Translate

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Iraqi Shoe-Thrower's Sentence Reduced To One Year.

The Iraqi man and journalist who threw a shoe at George W. Bush and rightly cursed his name has had his sentence reduced from three years to one year by the Iraq highest court. This is good news in an otherwise bleak world. Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the shoe-thrower, will be released from prison by December of 2009.

If you remember, George W. Bush decided to make one last stop-over in Iraq before being thrown out of office in disgrace, to summon the local press to appear to bow down to him and call him "Leader," or "Savior," but instead, a local journalist took off his shoes and threw them at Bush, cursing him. He was immediately seized by Maliki's goon squads, taken to prison, reportedly beaten, run through a kangaroo court and sentenced to 3 years as if he had done something bad.

The world thought he'd done something good, and there were mass demonstrations in many countries, as well as organized letters, calls, e-mails, send-a-shoe-campaigns, all demanding this man be freed, all cheering him for what he had done.

The mainstream media and most world politicians were clueless as to why the public would care about somebody throwing a shoe. You could tell by their "quips," (only people who went to private boys schools think quips are clever -- everyone else thinks they're annoying). They would use demeaning little sayings and headlines, like Barefoot Hero, and Shoe Toss Fans. To trivialize what he had done. Or maybe because they just don't get it.

But to the rest of the world, the man was a hero because he stood up and did what many of us wanted to do: throw a shoe at George W. Bush. Tell him that we are onto his lies, that he is a murderer and a criminal, and we all know the truth.

I'm beginning to think the legal system in Iraq, the lawyers, the judges, must have some integrity. If this man was in the U.S., our Supreme Court is so packed with right-wing ideologues, Federalist Society groupies, that they would have been more likely to increase his sentence. That's why it really does matter who ends up being the judges.

The "Iraq" section of my newspaper is carrying this story front and center, surrounded by the "other" stories of people being blown up, car bombs, death, mahem, endless war.


How does Prime Minister al-Maliki work this out in his head, focusing his wrath and scorn on a man who threw a shoe (and didn't hit anyone) while American death squads have been allowed to freely roam his country, with his consent, murdering at random, and American contractors are in the process of looting Iraq's oil, the only real asset the country has?

What about the police, responsible for massive waves of ethnic cleansing, slaughtering their neighbors? Nothing much to say about them.

But Oh My Goodness, al-Maliki really was annoyed at the man who threw his shoe away.


The prosecution said his action constituted an assault on a foreign leader. The shoe-thrower's attorneys said that what he did was an expression of freedom. Yes indeed, it certainly was, and it caught the attention of the entire world.

It's funny how one single act of principle and courage can inspire the world. Mr. al-Zeidi has 22,000 fans on Facebook. Let's all act with principle and courage and publicly demand that these wars be ended.


Now we need a parole and a world-wide speaking tour and a visa. This man should be congratulated for standing up to the lies, not shut away in prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_shoe_thrower




Monday, April 6, 2009

Casting Call For Film Version of Edward Gorey's "The Loathesome Couple."

Edward Gorey was a brilliant writer/illustrator. He died in early 2000, which is probably just as well because the post-9/11 insanity of the Bush-Cheney Reign of Horror would likely have killed him anyway. People who watch "Mystery" on PBS have seen his pen and ink drawings which are used at the beginning of each "Mystery" program.

One of his books was named The Loathesome Couple. It is hysterical. It is pen and ink, kind of cartoon, almost children's book-style, loosely based on an English couple who had kidnapped and murdered young children, eventually were caught, and sent to an insane asylum.

Isn't it time we brought those characters to film? Isn't there someone out there ready to take on this project?

Here's an excerpt from an article in Salon in February of 2000, talking about the initial efforts of Gorey to get The Loathesome Couple published:

"Consider the reaction of Robert Gottlieb -- then at Simon & Schuster and later the editor of the New Yorker -- when Gorey's agent presented him with The Loathsome Couple, a tale based on the story of a British couple who murdered several children, only to be caught when they dropped photographs depicting their handiwork on a crowded bus. (The book's frontispiece declares, 'This book may prove to be its author's most unpleasant ever.') Gottlieb rejected the book on the grounds that it wasn't funny. An astonished Gorey replied, Well, Bob, it wasn't supposed to be funny; what a peculiar reaction.'"

"But, of course, 'The Loathsome Couple' is hysterically funny. You will be forgiven for finding the juxtaposition of child murders with helpless laughter outrageously blasphemous. The humor in this story comes from the sheer blandness of it all. Mona and Harold, the hapless villains, move from their dismal childhoods to dismal adulthoods of petty crime, to an unsuccessful union (they 'fumble with each other in a cold woodshed' after a crime film, and when they attempt to make love, their 'strenuous and prolonged efforts came to nothing') to embarking on their 'life's work' -- luring small children to their deaths in a rented 'remote and undesirable villa.' To celebrate their first kill, Harold and Mona dine on 'cornflakes and treacle, turnip sandwiches and artificial grape soda.'"

http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2000/02/15/gorey/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=110

I know who comes to my mind when I try to put these cartoon characters into human form: Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Not that they would kill children. Well, they do love war, and children are killed in wars. But mostly I mean the loathesome part. And wouldn't they be the perfect couple? It's like each has been wandering the world looking for Mr. Right or Mrs. Right for their entire lives, yet they passed as near-strangers at many a Cpac event. Only fate has kept them apart.

I mean think about it for a minute. They're both "available" rather late in life. He's certainly tried, tried, and tried again God knows, but I think he's a three-time loser in the marriage department. And nobody really knows about Ann's hooking-up story, although there are nasty rumors about her Adams Apple -- which probably is just a part of her spine which juts out in front because of her special "diet." What is it about those Republican women? Do the men withhold food as a form of punishment?

Here are a few choice lines from the book:

"Harold Snedleigh was found beating a sick small animal to death with a rock when he was five years old. That year Mona Gritch was born to a pair of drunkards. ... As a child Mona already had thick ankles and thin hair."

In the book, the couple eventually gets caught, found insane, sent to an insane asylum where "Mona failed to such an extent that for most of her life she did nothing but lick spots on the walls."

Newt and Sarah? "Dr" Laura and Senator Boner? Joe the Plumber and Bush's Stepford press lady? Who is the most loathesome couple of all?

Friday, April 3, 2009

Franz Liszt, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2

(Painting depicts Franz Liszt playing piano with a bust of Beethoven looking down, in around 1840, surrounded by his friends Victor Hugo, Paganinni, Rossini and others)

Franz Liszt (1811-1886) was a Hungarian composer and performer, considered by many to have been the greatest pianist of his time. One of his piano teachers had, himself, been taught by Beethoven. Liszt was a very religious person, Catholic, and at different times in his life struggled with a belief that he should join the church and become a priest.

He toured in his earlier years and gained tremendous acclaim for his technical skills as a pianist. In later years, he settled into a relationship, and devoted more of his time to composing.

Liszt, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, performed by Horowitz at Carnegie Hall, 1953.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Who Does Michelle Obama Think She Is, Anyway? The Queen of England?

Who does Michelle Obama think she is, anyway? The Queen of England?

Well no, actually, she's a lot better than that. She's the First Lady of the United States of America. And nobody gave her the job when she was born -- she's had to work hard all her life, as a member of an excluded minority group that's always been persecuted in this country. You know, just like the Irish have been in the UK.

Okay, okay, I don't like the English Royalty. I don't really like the English people, if the truth be known. But if they would simply pay me for the land they stole from my family, with interest, my attitude towards them might warm.

The press loves a lot of silliness, and maybe it's OK because everything is so awful with the worlds' economy. So today we learn that when Michelle Obama was standing next to the Queen of England, Michelle put her arm around that little old lady's shoulders, just like everybody does when they are standing right next to an 80-year-old woman. Maybe we instinctively know their balance is shot, or someone could bump them, so it's a protective gesture. But some in the silly press gasped at the sight of a peasant "touching" the Queen.

(From left to right: Mr. Michelle Obama, old lady, MICHELLE OBAMA, old man).

Now I understand why the English lost their Empire. They are so inbred and bloodless, and have such silly rules: don't touch the Queen. It's like she's a good luck charm, and Michelle's headed for the crap tables.

The Queen (or the Queen's people) said it was actually fine that Michelle put her arm over the Queen's shoulders. I'd love to have seen them say something different. I'll bet any poll in England today would show Michelle Obama has approval ratings through the roof.

Here's the silly song the English sing about the Queen. It's embarrassing. It sounds like something that's appropriate for an old grey-haired lady in funny hats. Well, you know what I mean. It's not modern. And to make it worse, those pathetic toe-licking traitors in the occupied territory known as "Northern Ireland" haven't even bothered to get their own song -- they sing this too. Not so much in the real Ireland.



And another thing. I don't like the idea that these silly English people make all the rules about who can do what, whether you can shake someone's hand or not, and everytime this old lady walks into a room they play that vapid song. Maybe Michelle Obama needs to get her own song. And play it loud. Then we can all sing along and shout-out the English.

Here's my suggestion for the official anthem for our First Lady. As well as a warning to people abroad: we really like Michelle, so you'd better treat her like a Queen. If you know what I mean. So here's a song for our First Lady, by our own Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin:

G-20: How Many Heads Of State Does It Take To Figure Out That Somebody Robbed The Bank, And The Rich Guys With All The Money Are The Ones Who Did It?

President Obama has spent the last few days meeting with the heads of the major nations of the world and discussing ways in which they might work together to try to stabilize the world economy, and prevent a complete collapse.

Now these are supposedly all really smart people. Heads of their nations. Big, important nations and titles. Lots of responsibilities. Staff.

So how likely is it that they really don't know what happened, or how to fix it? Does it seem plausible that they just don't read the newspaper? Maybe. They are clueless? Haven't heard the news yet that a few rich people robbed the banks? And that the rich people with the big bags of money are the ones who did it?


As far as solving the problem, it's really not that hard. Just have a wealth tax. Tax all the rich people. Take everything they own above a certain amount, and redistribute it to the rest of the world. Oh yeah -- when those rich people hide their money in their private "charities" -- that's just a way to avoid paying taxes in their own countries, so take everything from those charities too. If we had a world in which every single human being was guaranteed shelter, food, medical care, an education, and a job, we wouldn't need to depend on "charity" to save a baby from starvation.

Let's say you have a married couple, two kids. We'll leave them five million dollars. More money than most people could spend in their entire lives, even if they went to the mall, and to the movies, and ate out every day. It's more than enough. But not so much that they can bribe politicians, corrupt governments, fund private police and military death squads, invade third world countries and steal their resources. Not that much.

Not surprisingly, many of the foreign leaders believe that since Wall Street and the richest people in the U.S. have stolen most of the money, defrauded so many countries, looted the banks around the world, then the U.S. should fix the problem. Perhaps President Obama explained to these foreign leaders that if he tries to grab all the money Wall Street stole, the biggest CEOs and bank heads and stock dealers will likely just flee the country and leave all the stolen money hidden offshore in secret private equity funds, and millions will starve because there will be no money. Everything will collapse. Perhaps he explained that to them.

Or perhaps President Obama really believes there is some value to propping up the bank and private financial cartels. It's hard to imagine he's that stupid. I see this as more a gun-to-the-head type of decision: he either gives them billions more or they collapse the whole thing. And if that happened, there would be international starvation, rioting, wars, a complete breakdown of any system of government in many countries. Of course many people around the world already live like that.

The thing to remember is this: the richest people in this country (which includes some of our most corrupt politicians, and also includes people who parade around in costumes claiming to be philanthropists but actually just hiding their money in lots of holes around the world) -- they know that millions of people are hungry, have no healthcare, millions of children die for lack of a glass of water or a bite of food. And they don't care. Not a bit. And they wouldn't care if it happened to us, or to the U.S. children, either. So don't doubt for a minute that they're playing hardball.

So where does it end? They have all the money. They plan to use it to advance evil: destruction of all democracies by taking away all the money so governments don't even have funds to provide basic services. Mass starvation as a punishment, a teaching tool for populations who are disobedient, or maybe just unwanted.

People around the world are beginning to get out and demonstrate, telling the major leaders of the world that they'd better get busy and fix this mess. I hope someone is listening.

I think we need an international crime-fighting organization, like Interpol, and an agreement from all the major nations to seize all the money of the rich people, put it into a joint fund, then pay it out to the victims. Immediately distribute money to all the countries so they can stay afloat.

What we have now is a system in which rich people from different countries are working together in private equity funds to take over the entire world. They go from one place to the other, paying bribes, corrupting the governments, looting everything. As soon as people in one country demand a living wage, these people pull all the jobs and take them to another country. They also start wars, and have millions of young people murdering other young people -- just like the street gangs -- and it goes on in every single generation. How can we stop them unless we take all their money, seize it? It should be like a raid on the Mafia, two a.m. gang round-ups in L.A., a surprise dawn assault. The time has come.




Wednesday, April 1, 2009

I Did It! I Burned The Bank!

In early 1970, during the rather intense demonstrations in the U.S. and around the world against the U.S. war on Vietnam, Nixon decided to ignore the opinion of the country and the world and to expand the war, by invading Cambodia. It was an astonishing Imperial Presidency moment, Nixon completely disregarding that little constitutional fact that only Congress has the authority to start a war.

College campuses were the center of anti-war actions and demonstrations back then, and so they erupted across the country, up and down the coasts. Students coordinated a take-over of the 101 freeway which ran the length of the west coast, cramming onto the on ramps and onto the freeways and bringing traffic to a halt.

The people in the anti-war movement who were leftists engaged in what were called "teach-ins" across the nation, which were community gatherings, usually in and around college campuses, in which people would speak, lecture, discuss the role of multinational corporations in the war industry. They discussed history, politics, international affairs, the current wars, past wars, and in particular focused on how U.S. multinational corporations intruded on third world countries, set up local businesses and corrupted the governments, enslaved the citizens, stole the resources, and, when conflicts arose, often led the United States into wars against what essentially were colonies of U.S. corporations.

One of the corporations which was the focus of teach-ins in Isla Vista (the student town next to the University of California at Santa Barbara) was the Bank of America, already a multinational entity, and already seen by the left as complicit in policies which created mass poverty in much of the world, and led to wars such as the U.S. War Against Vietnam.

When Ronald Reagan declared in his usual fanatical way (still Governor then) that he would not let those "radical" students stop him, he was going to go about his business, he announced he would be flying by plane to Santa Barbara to address a luncheon group of white male Republican fascists. And when that announcement was made, students got up off the 101 freeway and marched to the airport to "greet" Ronny. The Santa Barbara airport was a blacktop with chain-link fence around it, not a major transportation hub. Anyway, Ronny looked down and saw the mob of "radicals," and his plane turned around and went back to Sacramento.

Then the National Guard was called into Kent State and they shot and killed some kids (Neal Young's "Four Dead In Ohio"), and they did the same at Jackson State, and then the campuses really went up in flames, and the National Guard was called in as an occupying force in many places including at the University of California in Santa Barbara (Isla Vista).

Isla Vista was a 10,000-person community with few over the age of 25. Hippies, students, dope smoked openly on the streets, nice weather, little clothes, record stores. Environmentally conscious. Lots of bikes, few cars. And right in the middle of what passed for "downtown" was one big structure which dominated everything: the Bank of America.

When the rioting against the invasion of Cambodia and against Kent State and Jackson State started, the Bank became the focus. Cops came in to send kids home but they were chased off, their cars overturned and set on fire. Kids was mad. Real mad. About the war and about the fact that the government was now killing students too.

So somebody picked up a metal trashcan and used it to smash in the front window of the Bank of America. And everybody cheered: "Burn it, Burn it down." Then the next person picked up another trashcan full of trash, lit it on fire, and threw it in. And burned down the Bank of America.


I was reminded of this when I heard that people in London were attacking a bank. Deja Vu man. But they didn't burn theirs down, did they? Useless Limeys. If it had been the Irish, that story would have a different ending.

The National Guard came in to Isla Vista, there was a curfew, they too shot and killed a kid named Kevin Moran. Reagan then sent out an order closing down all the campuses. I think all of the kids killed by the National Guard in those incidents were killed by accident. The National Guard at that time consisted of guys lucky enough to get in so they could avoid going to Vietnam. But at the time, it seemed intentional, like the government was now going to kill all its young people.

The Bank of America (perhaps seeing that in the future it would rule the world -- or destroy it) refused to leave Isla Vista. Instead, they built a new branch. Its walls are stone, probably 5' thick. Can't bomb it, can't burn it. It is the funniest thing that this multinational corporation built a bunker because they were afraid of a couple of students with a metal trashcan and a pack of matches.

But maybe in the long run, that's the way it always is: the banks have the bunkers, the cops, the national guard, the government, and the money. The citizens have curfew, occupation, no voice, no money, and only the fury of their own rage and ingenuity of their own making.

After the bank was burned, the local D.A. arrested all the top leadership in the area in the Anti-War Movement, and accused all of them of burning the bank, inciting it, conspiring, etc. It was a real farse. There were rumors that they had an additional 30 warrants and were breaking down doors in the middle of the night. Of course most of the arrested had nothing to do with it, and everyone would deny responsibility.

Somebody came up with the idea that everyone in Isla Vista should stick together and say: I Did It. I Burned The Bank. So suddenly there were stickers, buttons, posters, petitions signed by thousands saying: I Did It. I Burned The Bank. How's that for a defense to criminal charges: Your Honor, One of these 8,000 other people did it. They've even confessed. In writing.

For awhile, the burning of the Bank of America in Isla Vista was remembered as a symbol of the anti-war movement. Here's a picture of some graffiti on a Bank of American branch in Berkeley on the ten-year anniversary of the burning of the bank: Never Forget Isla Vista.




So in the beginning, in the end, and everywhere in-between, it's the banks. Which are the central core of what I call the Financial Cartels: more lucrative than the Drug Cartels, and more ruthless and deadly too. Stealing people's homes, looting third world countries, destroying family farms, charging 25% interest on credit cards, destroying communities, throwing Americans out of work, cheerleading for outsourcing, instigating wars which cause the deaths of millions. Given how much damage has been caused by these out-of-control conglomerates of hoarded money, why haven't we shut them down? Why don't we completely eliminate private banking, shut down any international or even national financial cartel.

Go back to a local bank owned completely, managed, and answerable only to local people who deposit their money there, and get their loans there, and that's where it ends. The only banks that should be allowed to operate should be co-ops: owned by the local people, all decisions made by the community. Stop the Financial Cartels from moving into third world countries and stealing from those people, creating even more poverty. Why shouldn't the citizens, the people, control the source of money, the availability? Why should all that be in the hands of rich people who use that power to corrupt our government, bribe our politicians, and destroy the lives of the people.

Have you ever really heard of a bank doing any good for anyone? Except rich people, of course. For the rest of us? They take our money, pay us no interest, charge us secret and hidden fees, charge 25% interest on a small, short-term loan, and they conspire with the other banks to squeeze us until we can no longer breathe or we die.

Continued Success For U.S. Financial Cartels And Corporations To Throw Americans Out Of Work, Outsource Their Jobs, Ruin Their Lives.


Remember when Bill Clinton told the country that Nafta, outsourcing, the elimination of all laws that protect American companies inside the U.S., throwing open our borders to dumping of cheap products from other nations, encouraging American businesses to take their jobs over to third world countries to be done by prison, child, and slave labor, the elimination of all regulations on the financial markets -- remember when he said that would be a good thing? Remember? Because we Americans were going to be so rich, so educated with our technological specialty jobs that we don't want those lousy old normal jobs, let someone else do them. We'll just spend our days sitting around counting our money.

Well guess what? Everything that is happening to our country today is the direct result, the intended result, and forseeable consequence of the entire "free" trade ideology, which was at the beginning and still is just another name for throwing Americans out of work and destroying their lives so the Financial Cartels, the Corporate Insiders, and the politicians they own can be rich beyond imagination.

Certainly Bush and Cheney and all their scummy insiders took the ball and carried it towards the rapid devastation of our country. But Bill Clinton was the quarterback, he threw the ball, he got this whole thing going, and he misled the public, lulled them by his fairy tales about how we would all get such terrific jobs, not to worry.

Bill Clinton may well be remembered in history as the president who got the blowjob. I think he should be remembered as the president who screwed the working people of this country.

JOBS LOST IN U.S.

December, 2008
524,000

(Sept. - Dec. 2008)
1.9 million

2008 Total: 2.6 million jobs lost, worst year since 1945.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/index.htm?postversion=2009010912

January, 2009
598,000
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090207_598_000_U_S__jobs_lost_in_January.html

February, 2009
706,000
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a75eifvEz47k

March, 2009
742,000
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a75eifvEz47k