Politics and Poetry: Around the world

A weekend sampler platter from around the world - mind the sassy American fare and the Russian herring - could be cause for indigestion.

Rose Garden Rogue Reporter: Obama announced new immigration laws yesterday that would allow illegal immigrants who entered into the US as children, to stay as long as they meet certain criteria. Many conservatives, and well, Americans in general, are rolling their eyes at this election year "hand out." One such man is Neil Munro, a conservative blogger for the site the Daily Caller. Wearing a temporary press badge, he interrupted Obama while he spoke, asking: "What about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners?" Obama didn't appreciate the interruption and made it blatantly clear, chastising the reporter before ignoring the question and waiting till the end of his statements to respond, saying how much these young immigrants contribute to our country, from building businesses to serving in the military. Once he answered that question, he quickly turned his back and walked away, taking no further questions.
Now, Munro claims that it was certainly not his intention to interrupt the President, that he was merely trying to get a question in at the last moment, knowing how seldom Obama takes questions at these events. He also, however, told CNN: "I have to ask the questions that you all won't."
Now that, I agree with. No one is asking questions here, at least not ones that matter. In a way, Munro's question is kind of a non-starter as well. Here's one I'd like to ask: "What happens if/when this law is overturned by subsequent administrations, as is often the case?" or "Why has it taken this long to come up with something you feel is so obvious - why now, in election year?"
I'd wager a bullshit response for both, but if a question is going to be aired to the nation, those are more valid, I think. Munro's question is a clearly aimed torpedo at the left with "fuck you, from the right" painted on the side. It's more of the same left/right banter and hectoring that always happens in an election year, a 8 or 9 month pissing contest that ends like a bad prom night: broken promises, faded dreams and a lingering hangover.
I'm with Munro on wanting to ask questions regardless of whether the President is ready for them or not. Propriety be damned. This nation needs more action and less pomp and circumstance.

Just a red herring: US intelligence (wait, don't stop reading yet) believes that Russia has deployed a ship with weapons and troops en route to Syria. According to who's who, the ship has been sent to protect Russia's naval base as the situation in Syria continues to plummet into utter disaster and mayhem. The worry is that Russia has other plans for the troops and weapons once in Syria. This news comes after flying fur between Secretary of State Clinton and Russian officials over Russia shipping attack helicopters to the fascist regime. Russia claims that the helicopters are not new and are simply part of an outstanding contract between Syria and Russia. The director of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in New York, a Kremlin-backed, non-governmental organization (which means a government backed, non-government backed organization) argues that Russia is opposed to sending troops to Syria, understanding that it would prompt other countries into responding with force, something Russia doesn't want to get in the middle of. Never a dull moment, eh? Here's my problem with this - the two issues are not mutually exclusive. Let's say you send the troops to protect that base, vital to Middle Eastern operations for Russia. OK - let's say that Syria takes that as a threat, or even if they don't, introducing large weapons and troops into that kind of situation doesn't speak of tea parties and sit down conversations. If and when the base is attacked by Syrian forces, Russian forces with fight back. And then, there you have it. They weren't meant to start shit in Syria, but oops, that gun I have just kind of did what it was meant to and here we are now - civil war turned outright international war. Now, I'm not a big fan of our ambiguously spineless stance on Syria but I don't want 18 year olds sent to Syria when they should be at home interrupting Obama in the Rose Garden. The UN has already pulled its observers, there to check on Kofi Annan's peace plan (sorry, but that was a joke from the start). Children are being used as human shields, doctors killed for aiding the wounded. If you're going to show force, show force. Don't send in UN observers, and don't tease a rabid animal with 'protecting your naval base.' Do something or don't. Half assing it does no one any favors, least of all, the dying civilians on the inside.

A mile in our shoes: Egypt will vote this weekend between "the lesser of two evils," a Mubarak man or an Islamist brother. It seems that their democracy is faltering before it has a chance to stand - somewhat like ours, only that ours is crumbling from a self made pedestal. Either way, the lesser of two evils argument is a well known one. Many Egyptians feel that they're back at square one, in fighting and disillusionment rampant as the imminent hand over of military to civilian rule draws nearer. The fear is that the military will not relinquish power, thus forcing a violent end to the attempted democratic proceedings. As polling began Saturday, a third option arose that seemed quite the popular choice: boycott. Still, Egyptians are showing up to vote, one man explaining his choice as "the best of the worst."
Another issue is that polling takes place with no parliament or constitution in place, just the military. The new president has no clear cut role or description, only that he will answer to the military leaders until a constitution is drafted and parliament elected, two things that have no set deadline as of now.
Unrest simmers, but the streets remained relatively quiet in comparison to a year ago. I, for one, hope that unrest doesn't fizzle into apathetic acceptance. Though both our nations can relate to choosing between two steaming piles, at least they seem to be concerned about that predicament.


Democratia

I won’t go where you are leading

Your two faces are deceiving. 

Whip me, beat me with your faith.

Freedom tastes of chains and death.

Bottom line’s your holy scroll

Greed soaked tyrants find a home

Liberty, justice take the stage

Figure heads in your crusade.

Schizophrenic hypocrites

How dare you kill in our name

Democratically insane

We all lose while you few gain

Here we go

Follow me...follow me...follow me

Divide et impera

Democratia fide est

God Bless America

Defend Freedom

Divide et impera

Democratia fide est

Volvo with a gun rack

As I read through some of the debate dialog, from Republican hopefuls to the Senate Resolution, an old memory of Robin Williams' voice put a smile, albeit a weak one, on my face. "Compassionate conservative? That's like a Volvo with a gun rack."

Back in the day, 'compassionate conservative' was an actual term, a tongue-in-cheek way of noting certain right wingers un-right wing affinity for government sponsored social organizations and subsidies. It was a snide remark back then, descriptive of few. Now, it's damn near ludicrous and imaginary.

At last weeks debate, Wolf Blitzer from CNN posed a question to Ron Paul about a hypothetical 30 year old man with no health insurance who had fallen very ill. In order to survive he would need 6 months in the ICU. Should, he asked, "we just let him die?" Before Ron Paul could answer, several Tea Partiers in the crowd yelled, "Yeah!" followed by cheers, jeers and applause. Ummmmmm...

Let me put it this way, if I beat the ever loving shit out of you, not kill you (because then I know we'd go with death penalty), but just beat you to the point where you need a fingerprint to prove it's actually you - society should pay for me to sit in jail, get three meals a day, learn how to shank and become a drug dealer, but you, you, the victim - society should let you either die in a gutter or, pay medical bills for the rest of your life...

Hmmmm - justice?

Now, let me go ahead and say that I don't think this country could EVER become a socialist nation. It's simply not in our DNA. However, I do think that a socialized republic is a lofty but ultimately attainable goal. That is of course, if we can get up off our asses and do something about it. But that's another soap box I'm not getting up on right now.

Right wingers seem to think that simply by cutting down government, everything from the market to humanity will even itself out to its best full potential. For fucks sake people - I mean, come on! Daniel Foster actually wrote in the NationalReview.com that the best way for people to get through tough times is to lean on family, friends and the church, not government. OK - well let's say all your friends and family are shit poor too - and the church? Oh, blow it out your ass Foster. The only thing the church is good for in times of need is to remind you how fucked you are by having to pay taxes they skirt because of some guy nailed to a pair of sticks.

Wanna know what I see here in downtown LA? On the average day, just going out for simple errands: walk to the bank, post office, coffee shop, the car - I see on average 20 homeless people. Wanna know what else I see? I see people outside of government subsidized missions and homeless shelters, waiting in line for food and blankets. Guess whose stoop is empty? The church.

It sounds nice and philanthropic but this utopia where a band of family, friends and make believe deities is always there with the right amount of cash, love and guidance just isn't fucking reality. Forgive me for entering into the realm of depressive realism, but reality blows sometimes.

That being said, reality can blow a lot less with a buffer against the harsh, biting winds of bad times. That buffer is called a government for the people, by the people and of the people. A government that works on behalf of the people it governs. It does not sit, laissez-faire while its people beg each other for loose change and a hand out. However, it does not hand out needlessly or without self interest. Interestingly enough, when a well formed government acts in its own self interest, that self interest is your self interest - hahaha, wow! Follow along with me for a second...

It creates and maintains a system of give and take. You put in an appropriate amount of your earnings knowing that should you need that buffer, it's there for you. You realize that when you go into the hospital or when you send your kids to school, it's your money that's paying for it, but also that of your friends, family and neighbours (not the church tho - they don't pay dick). You can feel proud and ironically, free, knowing that you are part of a strong, people drive system, working for the people, by the people. It is a colossal behemoth of human ingenuity and drive - progressively moving forward without leaving everyone behind. It cares without coddling. It sets up rules and regulations based on the interests of many, not the prized few. It takes into account well being, not accounts. And in so doing, it has a healthy account, both monetarily and in the hearts and minds of those it governs.

Sounds Utopian? Probably. But these tenets are tenets taken from the ideas and dreams of the founding of this country. If the constitutionalists behind people like Ron Paul really wanna feel patriotic, consider stepping outside the confines of bottom lines and extremist propaganda.

There's no such thing as a free market that works. There's no such thing as a non-existent government that works. And there's no such thing as a free people under either.

Drop your extremist ideologies, and come see what the center feels like. I promise, if you look back at our country's history - it looks pretty damn healthy, happy, successful, and...free.

Ja, vi elsker dette landet...

Scandinavians aren't terrorists. Scandinavians aren't terrorists. Scandinavians aren't terrorists...
I can recall hearing about a Bush visit to Denmark a few years ago. Apparently, there was to be heightened security after "Danish Terrorists" threatened violence against the unpopular W. I remember chuckling to myself. Danish Terrorists? Oh for fuck's sake.
Scandinavians aren't terrorists. Scandinavians aren't terrorists. Scandinavians aren't terrorists...
Think about it. When someone says terrorist, your mind immediately shifts to men draped in bullets and automatic rifles, dark eyes and black hair peering out from behind militant head scarves. You don't think of a blonde, blue-eyed Norwegian.
Is that wrong? You tell me.

Whether we like to admit it or not, our brains categorize information. If you've gotten stung by a jelly fish twice, you're more likely to think of one when you feel a sharp pain in your hand as you splash around.

Of course, unlike with jelly-fish, our media and mass produced fear over-exaggerate the threat of masked Muslim gunmen overtaking our city upon a hill. The graver threat is with the deliberately downtrodden international masses we mine for money...but that's another story.

In terms of our highly organized minds, it is interesting to ponder the pathways, the apparent roadways our thoughts like to take. When hit with certain information, most of us like the well-lit paths that we've walked before. Abstract thinking is of course something entirely different, where cobwebbed corners are most inviting - if you're into that sort of thing. Many aren't.

But this smacked of something straightforward - evil acts. Something bad happened. It looked like this. It happened like this. Bomb. Shooting. Innocents killed. Extremist.

What's the image in your head right now?

Well, maybe now it is the clean face of Anders Breivik, about as Aryan as they come. But maybe it's not...maybe it wasn't...

Yesterday I posted a question on my facebook page asking people to comment on the events in Norway. Interestingly enough, not many commented on Norway. There was almost an immediate shift to the Middle East. Even my comment as to the relevance of that connection did not stifle the commentary that ensued: Mossad is involved, it's Israel and Palestine, the Saudis, the Arabs, and on and on. Meanwhile CNN is posting excerpts from the perp's right wing extremist "manifesto" foretelling a European civil war and an end to "cultural Marxists" and Muslims.

News outlets from around the world say with solemn tones that Norwegians are racking their minds to understand how one of their own, a Norwegian could do this, why?
Can you blame them? What happened...Oklahoma City, Columbine, Waco, and more recently, Tuscon? One of our own...Americans. They didn't fit the profile of scapegoat. They were in our midst - in hindsight, they showed signs, but come on, they were one of us, how are we supposed to know?

Is this argument bullshit? Can we sit here and say that had he been our neighbour, we would have singled him out as someone capable of this - as opposed to a rather vehemently patriotic odd ball?

Unless you're overly paranoid, probably not. For those of you who haven't been to Norway, this shit just doesn't happen. Being from Sweden, I can tell you that a man attempting to rob a bank with a wood splint constitutes news (true story). But in that same breath, does that allow us to ignore the unthinkable when it becomes the unavoidable reality?

Why is it when our own do it, they're ill and when Muslims do it, it's their nature? I'm of the mind that anyone who kills innocent people, detonates bombs in highly trafficked civilian areas and clings to ideals like white on rice is absolutely stone cold fucking nuts.

So what now - if we can allow ourselves to accept it, what does that mean for the future? Anyone can be a murderer? Anyone is capable of the most atrocious acts in the name of bigotry and extremism?

Call me romantic, but I still have a little faith in mankind. This will only push us to paranoia if we allow it to. This is not the norm. The banter has begun, and will continue. But it is up to us to control the knee jerk reactions of those well lit pathways in the mind. Paradigms shift. In the complexities of our thoughts, we can reign in the fly aways and focus on the issues at hand.

As of now, that is bringing to justice the man (or men, however this unfolds) responsible for this.

From there, I think it would behoove all of us, to use those cobwebbed corners a little more frequently. Not just to allow for broader horizons in respect to "othering" and projection of faults, but to actually search for those faults, to find where hate is bred, where acts like these are born. And not only where but why...

Let us learn from this. My hear goes out to all those involved in these tragic events.

Hårde tider har vi døyet...Ja, vi elsker dette landet.

Right in the middle...

As we all know this country is a two-party governmental system. With the primaries sneaking ever closer, there are few illusions as to the voiceless middle's absence from any sort of campaigning or long shot chance at a victory in key races. Wandering through the myriad of news stories yesterday, I came across an interesting piece on CNN discussing the "Militant Middle" as they're coming to be known. If you follow politics, you'll know that most of the US is not made up of tea partiers and Greenpeace vegans. At least, at the very least, 1/3 of Americans are in fact moderates. That doesn't necessarily mean independents or Green partiers that like ruining the election for the terror twins. No, it just means that they don't necessarily fit the corporate status quo laid out by the left and right pillars of our government. I found it interesting when the article quoted Rep. Kathleen Curry (Colorado) as saying she left the Democratic party due to their demands she listen to them more than her constituents. It is a complaint too few politicians are making and far too few voters are acknowledging. However, according to the article, there is a growing middle "party" if you will, that is acknowledging this horrendous disconnect between voters wants/needs and what is actually getting done. I checked out one of the sites mentioned in the article, ModerateVoters.org and found an interesting buffet of moderate styled news. Their key phrase at the top reads: "First, there was the conservative Drudge Report. Next, there was the liberal Huffington Post. Finally, for the rest of us, there is Moderate Voters."
While I joined the site and appreciate the growing forum for people who don't like being pulled left or right for the sake of a politicians career, I wonder if it's not unfortunately more lip service. Rick Bayan, a moderate who was excited about Obama and now complains he's more establishment than promised (sorry Rick, should've seen that coming) concedes that what this country needs is "extremist moderates." I don't really like that terminology. Extremist anything implies the inability to see anyone else's point of view other than your own. It smacks of arrogance, self righteousness and overall asshole-ishness that I don't think we need more of in this country.
I will however agree that if shit is going to change, the people who aren't loony tuned extreme left and right need to step up and do something, without pussy footing around issues or people's personal feelings. Bipartisanship my ass, it's called getting shit done for this country. You don't need to "cross party lines," you need to ignore party lines, lay down your ill-placed loyalties to elephants and donkeys and focus on the people instead. There is a growing middle and I think we've all noticed it. The Tea Party has certainly provided moderate Republicans a reason to start walking towards the middle a bit. Disappointment with Obama and really anyone else elected under a Democrat or Republican party flag is coaxing more and more people to head center. And contrary to popular belief, these are the people that are the most engaged in politics - again, what this country needs. Many people complain that moderates or independents just need to make up their mind. In fact, they have. Just like most atheists or agnostics are so because of their experiences in religion, most moderates chose to be so not because they're indecisive but because they dug past party propaganda and found nothing but empty promises and mud slinging popularity contests.
So, what's next? Well, as I said, while I'm excited about the new mutterings of moderates getting louder, I fear it may be more talk than action. The right and left history of this country is ingrained in more than just those who uphold it. If a third party were to be introduced would Americans (even those who are tired with the right and left) know how to handle it? Is the two-party system too tattooed in our political minds to break away from the choking comfort it brings?
Apart from the voters side, the terror twins are not likely to willingly accept another contender for CEO of the White House, particularly if that contender is more honest and less corrupt.
It's a long, hard road for an endeavour such as this. One thing is definitely for certain. If moderates are to rise to legitimately battle the right and the left for power, toppling status quo and the for sale nature of our government, they must rise above forums and the chic suffering of an alternative culture.
Another article I read today spoke of conservative activists crossing lines of custom, tradition and even the law to get their point across. Not to be a bad influence, but how come the middle isn't doing that? Why are the Ann Coulters the only ones who have a fire in their bellies? Grab hold of the average American psyche - the one that can't be explained with extremist left or right hectoring. Grab hold of it and change something, not hope for change or campaign for change, really change something. As I sit here writing this with no plans to blow up parliament, I realize the hypocritical nature of this post. So, I leave you to go write some incendiary lyrics to stir the pot...hope to see you on the other side.

Will the wall fall?

Is it better to do a little or to do nothing until you can do a lot?
That's clearly the question Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was asking himself as the Senate walked in to decide on the Wall Street Reform bill.
He decided to wait.
The majority however, decided to do a little and pass what many are calling "the most-sweeping set of changes to America's financial regulatory system since the 1930s."
Of course, as politics is a debating game, much of the proposed legislation present in the bills infancy had been ripped off by the back-and-forthing (yes, that's a technical term) of our mature and distinguished two party system.
Obama said that this is the kind of "reform that will prevent the kind of shadowy deals that led to this crisis, reform that would never again put taxpayers on the hook for Wall Street's mistakes." I wish it were that simple. Critics of the bill, and realists in general make note of several shortcomings of the new bill. While many critics also tout the positives of even such a watered down reform bill, there are a few glaring issues citizens should be wary of.
First of all, if it sounds too good to be true, it is. I'm not just talking about the get rich quick schemes or penis enlargement, the same cynical judgement should be used when reading about life altering changes born in the stuffy, stagnant halls of congress.
As you may have noticed from my previous posts and any other information you may have dug up on your own, corporations are the governing party with the three branches the bejeweled figureheads of their crown. There's no way in hell or Helsinki that a bill strong enough to deflate corporate power would ever make it through the first security checkpoint in congress. Don't believe me? Take a look at this: the bill sets up a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inside the Federal Reserve that could write new rules to protect consumers from unfair or abusive practices in mortgages and credit cards. That would be a good deal if the Federal Reserve wasn't a fucking corporation! Here, I have an idea. Why don't we get BP to be in charge of the National Oil Commission? I'm sure they'd be equally as honest as the guys from the Fed. We're asking what is arguably the most powerful corporation in our country to police the other corporations? Right. Until the Fed is nationalized and brought under the yolk of the republic, I trust them about as much as I trust that shady character who hangs around the bus stop at 2am with a whisky bottle in his hand.
Furthermore, CNN reports that part of the negotiations led to Wall Street Banks still having the right to "get wiggle room to make limited risky bets, which is tougher than the current law, but weaker than earlier drafts." What exactly constitutes wiggle room? What does that translate to in billions of taxpayer dollars? Can we get a technical term, or is wiggle room all our current education system allows us to understand?
I do applaud the "little things" such as limiting Wall Streets' speculative bets on their accounts and ownership of hedge funds, along with an effort to curb the evil derivative, a favorite scapegoat of the financial crisis. My applause is bittersweet however, when I read comments from Wall Street cats such as: "“If you talk to anyone privately, there's a sigh of relief. It'll crimp the profit pool initially by 15-20%, but there's no breakup of any institution or onerous new taxes.” Another investment banker and ex-Treasury deputy shared that he felt the health care bill will affect its industry “exponentially more than this legislation is going to change Wall Street. It's not even close.”
So, is it better to do a little or wait till you can do more? Will this bill just give Wall Street all the more cocky brashness to do whatever the hell they want, or will it curb they haywire wild-west financial game of Russian Roulette?
We wait with baited breath.

9/11 trial flip-flop

I woke up this morning to a dark, moustached, sunken-eyed character, with large glasses and a white covering on his head. Luckily, it was just a CNN update on my phone and not really Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in my apartment.
Apparently, there is some stipulation as to how he will be tried. Obama had said that he wanted Mohammed to be tried in NYC, as a symbol of U.S. rule of law. New York officials say that's bullshit and don't want the trial to take place there. NYPD estimate that the trial would cost upwards of $200 million per year and would in all likelihood last more than one year. They said they would need to install at least 2,000 checkpoints in lower Manhattan. Now, if you've ever been to lower Manhattan, it's hard enough to get into a cab down there, much less pass through hundreds of checkpoints.
Many Republicans also complained at the idea of trying Mohammed in a civil court.
Progressives, on the other hand, cringed at the idea of overturning the decision for Mohammed to be tried in a civil court. Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union said "If the president flip-flops and retreats to the Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law." Ouch.
Joe Lieberman, everyone's favorite independent said that trying Mohammed as if he were just a common criminal is "justice according to 'Alice in Wonderland.'" I wonder if he's seen it already...

Mohammed is no mad hatter though and speculation abounds as to how he should be dealt with. I have to go with civil court on this one. I can, however, see both sides. I don't want the American people to have to pay to try someone who killed their friends and families. Unfortunately, we'd have to pay for the military tribunal as well. It's simply a matter of proceedings. A civil trial awards him the same rights as an American citizen. In a military tribunal, however, there's a lot more leeway on how things are handled. Bush and his cronies supported the idea of a military tribunal in dealing with the 9/11 attackers. It's not just because of Bush that I think a civil trial is better. The U.S. is in a state of disarray at the moment. Our economy and infrastructure is fucked beyond description. We are not a city upon a hill, but we can try and climb from the trenches occasionally and stand by our own principles. If we start to decide who is worthy of what kind of a trial, whose to say that one day you or I won't be put before a military tribunal instead of a civil court? Mohammed is not an American citizen, but he is in American custody. He committed crimes on American soil. It's not like they're gonna give him 5 years with probation. He will mostly likely die. In both cases, he would be sentenced to death. In both cases, we have to pay out of pocket for it. Such is the way of things. So, why not avoid hypocrisy and another shove toward martial law and go the civil route? In my mind, if you put Mohammed before a military tribunal, you gotta put Bush and Cheney up there too. For, in my mind, they've done just as much, if not more to harm the people of this nation.

Obama talks the talk...

...but can he follow it up with powerful legislation aimed at fixing the issues at hand? That's how that saying goes, right?
The CNN headline from yesterday said "Obama rips Republican obstruction." Now before you get images of the full-of-fight Sumner and Brooks in the halls of Congress, Obama's "rip" was far less injuring or physical.
Obama did, however, lash out at GOP tactics of filibustering and throwing insults rather than pushing for change and reform.
And like his State of the Union, Obama didn't shield Democrats from criticism. He said that the Democrats' strategy to "do nothing" about the Massachusets Massacre is a terrible idea. "We should do more and we should do so without delay," Obama scolded.
He complained that Democrats have been very compromising while Republicans continue to do the old, fingers-in-ears-not-listening routine.
He mentioned, with applause from me, that most people don't give a flying fuck (not his choice of words) who has a majority, what processes are necessary for bills to be passed, they just want them passed, according to what they voted for! They want to know what the elected officials are doing FOR them.
Having read this article on CNN, I momentarily let out a cheer in my head, but the skeptical twin meandered into my brain and reminded me that there is a big difference between scolding people, talking on a podium and getting down and dirty and pushing for change. I myself, have to admit that writing this blog is a lot easier than actually going out there and doing the work.
So, Obama, let's do this. The people want it, you say you do, so what the hell are we waiting for?