobile 'war on terror'. Oh, and a busy Jackie also says 'the Islamists' are coming, and that they're heading to all the cities in Pakistan. Never mind the 160 million other Pakistanis, engaged in their daily lives, hardly affected at all by Musharraf's state of emergency, who might have something to say about that.
My point being: more depth of understanding is required from the western media if they are going to take on the subcontinent. It seems that in the western media's view, the essentials that I have only started to outline above, are not really attended to, or even acknowledged. If the media are not up for the job, they had best stay home and cover the region via Google Earth and just make cell phone calls.
In the old days, an editor would say, 'get out there, kid, on the double, and bring back a story!' The kid would bust ass to get there, but if they were worth anything, the route to the story would be taken up with cramming any info that was available in order to achieve some kind of background status in order to deliver a credible story. Today it seems that reporters just show up and expect the story to present itself for convenient packaging.
Such is the status of Pakistan in the western media's impatient eye. I've hardly heard any reports from or about Pakistan that really deliver much depth of understanding or even displaying much interest. (Philip Reeves, who supplies stories for NPR, is a rare exception.) The wretched branding of Pakistan being the 'world's most dangerous place' is now the rallying cry. East Timor or Rwanda in all their awful turmoil presented no perceived threat to the world at large, regardless of the fact that they were, for their inhabitants, right up there with hell as being on the most dangerous list. But you see, they aren't nuclear nations, so who cares?
Pakistan: nuke nation. Run by a dictator. Overrun with jabbering fanatics. Dealing nukes on the sly. Surrounded by either hot conflict (permanently-ruined Afghanistan) or simmering potential conflict (kooky Iran, lurking India, further-but-still-lurking China). A returning challenger immediately deported (Nawaz Sharif). A returning challenger almost bumped off (Benazir Bhutto). Trouble. Trouble. Trouble. Trouble. Everywhere you look. Trouble in River City. That's what the western media thinks about Pakistan.
Well, I guess some of that stuff can't be denied. Far be it from me to be an apologist for Pakistan's current situations. I am, however, irked, annoyed, and consummately pissed off by much of the western media's choices in covering this misunderstood entity in the world. 'Misunderstood' is too easy a label to slap on it, but in an era of sloppy-seconds coverage of the world's affairs, a sloppy term might be appropriate.
Without turning this into a bloody thesis, let's get right to the essentials:
- Pakistan is not the Middle East. It is not Central Asia. It is Indic. For only 60 of its multiple thousands of years amassed as a cultural hearth, the territory now delineated as Pakistan has been Pakistan. Before that it was as diverse a part of India (and I'm not at all referring to greater India, but India as a cultural unit) as anywhere in the subcontinent, with the subcontinent's myriad of variations appearing under the Indic super-category, as it were. In addition to these regional basics, the long era of British domination (which for Pakistan really only extends back to the mid-19th century) brought with it English language medium in education, British-created modern infrastructure, and, very importantly, a British-model military. Since the military crisis of 1857, the Indian Army was intentionally crafted to be one of the most disciplined in the world, and this tradition survived Partition in 1947 intact. It is precisely this tradition of discipline that has enabled it - the military - to run Pakistan for many of its 60 years.
- Pakistan is 99% Muslim. The enveloping culture though, is Indic, not Arabic, nor Persian. Taxila and Harappa are sites that are among the world's most ancient civilizations. There are extensive and highly-honored ancient Buddhist remains throughout the land. Alexandrine associations abound. Hindu and Sikh influences are built into daily life. Urdu is the language of the majority, but it is basically Hindi with Persian script. Other languages (to mention only a few) are Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pushtun, Kashmiri and Afghani. Like India, diversity is what Pakistan is all about. But the Indic culture, combined with British and post-British modern systems, with widespread English-speakers, all combine to form a considerably durable entity. Despite its current duress, Pakistan is in no way a failed state.
- Women in Pakistan encounter adversities which are worthy of criticism and ripe for reform. Yet, Pakistan is one of the more liberal Muslim societies regarding women. Indic culture has had strong matriarchal traditions since time immemorial. Pakistan has elected a woman as prime minister twice. So has India. So has Bangladesh. So has Sri Lanka. This is the Indian subcontinent. It is different.
- Most of the conventions that westerners apply to terms like 'dictator' do not necessarily apply to Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf is no Saddam, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Bob Mugabe or even Marcos. When Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India in 1975, she was immediately branded as a dictator. But after the crisis passed, she was still Mrs Gandhi first, and the dictator label faded, but not completely. Musharraf has without a doubt performed dictatorial gestures, but with variations that are simply not compatible with western journalistic interpretations. On the other hand, just because Musharraf appeared on 'The Daily Show' and seems not to be a snarly bastard doesn't mean he's a dictator that we can feel wholly comfortable with. Dubya's cuddled up to him because of his dumbass but precious War on Amorphous Terror, but for wholly opportunistic reasons.
- Much of Pakistan's very being has to do with the most important factor in its daily existence. More important that Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iran, the USA and terror put together. That factor is: India. Three wars, losing East Pakistan and seeing it become Bangladesh, and yes, because of the nuclear issue, India has everything to do with how governing Pakistan is handled. And it's not all bad. India and Pakistan are part of the same super-family. A high percentage of people in both countries have or have had relatives in the other. The Indian subcontinent was a house divided, but the house has essentially stood, with annexes, so to speak. Back in the days when the US didn't give a shit about the subcontinent except how it affected the Cold War, letting things drift didn't matter so much. Now that India is more 'OK' with the US, and Pakistan is more important to the Bush Machine's immediate needs, the western media has landed. And they are generally dumbos who treat the place as if it's Iraq or something.
- Pakistan's army, efficient instrument that it is, is oriented to India, whether in the defensive or offensive mode (it has usually been offensive). Kashmir is officially unsettled, but it is a stalemate that has gone on so long it will probably add up to a settlement to new generations who have known nothing else. The Pak army is not geared to fighting a bogus 'war on terror.' The Tribal Areas on the Northwest Frontier were never conquered by anybody. The British were still dusting up with them right up to 1947. The Pakistani government has had agreements with them that have been relatively functional, until recently.
These factoids, among many others, are extremely important, because they add up to a considerably complex and sophisticated array of challenges that must be dealt with carefully at any one moment, and most of them cannot be reduced any further into sound bytes. Indeed, there is so much to keep in mind in this part of the world that the average journalist is not up to the task. Yet the dabblers are at it, packaging the Pak puzzle for public consumption, and perpetuating misunderstandings right and left with the greatest of ease. Lost in the frenzy are, surprise, surprise, the Pakistani people, who have been reduced in western sensibilities to non-entities, largely in stock shots of autistic-appearing kids in madrassas and other generic cliches. 160 million can be reduced to a convenient barcode, so to speak, I suppose. It's nothing short of disgusting.
When I heard NPR's Jackie Northam, a proudly seasoned reporter supposedly used to Asiatic climes, refer to a particular area in northwestern Pakistan as 'something called the Swat Valley', then blithely called it a 'tourist zone', I thought, stupid, stupid people. They make my eyeteeth curl. A minor detail, perhaps, but it speaks volumes of the dismissive tone of some of these worthless hacks. Philip Reeves never would have engaged in such a blatant lack of meticulousness, in a region where meticulousness is absolutely required. This 'thing' called the Swat Valley is, or was, a profoundly beautiful region with a hospitable populace, whose splendid isolation has been ruined by Bush's mobile 'war on terror'. Oh, and a busy Jackie also says 'the Islamists' are coming, and that they're heading to all the cities in Pakistan. Never mind the 160 million other Pakistanis, engaged in their daily lives, hardly affected at all by Musharraf's state of emergency, who might have something to say about that.
My point being: more depth of understanding is required from the western media if they are going to take on the subcontinent. It seems that in the western media's view, the essentials that I have only started to outline above, are not really attended to, or even acknowledged. If the media are not up for the job, they had best stay home and cover the region via Google Earth and just make cell phone calls.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Randoms: Boy, Am I BUGGED By NPR, Or What??
NOTE: Particularly prurient readers may want to jump directly to Random #5, just below. – (signed) Your Editor, representing The Melmoth
1.) Daniel Zwerdling, occasional reporter for NPR, has guts. He's doing important work in following stories dealing with shameful treatment of US veterans and their situations. But I get the feeling that Zwerdling might be somewhat of an embarrassment to the more cheerleading members of NPR. He has obviously been sidelined, though I'm sure the managing editors keep him in semi-circulation to appear 'fair and balanced' to those 'thinking' masses that make up their aging audiences. Zwerdling might even have to fight to get his stories aired. In any case, he doesn't seem to be in on the palsey-walsey comraderie that, say, Sunday morning's Liane Hansen seems to enjoy with that David Welna character (you know, the guy with the extremely distracting nasaly voice). Though Zwerdling seems relegated to token status, as NPR's reporter of stories few others wish to take on, he maintains his integrity with a real sense of responsibility. I think he probably feels he's reaching a wider audience than if he was on some website or Air America, but his findings are generally surrounded by swill. Meanwhile, most of his colleagues at NPR are luxuriating in their cushy candy store gigs.
2.) I find the bland and nonchalant approach that these weekend morning hosts apply to their interviews with important people in current events extremely curious. Scott Simon cops an interview with Al Gore, but botches it entirely by treating him like he's some tiresome insurance salesman or something. Liane scores a phone interview with Benazir Bhutto, yet puts about as much journalistic energy into it as a dry slug who's run out of slime. It's as if they're too cool to show that they're either impressed by the magnitude of their guests, or a refusal to employ reasonable (not to mention interesting) journalistic practices of merit. Yet, they get all wiggly and giggly and drooly interviewing some boring novelist or dogcatcher with a funny story that they can tut-tut about between smirky laughs.
It's just crappy radio, that's all.
(I feel like Kevin Phillips, who once stated on PBS’ ‘Now’ that he was their Resident Curmudgeon.)
3.) You know it's a flop of a morning show when the most sickening element is Liane's goopy interaction with the Puzzlemaster's guest of the week, and she tries in vain to vary the horribly predictable scripting of the whole Puzzle segment . . .
3a.) PLUS: I hate the story-telling nature of the scripted bridges between stories, those tiresome background summaries for dummies, the same sort of schlock that's taken over Time and Newsweek, yet they'd like you to think they have the sophistication of The Economist or reasonable equivalent. (Maybe the National Review would be a better example - though these days I kind of like Bill Buckley, who's spending his Golden Years quite alienated from the Gang of Frankensteins he created.)
4.) We have a new local weekend host who's pretty amateurish, I'm afraid. I kind of feel sorry for him, yet he's not easy to endure. He hasn't even learned how to properly engineer yet (if he ever will), and says stuff like: the 'Voices in the News' bit is his favorite part of the show, as it gives him 'chills' to listen to! Funny, I always thought it was annoying, because it's just a jumble of sound bytes spliced together with an impatient music track behind, and it always leaves you in the lurch, as if, 'so there!' I guess it's supposed to stimulate your early Sunday morning by bringing up conversation points for you and your Starbucks-gulping Dockers-wearing, FloMax-popping SUV-driving mates to chew over, like pieces of foodie gristle.
5.) And finally, perhaps most importantly, has anybody noticed how NPR refuses to descend to the level of reporting on most of the Republican SEX SCANDALS that keep popping up with breathtaking regularity? I suppose that after Scott Simon’s elegant and Lincoln-like defense of Larry Craig, the bar has remained at its high and noble level – intact. They don’t ‘do’ SEX SCANDALS apparently, unless you’re Mara ‘Zombie-Eyes’ Liasson and Bob ‘Pursed-Lips’ Siegel, in hot pursuit of Bill ‘Blow-Job’ Clinton.
[You see, listeners to NPR do not know who the gentleman in the before-and-after photos above is, or what he did, although they might assume that he is a Republican.]
Well, I'd better leave off before I really start hating myself for dissecting this interminable blah-blah-blah radio matter to such an extent . . . !
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Cheerful Imperialistic Condescension Advantage
One of the reasons why NPR is so worthy of contempt is because so many opportunities to examine truths in the world are squandered, if not downright rejected.
I promise I'll be brief. But when I heard Gwen Thompkins' little feature on the 'new' Libya, and how it's opening up, I was dumped upon with fetid garbage that reminded me how much I can't stand the 'new' NPR. What could have been a trenchant and valid exploration of a nation that succeeded in normalizing relations with the US in spite of the current occupants of the White House, Gwen prefers to stroll though her Libyan experience by being coy, imperialistic, and worst of all, cute. I can say no more, because my heart is broken at the abject failure of Americans to take up the responsible role of inspiring through integrity, given opportunities that no one else may care about. Instead, many have chosen to reduce the world to Wal-Martish packaging, where nothing matters but the consumers' damp dream of self-fulfillment.
In Thompkins' report from this formerly-closed nation, trivializing, condescension, mockery, and smug ridicule color her thoughts of this country, long alienated, but now, according to Thompkins, ready to open itself up to sleazy sub-capitalists, the kind of Africans she feels most comfortable with. And, she implies, we should feel comfortable with them, too, despite their whimsical and Saturday Night Live-ish quirks.
I can never forgive Thompkins for displaying African perspectives in such a disgusting manner. I consider it a misfortune that I chanced upon her insipid report.
Problem: Thompkins is having sex with her own voice, which fits into the narcissistic verbiage of NPR perfectly. You can imagine her concluding her report of the day with a little self-pat on the back and the thought: ‘Am I hot, or what?’
Gwen's next stop: Missy Dana Perino's post, or 'Entertainment Tonight'!
I promise I'll be brief. But when I heard Gwen Thompkins' little feature on the 'new' Libya, and how it's opening up, I was dumped upon with fetid garbage that reminded me how much I can't stand the 'new' NPR. What could have been a trenchant and valid exploration of a nation that succeeded in normalizing relations with the US in spite of the current occupants of the White House, Gwen prefers to stroll though her Libyan experience by being coy, imperialistic, and worst of all, cute. I can say no more, because my heart is broken at the abject failure of Americans to take up the responsible role of inspiring through integrity, given opportunities that no one else may care about. Instead, many have chosen to reduce the world to Wal-Martish packaging, where nothing matters but the consumers' damp dream of self-fulfillment.
In Thompkins' report from this formerly-closed nation, trivializing, condescension, mockery, and smug ridicule color her thoughts of this country, long alienated, but now, according to Thompkins, ready to open itself up to sleazy sub-capitalists, the kind of Africans she feels most comfortable with. And, she implies, we should feel comfortable with them, too, despite their whimsical and Saturday Night Live-ish quirks.
I can never forgive Thompkins for displaying African perspectives in such a disgusting manner. I consider it a misfortune that I chanced upon her insipid report.
Problem: Thompkins is having sex with her own voice, which fits into the narcissistic verbiage of NPR perfectly. You can imagine her concluding her report of the day with a little self-pat on the back and the thought: ‘Am I hot, or what?’
Gwen's next stop: Missy Dana Perino's post, or 'Entertainment Tonight'!
The Begats
This morning, I heard one of the stupidest science reports I've ever run into on NPR. It was part of their grudging recognition (a la Frank Luntz) that global warming actually exists, and now, with reports like this one, NPR can't be accused of only using the term 'climate change'.
I'll try not to run on. Christopher Joyce reports about burning the rainforest in the Amazon region. OK, most of us (especially first graders on up) know about the risks to the rainforest. Well, Joyce's report sounds like it was done in 1987 instead of 2007. Apparently, he and the team of amateur-hour 'scientists' he interviews are just discovering that yes, the Amazon forests are at risk, and that may have something to do with climate change - er, I mean, global warming - a term they actually use.
Of course this is all a big deal; the degradation of the Amazon is one of the world's great crises, and it's gotten a lot of publicity, but the way Joyce’s whole report is couched, this is a new discovery! And in my opinion, the whole activity that these alleged scientists are up to is contemptible, and downright unnecessary: they burn tracts of the Amazon forests to see if it contributes to global warming! If fact, their leader has been doing it 'for years'.
The high purpose of this ersatz mission is to see if foresty-type stuff, uh . . . burns. Especially during the dry season. Scientific method will hopefully prove that 'fire begats fire'. A Biblical concept if there ever was one.
Sure enough, after these firebugs have sprayed their fuel and struck a match and devastated who knows how many hectares of vulnerable forest, yup, sure enough, it's official: 'Fire begats fire.'
Sounds like all they're doing is burning up grant money (from religious right organizations, maybe?) and not just valuable forest, while posing as frontline researchers who will save the world.
And of course, in great NPR white-bread tradition, Reporter Joyce tags along, reveling in his gullibility, snazzing the story up by mentioning snake bite kits (but neglects to say if anyone's ever been bitten), and offers no insight, irony or critique of anything at all. He DOES use the term 'promethian' though, which makes things a bit more sophisticated.
The whole enterprise of this so-called research sounds about as stupid as that awful museum of creationism, or whatever it's called, and just as damaging. In the process of re-learning what they already know, who can say how much wildlife they destroy, how much torched vegetation, and how much these 'tests' themselves contribute to, uh, global warming? And this NPR 'report' comes so recently after the devastating S. California fires (no reference/connection made there, either). These idiots should be arrested for arson. Christopher Joyce, catching them red-handed, could have at least made citizen's arrests!
I'll try not to run on. Christopher Joyce reports about burning the rainforest in the Amazon region. OK, most of us (especially first graders on up) know about the risks to the rainforest. Well, Joyce's report sounds like it was done in 1987 instead of 2007. Apparently, he and the team of amateur-hour 'scientists' he interviews are just discovering that yes, the Amazon forests are at risk, and that may have something to do with climate change - er, I mean, global warming - a term they actually use.
Of course this is all a big deal; the degradation of the Amazon is one of the world's great crises, and it's gotten a lot of publicity, but the way Joyce’s whole report is couched, this is a new discovery! And in my opinion, the whole activity that these alleged scientists are up to is contemptible, and downright unnecessary: they burn tracts of the Amazon forests to see if it contributes to global warming! If fact, their leader has been doing it 'for years'.
The high purpose of this ersatz mission is to see if foresty-type stuff, uh . . . burns. Especially during the dry season. Scientific method will hopefully prove that 'fire begats fire'. A Biblical concept if there ever was one.
Sure enough, after these firebugs have sprayed their fuel and struck a match and devastated who knows how many hectares of vulnerable forest, yup, sure enough, it's official: 'Fire begats fire.'
Sounds like all they're doing is burning up grant money (from religious right organizations, maybe?) and not just valuable forest, while posing as frontline researchers who will save the world.
And of course, in great NPR white-bread tradition, Reporter Joyce tags along, reveling in his gullibility, snazzing the story up by mentioning snake bite kits (but neglects to say if anyone's ever been bitten), and offers no insight, irony or critique of anything at all. He DOES use the term 'promethian' though, which makes things a bit more sophisticated.
The whole enterprise of this so-called research sounds about as stupid as that awful museum of creationism, or whatever it's called, and just as damaging. In the process of re-learning what they already know, who can say how much wildlife they destroy, how much torched vegetation, and how much these 'tests' themselves contribute to, uh, global warming? And this NPR 'report' comes so recently after the devastating S. California fires (no reference/connection made there, either). These idiots should be arrested for arson. Christopher Joyce, catching them red-handed, could have at least made citizen's arrests!
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Mr. President, We Can Damn Well Catch 'Em With Their Pants Down!
Like most bloggists, sometimes I wonder why I devote irreplaceable time to such matters as NPR. But the thing is, it's important to ventilate if something really bugs you. So I wobble onward.
No need to get too detailed, but there was a segment this morning that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt (as if those who have been paying attention are still doubters), that NPR aids and abets those with a neocon agenda. It was hosted by Great Scott (Simon - everybody's favorite NPR 'humanist', who's actually pretty steeped in the fuddy-duddyness of neo-conservatism, though he may not even know it yet).
Well, this particular segment was a little showcase for two neocons - I don't even need to name them, as they are standard-issue types without one iota of profundity between them, though they 'differ' on a couple of dilettante-ish issues from the stale smorgasbord of failed neocon junk food that's so casually marketed to the masses.
Anyway, one of them said that Iran had nuclear weapons already, and the other boldly and patriotically said that they didn't but implied that they would soon, so we better catch 'em, to paraphrase George C. (truly Great) Scott in 'Dr. Strangelove', 'with their pants down!' This dude advocated bombing Iran as if there would be no consequences, as if doing so was akin to picking up some consumer item at a big box store or something equally self-centered. As if, 'I want what I want and I want it now.' Classic American Enterprise Institute-speak, where scholars and consultants labor day and night for the world's benefit. Because, as that first-class bastard and bulldozer Robert Moses, who single-handedly rendered New York City car-dependent and car-dominated, was wont to say, 'You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.'
As for humanitarian Simon, he dealt with the two bozos with ever so much grace and gentleness, posing only the most daintily-worded 'challenges' that were about as imposing as a 5th grade introduction to putting together a class newsletter. Predictably, there was absolutely NO contrasting or opposing debate to the two guests' inane offerings, nor was any such thing promised. No matter, NPR was simply fulfilling its mandate of acting as publicist for neocon concerns, part of its diligent and years-long program of infiltrating the educated middle and upper classes of the nation, and doing in those old Commie-pinko-fag professors once and for all. Or something like that . . .
Thursday, November 01, 2007
I Can Get It For You, Cheap!
The Blackwater horror of September 16 in the year 2007 has sinister repercussions that spread past its contemporary impact. Among other examples, both infamous and obscure, it is particularly reminiscent of the Amritsar, India, massacre of 1919, when the British open-fired on a peaceful crowd and over 1000 civilians were killed. There were investigations, of course, as many good Brits were outraged. However, after much deliberation, the commanding officer, Gen. Dyer, was actually acquitted. In a British court. Amritsar became a seminal rallying point for the Independence movement, with Mahatma Gandhi's Congress party gaining a major foothold, though 1947 was a long way off yet. Michael O'Dwyer, the Governor of the Punjab, who approved of the action that led to the massacre, was later assassinated. It's not as if the people who are affected by things like massacres just move on and forget about them. If anything, the seeds of revenge are planted, and very deeply.
It will be interesting to see how the Iraqis themselves will respond to any outcome of the Blackwater case, and just how tolerant they will be to any acquittals that might result.
Imperialism inevitably involves conflict between the conquering force, which parades itself as 'good guys' and the anonymous, faceless victims of the conquered, who often happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in numbers that render them, en masse, as virtually 'expendable'. Life becomes especially cheap when it is anonymous. So, the less the US knows about these victims as persons, the better for the neocons and their ilk. Imperialism has very little to do with humanity.
America's nouveau dabbling in Empire is not only a complete failure, it puts much of the world at toxic risk. If the US embraced a benevolence (or at the very least, respect) instead of bellicoseness, other nations would not be so compelled to seek out so-called weapons of mass destruction. The US is driving various nations into this posture, but that's what the neocons want, so as to justify their insane agenda.
We can identify this process, but what is to be done?
Chimpeach! Time is running out.
It will be interesting to see how the Iraqis themselves will respond to any outcome of the Blackwater case, and just how tolerant they will be to any acquittals that might result.
Imperialism inevitably involves conflict between the conquering force, which parades itself as 'good guys' and the anonymous, faceless victims of the conquered, who often happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in numbers that render them, en masse, as virtually 'expendable'. Life becomes especially cheap when it is anonymous. So, the less the US knows about these victims as persons, the better for the neocons and their ilk. Imperialism has very little to do with humanity.
America's nouveau dabbling in Empire is not only a complete failure, it puts much of the world at toxic risk. If the US embraced a benevolence (or at the very least, respect) instead of bellicoseness, other nations would not be so compelled to seek out so-called weapons of mass destruction. The US is driving various nations into this posture, but that's what the neocons want, so as to justify their insane agenda.
We can identify this process, but what is to be done?
Chimpeach! Time is running out.
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Gals of Monday Morning
Now listen gang, I'm all for women in the media, but from 5AM onward, NPR's 'Morning Edition' was almost a non-stop 'Today' show of featurettes featuring their finest lineup of female reporters, covering everything from playing around with polygraphs to noting the 'nasty perfume' hanging over a Libyan conference on Darfur, to tromping about the Vermonty Fall Colour in search of sappy maples under the pretense of a Global Warming angle. Plus, there were plenty of cutesy-pukey little pause fillers, from Annoying Music to insufferable anecdotes too brutally awful to mention. Grand Central Stationing it all was a cheerily chirpy Renee Montagne, who just about outdid them all in making your Monday morn a darn super experience.
But - but - why was I lying there in the pre-dawn gloom, tense, tightened up, instantly in a bad mood, despite a restful night with pretty positive dreams, my wife nearby, and our faithful hound, curled up, tuckered and grunting with pleasure? BECAUSE, the whole dumpster full of audio slop that I'd been subjecting myself to, in search of straight news, was entirely drenched in narcissistic, smug, self-absorbed, Mall-minded, dumbed-down, Fox-ified, blathery CRAP!
(Two horrific car bombings in Iraq, and Porter Wagoner expired . . .)
I know, I know, Nationalistic Puffball Radio's demographics have surely shown that the rising audience for NPR is probably (white middle/upper class) women in their 30s-40s (i.e. ranging from Annette Bening's character in 'American beauty' to Volvo-driving Sudoku moms), while the guys in their lives either prefer Rush and Michael 'Smeghead' Medved, or else 24/7 ESPN. So, NPR's gotta get boutique-y right fast if them corporate sponsors are gonna make NPR truly bloom and boom.
Know what I feel like doing? Watching 'The View' every morning. I think Barbara Walters and her gang probably provide more sanity and insight than the ding-dong dullness of the Mall-rat-run radio station from hell, once known as National Public Radio.
But - but - why was I lying there in the pre-dawn gloom, tense, tightened up, instantly in a bad mood, despite a restful night with pretty positive dreams, my wife nearby, and our faithful hound, curled up, tuckered and grunting with pleasure? BECAUSE, the whole dumpster full of audio slop that I'd been subjecting myself to, in search of straight news, was entirely drenched in narcissistic, smug, self-absorbed, Mall-minded, dumbed-down, Fox-ified, blathery CRAP!
(Two horrific car bombings in Iraq, and Porter Wagoner expired . . .)
I know, I know, Nationalistic Puffball Radio's demographics have surely shown that the rising audience for NPR is probably (white middle/upper class) women in their 30s-40s (i.e. ranging from Annette Bening's character in 'American beauty' to Volvo-driving Sudoku moms), while the guys in their lives either prefer Rush and Michael 'Smeghead' Medved, or else 24/7 ESPN. So, NPR's gotta get boutique-y right fast if them corporate sponsors are gonna make NPR truly bloom and boom.
Know what I feel like doing? Watching 'The View' every morning. I think Barbara Walters and her gang probably provide more sanity and insight than the ding-dong dullness of the Mall-rat-run radio station from hell, once known as National Public Radio.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Briefly: Torture
There was a recent report from NPR's Anne Garrels, describing some 'renegade Sadr militiamen' who were tortured, and now, because of their torture, were supposedly telling truths about being trained in Iran. Garrels seemed to believe their confessions, which had been delivered under torture, and so based her report on their 'testimony'.
In the 'NPR Check' blog, Mytwords wrote to NPR, stating that Garrels' report was barbaric in its assumptions and in its acceptance of torture victims as a valid source of information.
I praised Mytwords for these statements. I suspect that if there is a mechanized response to them from NPR, then that will probably certify that they are dreadfully afraid of the questions posed. If a personalized reply happens, they will probably defend 'General' Garrels to the limit, equating her with Ed Murrow during the London blitz, or some such delusion.
As I've intimated before, I can't help but wax cynical over Garrels and her ilk, who seem to be buccaneering the war for their own kind of perverse profiteering. Sure, there will be book deals, but a film contract or a video game deal is where the big bucks lie.
No matter how much the issue of torture is decried in public, the fact is, the US has embraced such savage techniques. Their excuse: in 'asymmetrical' warfare, one must fight fire with fire. Journalists like Garrels, whose objectivity has been sacrificed for the sake of their egos, now have mutated into voyeurs to a world where torture is normal and thus, taken seriously. It is a fact that torture doesn't work. IT DOES NOT WORK. So how can it be taken seriously as a tool of warfare? If journalists lack the insight to discern this persistent truth, then they fall prey to torture's wider effects. They buy into the whole illusion: that torture can indeed work, and that it can be accepted without too much question. How can we possibly rely on them to separate realities from illusions?
There is also a blatant racial issue attached here. The US tortures predominantly non-Caucasian people, people that the US does not intrinsically care for. This is not the place to expound on this subject more, but it is a matter that is completely sidestepped within the public debate on torture.
Never has Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' (to mention only one examination of conscience) been so timely.
PostMortem:
Hell, I think the world is now divided (to put it in Bush/neocon terms!) into those who are against torture, and those who are for torture. Many who are for it WISH it would work, so as to ease their fears, but those of us who are against it, KNOW it doesn't work, so our fears are increased.
In the 'NPR Check' blog, Mytwords wrote to NPR, stating that Garrels' report was barbaric in its assumptions and in its acceptance of torture victims as a valid source of information.
I praised Mytwords for these statements. I suspect that if there is a mechanized response to them from NPR, then that will probably certify that they are dreadfully afraid of the questions posed. If a personalized reply happens, they will probably defend 'General' Garrels to the limit, equating her with Ed Murrow during the London blitz, or some such delusion.
As I've intimated before, I can't help but wax cynical over Garrels and her ilk, who seem to be buccaneering the war for their own kind of perverse profiteering. Sure, there will be book deals, but a film contract or a video game deal is where the big bucks lie.
No matter how much the issue of torture is decried in public, the fact is, the US has embraced such savage techniques. Their excuse: in 'asymmetrical' warfare, one must fight fire with fire. Journalists like Garrels, whose objectivity has been sacrificed for the sake of their egos, now have mutated into voyeurs to a world where torture is normal and thus, taken seriously. It is a fact that torture doesn't work. IT DOES NOT WORK. So how can it be taken seriously as a tool of warfare? If journalists lack the insight to discern this persistent truth, then they fall prey to torture's wider effects. They buy into the whole illusion: that torture can indeed work, and that it can be accepted without too much question. How can we possibly rely on them to separate realities from illusions?
There is also a blatant racial issue attached here. The US tortures predominantly non-Caucasian people, people that the US does not intrinsically care for. This is not the place to expound on this subject more, but it is a matter that is completely sidestepped within the public debate on torture.
Never has Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' (to mention only one examination of conscience) been so timely.
PostMortem:
Hell, I think the world is now divided (to put it in Bush/neocon terms!) into those who are against torture, and those who are for torture. Many who are for it WISH it would work, so as to ease their fears, but those of us who are against it, KNOW it doesn't work, so our fears are increased.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Sen. Paul Wellstone Died Five Years Ago
The first thing I thought when Paul's plane went down in 2002 was: they got him. They took him out.
Honestly, how could that not be a possibility? It's not just a movie plot notion or a cheap conspiracy theory. These things do happen in America - all the time. But many Americans just don't think it's possible, or it's pretty improbable. People like to put on the 'dubious act' when a movie-like plot presents itself in current events. They think it's not very plausible. Like a movie: 'oh, that wasn't very realistic; that couldn't have happened . . .'
But for over six years, we've had a significantly overflowing dumpster-full of examples from which form our not unreasonable line of questioning. The Bush Machine is entirely suspect, on many, many levels. Mafia tactics are employed every day, and there's plenty of proof. They bank on the fact that people will respond to their acts with 'oh, that couldn't have happened . . .' or some such reaction. People expect that power players, working with high stakes, are going to be as rational and as decent as they are. They tend to think that the standards and rules are based on fair play, if not the honor system. When the stakes increase, standards change and degrade. There is no shortage of evidence of this, on many levels, from small town corruption to shady deals involving the new near-billion dollar US Embassy in Baghdad. Of course, many people expect corruption in places high and low, but I'm addressing specifically here those who scoff at the idea of political figures in contemporary America acting like players in a Martin Scorsese movie.
The posit of Wellstone being bumped off is not a paranoid interpretation; it's perfectly reasonable to entertain the idea that Wellstone was taken out for any number of reasons. To the Bush Machine and the neocons, Paul was a growing threat, one who could possibly spearhead a genuine grassroots movement in America that promised to pose major headaches and roadblocks. He had to be taken out before he really got going. This is Mafia Tactics 101.
America is awash with crime shows, reality crime shows and websites, mysteries and whodunits. The realism of 'The Sopranos' should have taught people about the plausibility of applying mafia techniques to all sorts of situations in life. The Wellstone case is a mystery that isn't too hard to figure out. The thing that's particularly galling about it is that we can't expect the truth to be revealed because it's too highly connected, like so many cases today, from Abu Ghraib to Blackwater.
The question, of course, is: who exactly did the deed. then? Well, after limp 'investigations' and pat explanations from presumed authorities, cases like Paul's are quickly shut down or pronounced resolved. Real facts are supressed and information is impossible to obtain. Now it's my turn to say 'oh, that couldn't have happened . . .' when I hear the half-baked statements about what supposedly went wrong with Paul's plane. Like JFK, Jr., such explanations are extremely suspicious. But the deed is done, and protection is always in play for the deed-doers. Thus, the corollary leads to assumptions of extraordinary forces, such as the Bush Machine, as the authors of such missions. Covert power pulls off covert action. Yes, it really is like a movie, for art imitates life.
RIP Paul Wellstone. You will never be forgotten.
Honestly, how could that not be a possibility? It's not just a movie plot notion or a cheap conspiracy theory. These things do happen in America - all the time. But many Americans just don't think it's possible, or it's pretty improbable. People like to put on the 'dubious act' when a movie-like plot presents itself in current events. They think it's not very plausible. Like a movie: 'oh, that wasn't very realistic; that couldn't have happened . . .'
But for over six years, we've had a significantly overflowing dumpster-full of examples from which form our not unreasonable line of questioning. The Bush Machine is entirely suspect, on many, many levels. Mafia tactics are employed every day, and there's plenty of proof. They bank on the fact that people will respond to their acts with 'oh, that couldn't have happened . . .' or some such reaction. People expect that power players, working with high stakes, are going to be as rational and as decent as they are. They tend to think that the standards and rules are based on fair play, if not the honor system. When the stakes increase, standards change and degrade. There is no shortage of evidence of this, on many levels, from small town corruption to shady deals involving the new near-billion dollar US Embassy in Baghdad. Of course, many people expect corruption in places high and low, but I'm addressing specifically here those who scoff at the idea of political figures in contemporary America acting like players in a Martin Scorsese movie.
The posit of Wellstone being bumped off is not a paranoid interpretation; it's perfectly reasonable to entertain the idea that Wellstone was taken out for any number of reasons. To the Bush Machine and the neocons, Paul was a growing threat, one who could possibly spearhead a genuine grassroots movement in America that promised to pose major headaches and roadblocks. He had to be taken out before he really got going. This is Mafia Tactics 101.
America is awash with crime shows, reality crime shows and websites, mysteries and whodunits. The realism of 'The Sopranos' should have taught people about the plausibility of applying mafia techniques to all sorts of situations in life. The Wellstone case is a mystery that isn't too hard to figure out. The thing that's particularly galling about it is that we can't expect the truth to be revealed because it's too highly connected, like so many cases today, from Abu Ghraib to Blackwater.
The question, of course, is: who exactly did the deed. then? Well, after limp 'investigations' and pat explanations from presumed authorities, cases like Paul's are quickly shut down or pronounced resolved. Real facts are supressed and information is impossible to obtain. Now it's my turn to say 'oh, that couldn't have happened . . .' when I hear the half-baked statements about what supposedly went wrong with Paul's plane. Like JFK, Jr., such explanations are extremely suspicious. But the deed is done, and protection is always in play for the deed-doers. Thus, the corollary leads to assumptions of extraordinary forces, such as the Bush Machine, as the authors of such missions. Covert power pulls off covert action. Yes, it really is like a movie, for art imitates life.
RIP Paul Wellstone. You will never be forgotten.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Vultures of Righteousness
Governor Bush (I like George Carlin's preference in calling Dubya Governor, seeing how the gubernatorial election in Texas was the only election Bush ever won) has just made a silly old speech about Cuba, and how 'their day will come' in returning to Bush's Mafia Democracy. (Yes, returning; remember the Cuba sequence in 'The Godfather Pt II'?) NPR responded by limply parroting Gov. Bush's tiresome rhetoric.
Yes indeed, just like Iran, the American vultures are getting impatient to take back 'their' Cuba. And also like Iran, there will be NO negotiation. The terms are: the vultures win all, take all. None of this 'sharing' business. For their part, NPR (Nationalist Propaganda Radioactivism) and the MSM (MainStream Media, Inc. TM) in general want to be on the 'right side' when such takeovers occur. They want to be in the first wave of glory - whatever that entails. It sounds corny, but the stakes are just too high for journalists to really get investigative about these kinds of political situations. There's much more in it for them to be parrots than true journalists, with a goal of getting at the truth of the matter. Truth-seekers will undoubtedly be shut out of future cushy deals, because corporate management is all about cushy deals. When Cuba is 'restored' to being the cash cow of the Caribbean, plenty of plummy media opportunities will open up, and the hell if media empires are going to miss out by supporting some fancy-schmancy truth-digger. Thus the ongoing kowtowing and sucking up to the Bush Machine and other neocon enterprises, worldwide.
Yes indeed, just like Iran, the American vultures are getting impatient to take back 'their' Cuba. And also like Iran, there will be NO negotiation. The terms are: the vultures win all, take all. None of this 'sharing' business. For their part, NPR (Nationalist Propaganda Radioactivism) and the MSM (MainStream Media, Inc. TM) in general want to be on the 'right side' when such takeovers occur. They want to be in the first wave of glory - whatever that entails. It sounds corny, but the stakes are just too high for journalists to really get investigative about these kinds of political situations. There's much more in it for them to be parrots than true journalists, with a goal of getting at the truth of the matter. Truth-seekers will undoubtedly be shut out of future cushy deals, because corporate management is all about cushy deals. When Cuba is 'restored' to being the cash cow of the Caribbean, plenty of plummy media opportunities will open up, and the hell if media empires are going to miss out by supporting some fancy-schmancy truth-digger. Thus the ongoing kowtowing and sucking up to the Bush Machine and other neocon enterprises, worldwide.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Place Your Bets, Poets
Dubya is tireless in his publicizing of the dubious mis-translation of Ahmadinejad's 'wipe Israel off the map' statement.
To quote Juan Cole: (http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html)
"As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street)."
Now Iran has long been a poetic culture. Rumi and Omar Khayyam are most known in the west, and they are often referred to as 'flowery'. Well, if Dubya could handle perusing FitzGerald's Omar Khayyam, he would note a tone of nostalgia, a sweet sadness, yet a zest for the moment that permeates Omar's observations of life . . . and death.
Mis-translation of poetic phrases for political purposes can come in handy for hegemonic powers. Interpreting Nostradamus' rather abstract poetry as a blueprint for our times has always been a stretch, yet such an effect has oozed into the subtext of society as far as expectations for 'End Times' are concerned. Never mind the Book of Revelation, which is too obvious to mention here. On a different but nevertheless non-trivial plane, Hugo Chavez' reference to Bush as 'a sulphurous presence' at the UN was in the Latin American tradition of theatricality, something that uptight Americans would take as an insult, rather than a touch of levity. Ahmadinejad is not dabbling with levity, but his statements would be best addressed with subtlety rather than with a sledgehammer.
The thing is, there is no such interest in poetic interpretation in the Bush Machine's tactics. Conquest is on their minds, and it will not go away. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that Bush keep such lies alive. The last thing he wants is conciliatory gestures from Iran. The longing for a new, fresher war he can 'win' is now moving toward high gear. Such a war with Iran could, in the Bush/neocon view, vindicate themselves 'out' of Iraq, as it were. Such grasping for a 'win' in Iran seems to be the final, climactic crap shoot of the Bush Administration. The great question is whether they will or can pull it off. To Bush, Cheney & Co., the stakes are high, but it's go for broke time, baby.
'A jug of oil, a loaf of bread, and thou - and it's on to Teheran!' - presumed battle cry, if Bush reads Omar.
To quote Juan Cole: (http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html)
"As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street)."
Now Iran has long been a poetic culture. Rumi and Omar Khayyam are most known in the west, and they are often referred to as 'flowery'. Well, if Dubya could handle perusing FitzGerald's Omar Khayyam, he would note a tone of nostalgia, a sweet sadness, yet a zest for the moment that permeates Omar's observations of life . . . and death.
Mis-translation of poetic phrases for political purposes can come in handy for hegemonic powers. Interpreting Nostradamus' rather abstract poetry as a blueprint for our times has always been a stretch, yet such an effect has oozed into the subtext of society as far as expectations for 'End Times' are concerned. Never mind the Book of Revelation, which is too obvious to mention here. On a different but nevertheless non-trivial plane, Hugo Chavez' reference to Bush as 'a sulphurous presence' at the UN was in the Latin American tradition of theatricality, something that uptight Americans would take as an insult, rather than a touch of levity. Ahmadinejad is not dabbling with levity, but his statements would be best addressed with subtlety rather than with a sledgehammer.
The thing is, there is no such interest in poetic interpretation in the Bush Machine's tactics. Conquest is on their minds, and it will not go away. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that Bush keep such lies alive. The last thing he wants is conciliatory gestures from Iran. The longing for a new, fresher war he can 'win' is now moving toward high gear. Such a war with Iran could, in the Bush/neocon view, vindicate themselves 'out' of Iraq, as it were. Such grasping for a 'win' in Iran seems to be the final, climactic crap shoot of the Bush Administration. The great question is whether they will or can pull it off. To Bush, Cheney & Co., the stakes are high, but it's go for broke time, baby.
'A jug of oil, a loaf of bread, and thou - and it's on to Teheran!' - presumed battle cry, if Bush reads Omar.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A Little Lecture About Burma That Will Clear Everything Up
Well, hardly. It won't do a thing for the appalling degradation of a rather remarkable nation and culture that's been happening for many a decade now. On the other hand, it could improve western perception of 'the Albania of Asia'. That epithet, by the way, isn't meant to degrade; it merely implies an unknown or underknown subject, in this case, Burma.
When I visited Burma in 1986, it was the 100th anniversary (decidedly NOT celebrated), of the British conquest of Upper Burma. King Thibaw in Mandalay had been deposed, and all of Burma now came under British control. I remember dining in a restaurant in downtown Rangoon and sharing main courses and rice with a fellow American. He was sincere in his admiration for things Burmese, but his nervousness was palpable. 'This place is gonna blow up any minute now,' he said. At the time, I thought I knew what he meant, but I wasn't exactly sure. Something was in the air - or under it. He turned out to be right, but it took about two years to happen. In 1988, all hell broke loose, and then things went back underground. Until, basically, a few weeks ago.
I'm not taking on the whole issue here - that is, the latest unrest in this most unique of countries. But the name game being played out in the western media needs a tad bit of corrective attention if basic understanding of Burma is going to get anywhere, here in the west.
Which name to pick in referring to Burma? Despite being officially unrecognized in the US and the UK, American media seems to prefer 'Myanmar', the name chosen by the ruling junta as an act of defiance to world opinion. Why is this? Apparently, the name 'Burma' is linked to the general notion that it is a product of that country's colonial past. Thus, to be politically correct, the media choose the supposedly 'real' name for Burma: Myanmar, the 'native' name (apparently), the name for a people who threw off the yoke of imperialism and now live in the sunlight of freedom. A name specifically chosen by a corrupt, paranoid and utterly ruthless group of self-serving, not to mention bizarre, military freaks who control their Buddhist subjects by decidedly non-Buddhist methods. That reason alone is sufficient not to honor this spelling preference.
Other Burmese names have also been altered when rendered into Roman script: Irrawaddy, Moulmein, Prome, Rangoon, Pagan, and many others. I won't even bother to show their preposterous 'corrected' versions, spellings that even National Geographic has sucked up to (while retaining some of the previous spellings in parentheses). However, Myanmar as a spelling and a term indeed has legitimacy, as Burma expert David Steinberg has pointed out, but the decision to name the country that was hardly a people's choice.
Ironically, when all is said and done, 'Burma' and 'Myanmar' are pronounced, if you are Burmese, almost exactly the same. The 'm' and 'b' enunciation is subtle, as is the 'r'. In any case, Burma's name in its variations is merely a Romanization and an Anglicizing of the Burmese language and script. It is extracted from one of the world's more cheerful and even playful-looking scripts. Old Burmese hands affectionately say it looks like 'eggnog-eggnog', with its ancient but progressively-graphic lines of interlocked and connected circles. In a more abstract sense, even a chemical formula or calculus problem comes to mind. Further, the junta-official Romanized spelling of 'Myanmar' is 'Myanma'. Say it fast, with imagined subtleties that you think a Burmese speaker might include . . .
Also, I'm awfully darn sick of hearing, hither and yon, that there's no oil or 'anything we want' in Burma, so there's no reason why the US should invade, like we did in Iraq, in order to 'bring democracy' and set the inhabitants free. There IS oil in Burma. In the UK there is an oil company called Burmah (even the Brits streamlined their 19th century spelling to the one we know today), and while Burmah is not particularly associated with Burma any more, Burmese oil is still tapped and is still considerable in its deposits. Vast forest reserves, which are only now really starting to be decimated, make Burma the next grab-zone after Indonesia has been exhausted. Considerable natural gas and mineral deposits also lie within Burmese borders. During the British era, one district up-country was called Ruby Mines. Burmese gems are still a big deal. Also, Burma used to be Asia's largest rice exporter, so this is not a country without self-sufficient potential. It's just that, certainly in a neocon frame of mind, it's potential is not worth fighting over, like Angola, or any number of disadvantaged countries. Burma is also not particularly strategic in US interests. Why spill US blood over it? Like Afghanistan (which IS strategic to US interests), Burma is a major producer of illicit drugs, particularly opium. Remember the Golden Triangle? Most of it is in the Shan States of Burma, a zone similar to the untamed Tribal Areas of the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. There are still ganglords who are running the show who escaped over the hump from China in '49, old Nationalists from the defeated Kuomintang, who have prospered in their fiefdoms of absolute feudal control of these outaback locales. Like Darfur, the US can instantly get sluggish when it doesn't have supersalesmen like Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz to sell a war that interests only them and their corporate superiors.
Maybe I am taking on the whole issue here . . .
The thing is, Burma as a resource country has already been 'claimed' by its surrounding regional powers - mostly China, while Iraq, run by uppity Saddam, who didn't stay bought, with far, far, more oil deposits than puny Burma, was determined by US neocons as up for grabs, and must be claimed before anybody else, whether Iran or China or Russia got grabby.
I also find the 'effort' put into the usage of 'Myanmar' to be quite condescending, even a vestage of colonialism. Perhaps the sentiment is correct: it's 'Thailand' now, not 'Siam'; it's 'Iran' now, not 'Persia'. Nevertheless, it's still 'India' to us, though 'Bharat' is the official name, and 'Hindustan' is used in widespread fashion. Plus, we say 'China' and not 'Chung Kuo', and perhaps the most significant example of western preference: 'Japan' instead of 'Nippon'.
So, unless media mouths are ready to start saying 'Wien' for Vienna, 'Roma' for Rome, 'Sankt Peterburg' for St Petersburg, 'Ciudad Mexico' (with proper pronunciation) for you know what, let's drop the 'Myanmar' preference, and note that name secondarily, and make it clear as to why. Some already have, as they have slowly discovered the truth behind this most flimsy reason to honor a totalitarian government's international gesture.
One final example of the looniness of Burma's military sociopaths. Back in the 70s or thereabouts, Burma, like most formerly British possessions, drove on the left. Out of the blue, an edict came down that all vehicular traffic in the nation would, from the next day forward, keep to the right side of the street. The deed was done, and without question. Now admittedly, Sweden did the same thing, and without one traffic mishap, by the way. But their reasons for doing it were basically pragmatic: to join the rest of continental Europe, and also to sell Volvos and Saabs to growing left-hand drive markets. In Burma, the joke went around that Ne Win, who led the country at the time, was perceived as moving a little too far to the left in his thinking. So, what to do? Make a corrective statement! Move traffic to the right! Statement made. Control established.
Many a politician is wont to say today that to do something, it should be done because it's morally right. Well, it's morally right to call Burma 'Burma'. And the thing is, it really is. One of Buddhism's chief tenets is right action. For those who are repressed in Burma, it still is.
When I visited Burma in 1986, it was the 100th anniversary (decidedly NOT celebrated), of the British conquest of Upper Burma. King Thibaw in Mandalay had been deposed, and all of Burma now came under British control. I remember dining in a restaurant in downtown Rangoon and sharing main courses and rice with a fellow American. He was sincere in his admiration for things Burmese, but his nervousness was palpable. 'This place is gonna blow up any minute now,' he said. At the time, I thought I knew what he meant, but I wasn't exactly sure. Something was in the air - or under it. He turned out to be right, but it took about two years to happen. In 1988, all hell broke loose, and then things went back underground. Until, basically, a few weeks ago.
I'm not taking on the whole issue here - that is, the latest unrest in this most unique of countries. But the name game being played out in the western media needs a tad bit of corrective attention if basic understanding of Burma is going to get anywhere, here in the west.
Which name to pick in referring to Burma? Despite being officially unrecognized in the US and the UK, American media seems to prefer 'Myanmar', the name chosen by the ruling junta as an act of defiance to world opinion. Why is this? Apparently, the name 'Burma' is linked to the general notion that it is a product of that country's colonial past. Thus, to be politically correct, the media choose the supposedly 'real' name for Burma: Myanmar, the 'native' name (apparently), the name for a people who threw off the yoke of imperialism and now live in the sunlight of freedom. A name specifically chosen by a corrupt, paranoid and utterly ruthless group of self-serving, not to mention bizarre, military freaks who control their Buddhist subjects by decidedly non-Buddhist methods. That reason alone is sufficient not to honor this spelling preference.
Other Burmese names have also been altered when rendered into Roman script: Irrawaddy, Moulmein, Prome, Rangoon, Pagan, and many others. I won't even bother to show their preposterous 'corrected' versions, spellings that even National Geographic has sucked up to (while retaining some of the previous spellings in parentheses). However, Myanmar as a spelling and a term indeed has legitimacy, as Burma expert David Steinberg has pointed out, but the decision to name the country that was hardly a people's choice.
Ironically, when all is said and done, 'Burma' and 'Myanmar' are pronounced, if you are Burmese, almost exactly the same. The 'm' and 'b' enunciation is subtle, as is the 'r'. In any case, Burma's name in its variations is merely a Romanization and an Anglicizing of the Burmese language and script. It is extracted from one of the world's more cheerful and even playful-looking scripts. Old Burmese hands affectionately say it looks like 'eggnog-eggnog', with its ancient but progressively-graphic lines of interlocked and connected circles. In a more abstract sense, even a chemical formula or calculus problem comes to mind. Further, the junta-official Romanized spelling of 'Myanmar' is 'Myanma'. Say it fast, with imagined subtleties that you think a Burmese speaker might include . . .
Also, I'm awfully darn sick of hearing, hither and yon, that there's no oil or 'anything we want' in Burma, so there's no reason why the US should invade, like we did in Iraq, in order to 'bring democracy' and set the inhabitants free. There IS oil in Burma. In the UK there is an oil company called Burmah (even the Brits streamlined their 19th century spelling to the one we know today), and while Burmah is not particularly associated with Burma any more, Burmese oil is still tapped and is still considerable in its deposits. Vast forest reserves, which are only now really starting to be decimated, make Burma the next grab-zone after Indonesia has been exhausted. Considerable natural gas and mineral deposits also lie within Burmese borders. During the British era, one district up-country was called Ruby Mines. Burmese gems are still a big deal. Also, Burma used to be Asia's largest rice exporter, so this is not a country without self-sufficient potential. It's just that, certainly in a neocon frame of mind, it's potential is not worth fighting over, like Angola, or any number of disadvantaged countries. Burma is also not particularly strategic in US interests. Why spill US blood over it? Like Afghanistan (which IS strategic to US interests), Burma is a major producer of illicit drugs, particularly opium. Remember the Golden Triangle? Most of it is in the Shan States of Burma, a zone similar to the untamed Tribal Areas of the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. There are still ganglords who are running the show who escaped over the hump from China in '49, old Nationalists from the defeated Kuomintang, who have prospered in their fiefdoms of absolute feudal control of these outaback locales. Like Darfur, the US can instantly get sluggish when it doesn't have supersalesmen like Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz to sell a war that interests only them and their corporate superiors.
Maybe I am taking on the whole issue here . . .
The thing is, Burma as a resource country has already been 'claimed' by its surrounding regional powers - mostly China, while Iraq, run by uppity Saddam, who didn't stay bought, with far, far, more oil deposits than puny Burma, was determined by US neocons as up for grabs, and must be claimed before anybody else, whether Iran or China or Russia got grabby.
I also find the 'effort' put into the usage of 'Myanmar' to be quite condescending, even a vestage of colonialism. Perhaps the sentiment is correct: it's 'Thailand' now, not 'Siam'; it's 'Iran' now, not 'Persia'. Nevertheless, it's still 'India' to us, though 'Bharat' is the official name, and 'Hindustan' is used in widespread fashion. Plus, we say 'China' and not 'Chung Kuo', and perhaps the most significant example of western preference: 'Japan' instead of 'Nippon'.
So, unless media mouths are ready to start saying 'Wien' for Vienna, 'Roma' for Rome, 'Sankt Peterburg' for St Petersburg, 'Ciudad Mexico' (with proper pronunciation) for you know what, let's drop the 'Myanmar' preference, and note that name secondarily, and make it clear as to why. Some already have, as they have slowly discovered the truth behind this most flimsy reason to honor a totalitarian government's international gesture.
One final example of the looniness of Burma's military sociopaths. Back in the 70s or thereabouts, Burma, like most formerly British possessions, drove on the left. Out of the blue, an edict came down that all vehicular traffic in the nation would, from the next day forward, keep to the right side of the street. The deed was done, and without question. Now admittedly, Sweden did the same thing, and without one traffic mishap, by the way. But their reasons for doing it were basically pragmatic: to join the rest of continental Europe, and also to sell Volvos and Saabs to growing left-hand drive markets. In Burma, the joke went around that Ne Win, who led the country at the time, was perceived as moving a little too far to the left in his thinking. So, what to do? Make a corrective statement! Move traffic to the right! Statement made. Control established.
Many a politician is wont to say today that to do something, it should be done because it's morally right. Well, it's morally right to call Burma 'Burma'. And the thing is, it really is. One of Buddhism's chief tenets is right action. For those who are repressed in Burma, it still is.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
He's One Of U.S. Now
Nationalist Perverse Radio strikes again! American media of all kinds just loves Chris(topher) Hitch(ens). That voice, that erudition, that sophistication! And he's American! Yup, just tied the knot with US citizenship, so he's got a right to say 'us' and 'our' instead of 'you Americans', etc.
Well Chris, I lived in the UK for two years, and exotic you ain't. If fact, Chris is viewed as rather banal in his ex-country. Idea! Glom onto the US of A and do a road show. Keep 'em coming. Out-do the Americans at their own game, but slather on the Brit refinement and wow 'em with your vocab. Hey, they loved Tony B's performances every time, it's a sure bet. So Chris plays the morose-but-infinitely-urbane pooh-bear role, and no one can touch him. He can even inspire gullible young boys to go fight his wars, and only a droll, pudgy response is called for. What a deal!
Chris has always aspired to the level of Robt. Hughes or James Wolcott, but his pint-sized packages of deeply disappointing dart-throwing signify that our civilization really is in decline. And at those points in history, there's always been big bucks in filing past the remains and mounting pretentious commentary on all that went wrong. Hitchie (and I won't dignify any referral to Chris as 'Hitch' as that is the exclusive property of Alfred Hitchcock) is going for the gold NOW, before the full-scale dottering sets in.
There used to be a dignified tradition of Brits becoming Americanized (e.g. Alistair Cooke; the other Christopher - Isherwood, et al), but now we only get their left-overs.
Give me your burn-outs, your washed-ups and your third-string rejects...
Well Chris, I lived in the UK for two years, and exotic you ain't. If fact, Chris is viewed as rather banal in his ex-country. Idea! Glom onto the US of A and do a road show. Keep 'em coming. Out-do the Americans at their own game, but slather on the Brit refinement and wow 'em with your vocab. Hey, they loved Tony B's performances every time, it's a sure bet. So Chris plays the morose-but-infinitely-urbane pooh-bear role, and no one can touch him. He can even inspire gullible young boys to go fight his wars, and only a droll, pudgy response is called for. What a deal!
Chris has always aspired to the level of Robt. Hughes or James Wolcott, but his pint-sized packages of deeply disappointing dart-throwing signify that our civilization really is in decline. And at those points in history, there's always been big bucks in filing past the remains and mounting pretentious commentary on all that went wrong. Hitchie (and I won't dignify any referral to Chris as 'Hitch' as that is the exclusive property of Alfred Hitchcock) is going for the gold NOW, before the full-scale dottering sets in.
There used to be a dignified tradition of Brits becoming Americanized (e.g. Alistair Cooke; the other Christopher - Isherwood, et al), but now we only get their left-overs.
Give me your burn-outs, your washed-ups and your third-string rejects...
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
A Long, Long Way From 'Long Dong Silver', But Look Who's Bringing It Up Again!
That's right - Clarence Thomas! The most obscure of the Nine Old Personages now sitting on the Super-Supreme Court has written a memoir for the big bucks. Now we can re-live one of our nation's most tedious sagas, in which equality finally arrives on the high bench, not of the racial kind (Thurgood Marshall beat you to it, Clarence, and with distinction), but for once, a justice will be as medicre a mind as many of those he is trying.
The chief highlights in Clarence's 'trial' though, are the dandy references to that classic 'first date' film (perhaps suggested by Travis Bickle), 'Long Dong Silver'.
Clarence has always struck me as an opportunist who's always trying to come across as the Tom Robinson character in 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. Despite that character's legitimacy as a victim (framed for supposedly raping a white woman), Clarence plays the victim card every time, especially in his recent '60 Minutes' interview. He may not have had Greg Peck to defend him, but he had Poppy Bush to champion him, PLUS he got the white woman to marry in the end. What's he complaining about?? I know, I know, it's a great American touchy subject, but the obviousness of Clarence's grandstanding (in order to sell a book), is contemptible, especially in light of ongoing racial problems in this country. Speaking of contemptible, Michael Medved (who's actually more sickening than Michael 'Savage' Weiner) wrote a 6-point essay saying that slavery in America wasn't really that bad! Clarence, you've come a long way, baby...
The chief highlights in Clarence's 'trial' though, are the dandy references to that classic 'first date' film (perhaps suggested by Travis Bickle), 'Long Dong Silver'.
Clarence has always struck me as an opportunist who's always trying to come across as the Tom Robinson character in 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. Despite that character's legitimacy as a victim (framed for supposedly raping a white woman), Clarence plays the victim card every time, especially in his recent '60 Minutes' interview. He may not have had Greg Peck to defend him, but he had Poppy Bush to champion him, PLUS he got the white woman to marry in the end. What's he complaining about?? I know, I know, it's a great American touchy subject, but the obviousness of Clarence's grandstanding (in order to sell a book), is contemptible, especially in light of ongoing racial problems in this country. Speaking of contemptible, Michael Medved (who's actually more sickening than Michael 'Savage' Weiner) wrote a 6-point essay saying that slavery in America wasn't really that bad! Clarence, you've come a long way, baby...
Ick. Just Ick.
As you very well know, the thing on the right in this Duo-Portrait Plate above is Derek - I mean Debbie - Cagan, who does stuff under Bob Gates in the Imperial War Dept. But have you seen the suave side of the Cagan? You will if you pan over to the left and behold the distinguished profile therein. She's in her 'Snidely Whiplash' mode, and is just about to attach a vaudeville mustache (unfortunately concealed by the dark background) to the region above her mouth with spirit gum. Her hobbies include fantasizing she's a silent movie matinee villain, publically (and privately) hating Iranians, as well as standing in dark exterior doorways, waiting for anybody to take flash snapshots whilst she is applying waxy foundational makeup and cold, scummy hair oils.
Monday, October 01, 2007
One Week On: And I'm Not Referring To Columbia Pictures
More yaks concerning Columbia Univ. Prez Leee! Bollinger. As Fredric March said to Spence Tracy in 'Inherit the Wind' when referring to a pesky and cynical reporter (Gene Kelly), 'I don't like that fella.' It's true, gang, I don't care a fig for Bollinger. He has shown that he is the same kind of megalomaniac that he attempts to either coddle (the Pervster Musharraf) or roast (Ahmadinejad). Dean Martin he ain't, but that Captain Kangaroo hairstyle is almost as attention-getting as his whacked-out vanity show of 'telling off' his Iranian guest. Bollinger is a perfect example of the neocon dream of dumbing-down academia and replacing its thinking heads with ambitious corporate/power-mad CEO types, who can pose, especially in the spotlight of the media, as liberally artistic, free speechifying democratizers. Instead of applying wisdom and insight to the occasion by letting Ahmadinejad play himself, state his case, and then open a 'frank and cordial' dialogue, Bollinger botched the whole thing by turning it into a crude strut of egotistical self-righteousness which ended up sounding like a Soviet show trial. What an amateur-hour bozo. No, what an ASSHOLE! His haughtiness reminds me of his probable buddy and fellow failure, Paul Wolfowitz.
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Kinetics Of Metrics
On Neocon Propaganda Radiation's 'Morning Edition', Ga-Ga-Guy Raz-amataz gave a curious and semi-maddening/semi-interesting report today about the Baghdad base airport ('second busiest in the world'). On one side he was doing his typical gosh-golly-gee-whiz-drooling-
marveling over military hardware in action, and on the other, he was at least showing the extent of what is going on at this particular airport on a daily basis. It was actually informative! Also, in a few instances, Raz actually seemed to distance himself (for once) from the seduction of the military show-offs (i.e. stressing the quotes around the term 'surge'), and letting the one military man he interviews show his true colors. By that I mean: when the officer talks about bombing, he notes that innocent Iraqis are often killed or injured. When he says, 'and we're sorry about that', he does so with a smile and almost a chuckle, like a little kid who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Life is cheap in Iraq, especially for the non-combatant cannon fodder caught in 'kinetic' activities. In a roundabout way, I'm grateful to Raz for playing that brief interview. Even a contemptible enterprise such as war can have touches of humanity, but when you run a high-tech, mechanized machine where the principal product is industrial-strength bombing, and for every 'insurgent' you take out, 2-3 non-combatants are either killed or injured, humanity sinks to a new low.
marveling over military hardware in action, and on the other, he was at least showing the extent of what is going on at this particular airport on a daily basis. It was actually informative! Also, in a few instances, Raz actually seemed to distance himself (for once) from the seduction of the military show-offs (i.e. stressing the quotes around the term 'surge'), and letting the one military man he interviews show his true colors. By that I mean: when the officer talks about bombing, he notes that innocent Iraqis are often killed or injured. When he says, 'and we're sorry about that', he does so with a smile and almost a chuckle, like a little kid who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Life is cheap in Iraq, especially for the non-combatant cannon fodder caught in 'kinetic' activities. In a roundabout way, I'm grateful to Raz for playing that brief interview. Even a contemptible enterprise such as war can have touches of humanity, but when you run a high-tech, mechanized machine where the principal product is industrial-strength bombing, and for every 'insurgent' you take out, 2-3 non-combatants are either killed or injured, humanity sinks to a new low.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
