Politics and Poetry 2

• The Cradle will fall: The mayhem in Syria reached epic heights over the weekend. A massacre in the town of Houla left 109 victims dead, mostly women and children - 49 under the age of 10 hacked to death with axes and knives. The men of the town were demonstrating at the town mosque and claim that while they were away, government forces ambushed the town, killing innocent civilians. The government has claimed that this is the act of rogue terrorists. Kofi Annan of the UN sat down with President al-Assad today to make clear the international weight of these decisions. Several countries, including the US, also expelled Syrian diplomats in protest to the weekends events. All this to say...well, just to say, really. According to Annan, he "appealed to him [Mr Assad] for bold steps now - not tomorrow, now - to create momentum for the implementation of the plan."
So he spoke to him sternly about having spoken to him about at some point doing what he had spoken to him about originally.
Meanwhile, people in Houla fear another attack: "Military reinforcements have been brought in, and artillery, and we are afraid that the massacre will happen again," Mahmoud Al Houli told CNN reporters. "Four checkpoints have been set up around the town, and nothing can enter -- no food or medical supplies can come in. The electricity has been cut off. Things are desperate."
He closed with this piercing remark: "You have seen the bodies on television, on the computer, but we see them in real life."
So true. And yet, we discuss these images, these lives as if no one had to see them in real life.
If we're going to take an interest in the slaughtering of humans in other countries, we have to take a real interest. Hanging a carrot in front of desperate people's eyes is cruel and superfluous.
If we are going to stay out of it, stay out of it. This half ass bullshit is about as useful and philanthropic as standing in front of a homeless man, waxing poetic about the ills of poverty while counting your money. Come the fuck on!

Fear, fear, fear: While many of us reflected on the meaning of Memorial Day, perhaps remembering family members or saying a silent thank you to those who felt our country was worth a fight...Mitt Romney was enjoying a heaping bowl of fear with his BBQ.
At a speech in San Diego, CA, his message was clear: "The world is not safe."
"We can follow in the footsteps of Europe and shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social needs...and they of course rely on the strength of America and hope for the best. Were we to follow that kind of course, there would be no one that could stand to protect us. The other is to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none with no comparable power anywhere in the world. We choose that course - not so we just win wars but so we prevent wars, because a strong America is the biggest deterrent to war that has ever been invented."
Let me just attempt to wrap my head around this one...military is more important than our social needs? What is your damage?! I'd like to see him give this speech at the WTC memorial - or how about to a bunch of school kids who don't know how to read but already know to hate Muslims.
And Europe relies on us?! You've got to be fucking kidding me. Even with the teetering Eurozone, there are only 4 European countries that have worse national debt than the US...guess ole Mitt was too busy polishing his gun to study up on some fucking common sense and hard facts. Good lord.
I'm no fan of Obama, but the more I hear this jack noodle talk, the more I'd like to see him pushing pens at a dead end Pentagon job - love the military so much? Go serve 'em. They deserve it.
Meanwhile, this pro-military spending loony tune is the same guy who recently said:

"You have to have a government that doesn't get too big."

What's bigger than the biggest military in the world?...


Call or Draw:
 

We crawl here on our knees and fear

Gagged and tied

lady liberty has died

call or draw

And in this mess you

wave the flag and bless

all the ones who

rape your rights for fun

call or draw

coming round that roulette wheel

coming round that roulette wheel

kill your innocence and ignorance

you can’t use them now

build your common sense,

intelligence

they won’t show you how

give it up like

virgins in a truck

all your rights in your country’s name

call or draw

are you blind?!

freedom ain’t a right you know

and those who lead

spin these lies for bribes

call or draw

coming round that roulette wheel

coming round that roulette wheel

kill your innocence and ignorance

you can’t use them now

build your common sense,

intelligence

they won’t show you how

Politics and Poetry 1

Hey Revolutionaries,

Reading these posts, you may think I suffer from extreme indecision and wavering dedication. Although those are both sometimes true, I have been trying to figure out the best way to use this blog, and now have a new idea: Politics and Poetry.
Without getting too into specifics, suffice it to say, that those two things are the meat of my writing.
Now, instead of writing whole posts dedicated to one political topic, I'm going to do bullet points of a few - the news, my take, etc. At the end, I'll have a poem to close it out. Without further adue...politics and poetry, entry 1:

• Birthers: Members of the extreme right, aka, much of the right, just won't let go of Obama's eligibility as president. Although his birth certificate was released by the White House last year, that's just not good enough, it seems. Some harp on the fact that because Obama's father was Kenyan and not a US citizen, it negates his citizenship...um...since when? My mother didn't become a citizen until I was 20 but I'm sure as shit an American citizen. Go back far enough and even the guy holding a "President Jihad" sign is no more American than Kim Jong Il. Still others are convinced that the certificate was a fake. Needless to say, this isn't doing wonders for candidate Romney's campaign. While he tries to focus on the economy and the shortfalls of Obama's term, many of his constituents pull the spotlight towards the entirely superfluous and ridiculous subject of citizenship. It's working on convincing many swing voters that the right is ripe with extremist nut jobs that care more about conspiracy theories than fixing this country. Well...judging by Romney's comment on our wonderful "safety net" for the very poor, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say he's out of touch. However, if you know anything about me, you know I feel that both sides are out of touch with anything but corporate bottom lines and career politics. But I digress...Iowa Republicans have now written into their party platform that all presidential candidates, starting this year, must "show proof of being a natural-born citizen."
In Arizona, Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced that he may keep Obama's name off of the ballots if he does not receive valid proof from Hawaii on Obama's citizenship.
I wonder if anyone has noticed the tumbling world market or the drone controversy...

• European Ties: We may not give much thought to the fact that Europe's economy is faltering, but we should. We are linked inextricably to the fate of the Eurozone. We may not have much stock in Greece but if Italy, Spain and Ireland follow suit, many of our exports would falter, thus hitting our domestic economy hard. Not to mention the slowdown in China - all in all, it is a dangerous time in the global economy and while we focus our energies here, it is vitally important to stay up to snuff on the goings on outside of our own borders.

• Egypt Election: Today was election day in Egypt. A 70 year old woman remarked in joy at this being the first time in her life that she has ever voted. The polling will take place over two days and tens of thousands of monitors are patrolling to make sure that the election is fair. It is the first time Egyptians will not know the outcome of a presidential election until the ballots are cast. This is a huge step for Egypt - being that they are the largest and arguably most powerful nation in the Arab world, this election will set the tone for others in the region. By wednesday afternoon, monitors mentioned only minor violations such as voters trying to convince others before heading in to vote. On the ballot are 13 candidates, including a representative from the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi, Amre Moussa, who served as foreign minister under Mubarak and headed the Arab League; Abdelmonen Abol Fotoh, a moderate Islamist running as a respected independent; Ahmed Shafik, who was Mubarak's last prime minister; and Hamdeen Sabahy, a leftist dark-horse contender.
While tension rides high that the interim military government will try to hijack the elections, loudspeakers atop tanks broadcast to the contrary, assuring voters that as soon as elections are over, power will be handed over to the president-elect.
Having followed the uprisings last year, and watching the 16 month interim, where reform was slow but dedication was unwavering, I hope for the best.
We could learn much from Egypt and the Arab Spring.
I'll leave you with this thought: if the people of a dictatorship can create, in 16 months, the first democratic presidential election in the history of that nation, why can we not find our way back to it?


Fool's Oasis:

How many men have you heard lying
as they dropped the ball?

And how many flags did you see flying
when the bombs fall?

How many friends would you hear dying
before you hit the wall?

Is it strange that they despise?

Oh this fool’s oasis...
this
fool’s
oasis.

Ever seen your hands stained red?
How does it feel when you go to bed?
A baby dies, a soldier cries -
we look with apathetic eyes...

Is is strange that they despise?

Oh this fool’s oasis...
this
fool’s
oasis.

Into the bomb,
into the bomb,
into the bomb
shelter.
Into the bomb,
into the bomb,
into the bomb
shelter...

Wednesday's Word: SCOTUS

Every time I see that word, I think scrotum. Maybe that's because I have my head in my pants, as my mother so eloquently puts it. However, considering the legacy of this SCOTUS, I'd rather have my head in my pants. Alas, I'm no perverse ostrich, and I'm gonna have to surface to comment.
SCOTUS, or Supreme Court of the United States, is now in the hot seat again.
To give a quick update to any ostriches out there, the Supreme Court is deliberating over whether Obama's health care bill is constitutional or not. What seems to be hanging on to the spotlight in particular is the individual mandate which dictates that every American must have health care by 2014 and will be monetarily penalized if they don't. It also offers a tax credit to those families making 100-400% ($11,000-$44,000) of the national poverty line.
Many critics say it is unconstitutional to force people into paying for health care, and penalizing them if they do not opt in. Others say that it is unjust to have those who do pay for health care carry the heavy burden of non-payers.
Now, the first deliberation came over the droll musings of the Anti-Injunction Act which basically ensures the efficient collection of taxes. It states that taxes must first be paid before they can be deemed unjust. The idea here is that if taxes were constantly deemed unjust before they headed to the government, judicial deliberation could take years (as we well know) before that hypothetical tax was paid, meanwhile the Federal Government would be...well, kind of like it is today...and we don't need any more kicks to the dying donkey (and elephant).
So, let's say that the taxation issue is a non-starter. Moving on to the next point: money aside, does the federal government reserve the right to force people into contractual agreements concerning health and money?
Well, let's break this down real quick: The health care market is a very unique one, as Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals remarked, and one that weighs down not only the federal government but also the aforementioned "opters-in." Silberman, appointed by Ronald Reagan, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and mentor to Clarence Thomas, is by anyone's standards, a staunch conservative. And he affirms the constitutionality of this bill. According to Silberman, the Commerce Clause upholds the federal governments right to create laws and mandates in the interest of the governments well being as a whole. There is nothing "in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent" that undercuts the constitutionality of this bill.
Silberman also stated, "the right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems.”
Now, Silberman is obviously not the be-all, end-all to this argument, but it opens up an interesting view point to the origins of this thinking.
In fact, conservative think tanks were the ones who first projected the idea of individual mandate. They wanted to get rid of the "free-loaders" of the system. Furthermore, with the backing of health insurance companies wanting everyone to throw a few bucks in, it brings in revenue for the corporate captains as well.
And if we can look back far enough, you'll notice that both Gingrich and Romney were fervent supporters of the bill until they started running for office.

Why am I focusing so much on the right side of this argument?
Plain and simple, because that's why it's in front of SCOTUS. The Republicans need to hit Obama hard, and whether they agree with him behind closed doors or not, they need to ensure that publicly, they stand as far away from his ideas as possible.
It is just another instance in the long string of left/right bantering that each side must throw stones and mud on the other in the name of their ideologies.
And these ideologies hold no water in the real world. Republicans think its ok to intervene in a woman's vagina but not in what cares for that vagina. They want to cut government spending but think raising taxes is too intrusive.
Democrats are not immune to shitty ideas either, don't get me wrong. I don't like Obama and I'm not a fan of much of his presidency. I think both sides are up to their necks in corporate blood money. This system needs a severe overhaul. That will take time, and a lot of work on our part, as the people.
But in this current battle in particular, the stark hypocrisy overshadows the bottom line: governments job is to govern. When things are bad and there is opportunity to make them better, government is duty-bound to act.
The Health Care Reform bill is imperfect. But what is far more imperfect is suggesting our governments move to govern is unconstitutional.

Wednesday's word: Afghanistan

It's been a while since I've put finger to key here on the RR blog, and I wanted to get the printers up and running again, so to speak. I will now be posting every Wednesday, the word of the day, the subject for the blog. This way I'll have continuous content, evenly spaced, a better system for staying on track.

And speaking of staying on track, how about Afghanistan?

According to a speech by President Obama in the Rose Garden on Tuesday, we are on track for the proposed withdrawal of 23,000 troops by the end of summer and the eventual full withdrawal by the end of 2014. Following the events of this past weekend, that seems an awfully long time to dodge the proverbial and the literal bullets.

While Obama's plan is still too short for many military moguls, he maintained that any quicker withdraw would be do more harm than good. He stressed the "responsibility" of the US to finish what we started.

"I am confident that we can continue the work of meeting our objectives ... responsibly bringing this war to a close."

The question is, how?

A US Army Staff Sergeant sneaking off his base at 3am and killing 16 civilians (9 of which were children) is just the latest in a long line of diplomatically disastrous, culturally confused events that tear and gnaw at any semblance of a working relationship we ever had with Afghanistan.

The Quran burnings are still a paramount concern, mostly due to the fact that, unlike the killing spree, the Quran is something that effects all Afghanis, something they can all rally behind as one, particularly behind an extremist entity such as the Taliban.

Yet this highlights a very key issue in Afghanistan: we don't understand the who, what or why. We don't understand the people of Afghanistan at all. Their culture and practices continue to elude us and there has been no effort to blend our proposed dealings with their way of life. It is, as usual, our way or the highway. Not a famous diplomatic musing.

This flows into the second point. We don't know what the hell is going on. That may sound trite and simplistic, but it's true. If we did have a firm grasp on the people, our dealings with them would lead to the construction of trust, not coffins. Not three weeks ago, an Afghan gunman killed two US officers inside the Interior Ministry's headquarters, notching 10 Americans this year that have been killed by men they were training. That obviously doesn't say a lot about the bonds forged, and it also calls into question the what. What the hell are we doing? Are we training people? If so, why are they using that training to kill us?

And there's the why. Why are we doing what we're doing?

Why is our strategy blowing up in our face? It seems that our combined effort of squeezing out and destroying the Taliban while building a better Afghanistan has come with a side effect of hatred and resentment, and that's a spiky precipice to build upon.

And so, each step forward has come with a stumble and drop-kick backwards. We're not seen as helpful visitors, we're seen as odious occupiers (not the Wall Street kind). We're not seen as understanding allies, we're seen as bombastic villains.

And no amount of soothing mentions from our commander-in-chief will change that. And due to our thus far comfortable stranglehold on the Afghan government, we're not going to change our actions to make amends.

Admittedly, Karzai and US forces have had issues from the get-go, but most of those issues stem from the fact that Karzai just isn't popular. He's not seen as an Afghani to many other than us, and we have pushed his presidency, and upheld it in the face of ever mounting insurgency. A simple truth is that with a different leader, one not seen as an imperial puppet, insurgents would have a harder time recruiting new killing machines in the epic battle against our evil forces.

But Karzai has played ball with us so far, and we want him to stay. Another example of not understanding "who" we're dealing with.

Yet with these blood soaked incidents piling high, even Karzai can't ignore our continued failures. First drafted in 2010, a new law in Afghanistan will require all foreign aid and business workers to use Afghan security as opposed to private. Out west, the powers-that-be predict that that law will trigger the shutdown of almost every development project. Bottom line: no trust. No one's gonna head out to the build site if they think the person driving them is gonna open fire before their seat belt is buckled.

So again, why are we hanging on?

Karzai first pulled this card in 2010, but quickly withdrew it back up his sleeve after Gen. Petraeus phoned his national security adviser saying, “Your president has put me in an untenable position. Please take note of that word. I chose it carefully.”

Karzai, fearing the withdrawal of Petraeus would mark the withdrawal of the US forces, backed down. Now, that fear is shrouded with smoke and dead bodies, an untenable argument against the reality of the situation.

That bottom line of no trust is the bottom line we need to focus on. We are not building anything but resentment and hatred. This war is not one to be won, it is one to be ended.

Even if development projects do move forward despite the new legislation, we are not gaining ground here. Again, we make a little headway which is then quickly swatted by exceedingly tense and hostile ties.

And at this point, I feel the argument can be made and should be made, that even if we do decide to move forward, tucking our pride and taking every possible chance to better understand, integrate and respect, it's too late.

Our best bet now is to salvage what we can and let the pieces fall where they may. This is a quagmire. It is an endless exercise in futility. Bring the troops home, and from the diplomatic desk, try to unfuck this situation. Bombs, mortars, guns and lunatics don't fix, they destroy.

It's over. Call it.

SOPA and PIPA (sample letter at bottom of post)

Marketed as anti-piracy acts, The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate companion, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) seek to hold websites accountable for including any copyright infringed material on their sites. As a quick aside, the bills grant immunity to ad networks and payment processors involved in any copyright infringement battles, so no matter what, only the site suffers.

Here's the scoop. I'm an artist. I work damn hard on my intellectual and artistic property and the last thing I want to see is someone pirating it. However, I also don't want to go to the internet one day and find that thousands of sites are "off limits" due to what Congress decides is piracy.
Smacks just a little too much of 1984.
We do need to come up with more cohesive and powerful laws to fight piracy and copyright infringement. But this isn't it. These are bills that directly target smaller market sites, i.e. Wikipedia, and focus on bolstering the gains and rights of big market moguls. That's a familiar tune these days, but don't let it become our new national anthem.

Today on wikipedia, you can type in your zip code and find contact information for your representatives. Write to them, call them. Beyond that, find a local chapter of Occupy or Move to Amend or similar organizations and fight for this country, of the people, by the people and for the people - before it by law, becomes a country of the corporations, by the corporations and of the corporations.

Here is a sample letter to make use of:

I am proud to be American. But I am greatly disappointed with what that has come to mean. A country run by corporations, for corporations and of corporations is not the country granted to us in the constitution.
In the past, rights have been usurped by the power of an economic oligarch.
Now, that power extends to the wide expanse of the internet. Don't let it.
SOPA and PIPA are created by those who gain significantly from the slashing of our rights and the strict control of our freedoms. That is not what our republic is founded upon.

Please block SOPA and PIPA from blocking our ability to gain information from and access to the internet as a whole. Constricting that access is constricting our constitutional rights, however it is dressed in verbose legalese.

Vote no and take a stand for the people.

Your constituent,

The quiet exit

Well, we certainly made an entrance: the here-comes-the-cavalry yankee yell, guns blazing, stores-a-looting, oil fields a-pillaging (don't mention the WMD's - cough, cough), and now, we're making a quiet, subtle exit: a solemn flag lowering ceremony at the bunker Baghdad airport, a few predictable words from Defense Secretary Panetta and then...the end.
More than 8 years after the start of the Iraq war, the last of the US troops have left.
And, that's pretty much that. The whole affair smacked of the disillusioned disappointment in this democratic crusade. As many Iraqis have said, "It's worse now than it was with Saddam." One man commented that although he hated Saddam, when he ruled, Iraqis could safely walk the streets, so long as they didn't openly oppose his rule. Now, they are afraid to go out at all. Human rights organizations estimate the Iraqi civilian death toll to be upwards of 100,000. Over 4,000 US troops lost their lives. Nearly $800 billion have been spent, and as you can see from the image above, taken from a British paper, the other numbers associated with this arrogant endeavor cast a dark shadow on an already clouded and soiled operation.
Both Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani were invited to the ceremony. Neither came. The only notable Iraqis to attend were a former defense minister and three generals who have worked closely with U.S. forces and who frequently pressed for them to stay.
Others have made the case for pressing on, considering that sectarian violence continues, although significantly less than the surge around 2006/07 when our ground troop count rocketed to 168,000. Others argue that the country is not ready to take full control, having had all their own security forces and army disbanded ; that leaving now would effectively pull what little security was available right out from under Iraqis.
However, few Iraqis support the US's prolonged occupation. And with good reason. As the man said above, things are a considerable cluster fuck compared to the organized yet dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein.
For example, prior to the death of Al Qaeda enemy Hussein, the terrorist organization was absent from Iraq's "godless" regime. Since his death, Al Qaeda has begun to win favor in the disorganized country, along with the long suppressed militant Shia groups.
On the flip side, the northern Kurds, who were brutally persecuted under Hussein, enjoy new found freedoms in politics and business, with an oil-rich economy fueling happy handshakes between their representatives and ours.
But victories such as those are few and far between.
The fragmentation of a country as rich in natural resources as it is in cultural conflict, paints a messy picture of warring clans fighting for what we left.
And one of the critical things we didn't leave was any sense of organization or strong hierarchy a country like that requires.
Why? Well, because we have no idea how to. We planned for six months before invading Iraq, and that lack of preparedness and understanding has followed us on this near-9 year run. It is a haunting sting for those who were sent and those who were left behind to try and make sense of things.
As the last troops make their way home, the only thing I can make sense of is that there was no sense in it. This wasn't a war of honor or heroic acts. As the past shows, we had no problem with Hussein being a vicious dictator - except for the fact that he wasn't OUR vicious dictator. He snubbed us one too many times. He posed no threat to us, militantly, economically or otherwise. This venture was purely financial. It was a flex of muscle and top tiers marking bottom lines. It wasn't about freedom or weapons. It was about power, resources and financial opportunities.
I sit, thinking back to the wars I heard about growing up - today, it seems almost fictional: Hitler, the bad guy must be stopped. US is here to help! Look at our burgeoning economy, our proud nation coming to the aid of our European friends in need!
Today, as our economy limps along, and a fractured nation barely notices the murmur of the end, I can only hope that we learn something here.
I can only hope that we see the parallels - the parallels of a nation usurped by greed and these blood soaked escapades that will always end the same: no victory, just a silent flag lowered, perhaps more indicative of the ideals we failed to uphold...
Billions were spent and billions were made. Thousands of lives were lost and many were lifted to the gilded arches of riches and political power.
I am forever grateful to those who fight for our country, who stand up to protect us should we need it.
And I will forever fight, my anger a sharpened tool of determination, against those who use their own people as pawns for fortune and frivolous business ventures.
I am glad the troops are home. I am greatly disappointed that they were ever there.
Welcome home. Let us hope that you will never again be sent on a mindless money mission. That is our duty - as citizens, to protect those who would protect us, from ever having to war under these conditions. You served us. Now we must serve you. We, the people, must learn from this, or Iraq will be a blueprint for many more freedom crusades. Don't let that happen.
Think. React. Do Something.