At work we're forced to listen to John Tesh. On the Tesh's show he regularly has anti-driving while talking on a cell phone segments. These drive me nuts. The other day he claimed a study showed that drivers who are talking on cell phones- even ones with blue tooth- slow down traffic. Here's my beef with this: I, personally, don't have issues with talking on my phone while driving. I have a much more difficult time talking to people who are in the car with me. Furthermore, what about driving while eating and/or drinking, or driving with a backseat full of screaming, fighting, taddle-tailing kids? What about the studies for those situations? Are you going to tell me the mom with all the fighting, loud, crying kids in the car is less distracted then someone talking on a cell phone? Are we going to create legislation outlawing driving with kids? My problem with those who want to create cell phone laws is that they're trying to legislate distractibility, and we could do endless studies proving that everything from fellow passengers to billboards distract people and cause accidents, slower traffic etc... I think the focus on cell-phones is assinine; go after the soccer moms.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Charlie Wilson's War
This past Saturday my wife and her friend Erica went and saw a movie together while I went and saw Charlie Wilson's War. I've been wanting to see this film for a while and lept at the opportunity. I thought it was phenomenal, and I'm bummed that it hasn't received more Oscar nods. I thought for sure it would be up for best picture, best actor and best actress, but it's only up for best supporting actor for Philip Seymour Hoffman who was astounding.
The film was about the Soviet war with Afghanistan in the late eighties. Soviet helicopters were flying over Afghan villages and gunning people down. Russian soldiers were massacring Afghans and raping their women. Pakistan was facing a huge Afghan refugee crisis, as Afghans were flooding their borders. In the midst of all this stepped Texas congressman Charlie Wilson played by Tom Hanks. Wilson sat on the Defense Appropriations committee, and as a favor for a friend stopped in Pakistan to meet with their president. While he was there he was flown to a refugee camp to witness the carnage first hand. I loved this part of the movie because it showed that a womanizing, alcoholic, cocaine-using politician can have a soul. He was so moved by what he saw that he went back home and got to work. With the help of CIA officer Gust Avrakotos played by Hoffman, Wilson ended up getting the Pentagon to spend 300 million dollars to arm the Afghan Mujaheddin. The Mujahideen ended up defeating the Soviets which struck a huge blow in the way of bringing down the Soviet empire.
The film gave a strong and fair critique of U.S. foreign policy. After the war Wilson tried to get the U.S. government to help rebuild Afghanistan. He was told that the American people don't give a shit about building schools and hospitals, they cared about defeating the Soviets. It's also said that the Pakistani president Wilson visited had killed the previous president in a military coup. The U.S. has consistently worked with oppressive regimes in an effort to defeat even more oppressive regimes. Because of this the U.S. has often supported it's future enemies. Such was the case with Saddam Hussein.
Where this movie shined was in addressing religious fundamentalism and extremism. What was interesting is that all the good guys in the movie were fundamentalists/extremists whether they were Jewish, Muslim or Christian. One of the most disturbing moments in the movie was where a Christian congressman gave a speech to the Mujaheddin when the Pentagon decided to arm them with the weapons they needed to fight the Soviets. The speech was very manichaean, much like the speeches GW gave after 911. The congressman said the battle between the Mujaheddin and the Soviets was a battle of good versus evil, and that God was on their side. One of our largest flaws as a nation is that we're duped into believing we are the, "good guys" and our enemies are, "the bad guys;" that we're good and they're evil. We bought into this twisted way of thinking after 911. The reality is things are messy. Sometimes we work with people who come to power by military coups, and execute the former leader. Sometimes we work with men like Stalin. In the early eighties there was a groundswell of support for Saddam. Sometimes Congressmen with shady ethics are moved by witnessing human misery first hand, and they do everything in their power to fight for justice.
The movie ended with this quote from Wilson: We changed the world, and then fucked up the endgame. I thought that summed up the message of the movie. The U.S. uses it's power to, at times, great things like arm peasants to win a battle with an empire. Then after the battle was won we didn't stick around to see that those people were cared for and educated. Of course we know what happened to Afghanistan later on. Could that have been prevented? Can we learn from our mistakes?
The film was about the Soviet war with Afghanistan in the late eighties. Soviet helicopters were flying over Afghan villages and gunning people down. Russian soldiers were massacring Afghans and raping their women. Pakistan was facing a huge Afghan refugee crisis, as Afghans were flooding their borders. In the midst of all this stepped Texas congressman Charlie Wilson played by Tom Hanks. Wilson sat on the Defense Appropriations committee, and as a favor for a friend stopped in Pakistan to meet with their president. While he was there he was flown to a refugee camp to witness the carnage first hand. I loved this part of the movie because it showed that a womanizing, alcoholic, cocaine-using politician can have a soul. He was so moved by what he saw that he went back home and got to work. With the help of CIA officer Gust Avrakotos played by Hoffman, Wilson ended up getting the Pentagon to spend 300 million dollars to arm the Afghan Mujaheddin. The Mujahideen ended up defeating the Soviets which struck a huge blow in the way of bringing down the Soviet empire.
The film gave a strong and fair critique of U.S. foreign policy. After the war Wilson tried to get the U.S. government to help rebuild Afghanistan. He was told that the American people don't give a shit about building schools and hospitals, they cared about defeating the Soviets. It's also said that the Pakistani president Wilson visited had killed the previous president in a military coup. The U.S. has consistently worked with oppressive regimes in an effort to defeat even more oppressive regimes. Because of this the U.S. has often supported it's future enemies. Such was the case with Saddam Hussein.
Where this movie shined was in addressing religious fundamentalism and extremism. What was interesting is that all the good guys in the movie were fundamentalists/extremists whether they were Jewish, Muslim or Christian. One of the most disturbing moments in the movie was where a Christian congressman gave a speech to the Mujaheddin when the Pentagon decided to arm them with the weapons they needed to fight the Soviets. The speech was very manichaean, much like the speeches GW gave after 911. The congressman said the battle between the Mujaheddin and the Soviets was a battle of good versus evil, and that God was on their side. One of our largest flaws as a nation is that we're duped into believing we are the, "good guys" and our enemies are, "the bad guys;" that we're good and they're evil. We bought into this twisted way of thinking after 911. The reality is things are messy. Sometimes we work with people who come to power by military coups, and execute the former leader. Sometimes we work with men like Stalin. In the early eighties there was a groundswell of support for Saddam. Sometimes Congressmen with shady ethics are moved by witnessing human misery first hand, and they do everything in their power to fight for justice.
The movie ended with this quote from Wilson: We changed the world, and then fucked up the endgame. I thought that summed up the message of the movie. The U.S. uses it's power to, at times, great things like arm peasants to win a battle with an empire. Then after the battle was won we didn't stick around to see that those people were cared for and educated. Of course we know what happened to Afghanistan later on. Could that have been prevented? Can we learn from our mistakes?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The End of Tolerance
I was talking with Hoan, one of the pharmacists, today. I enjoy talking to him because he's one of the only people at work who follows politics, international affairs, movies and music. He is Vietnamese and came here on political asylum, so he also has a unique perspective on this country and life in general. If I had to further describe him I would say that he is intensity personified, yet in spite of his intensity he is very deep and reflective.
We were discussing the presidential candidates today when I asked him what he thought about Barak Obama. He responded by saying, "OK...."
I interrupted, "oh, you think he's OK?"
"No," he responded, and then proceeded to go into a speech about race and the victory black Americans would declare if Barak won, how there would be a march on Washington, and how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be gloating.
"Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but, seriously, considering the history of what blacks have gone through here, it would be an astounding achievement. It would be a huge deal. "
We went back and forth some more; I honestly can't remember everything he said, but he told me this story about a conversation he once had with a Jewish guy. Hoan first explained that he is Catholic, and said as they were talking the word tolerance came up. The Jew said, "don't you ever mention that word."
After Hoan said this he just kind of stared at me.
"Well, what did he mean?," I said. "There's a lot of ways you can interpret that."
Hoan grabbed two pills off the shelf and set them on the counter about five inches apart from one another. Then he set a sharpie in between them.
"Tolerance or coexisting is this: you stay on your side of the line and I'll stay on mine. You don't cross over and fuck with me and I won't cross over and fuck with you. Keep things like that and everything will be alright." Grabbing the pills and moving them back and forth across the sharpie he said, "But what has to happen is someone has to cross the line. You need to come over to my side and so we can talk, we can empathize, and we can share our stories and learn from one another. Then we can be on one side of the line. That's how it has to be."
We were discussing the presidential candidates today when I asked him what he thought about Barak Obama. He responded by saying, "OK...."
I interrupted, "oh, you think he's OK?"
"No," he responded, and then proceeded to go into a speech about race and the victory black Americans would declare if Barak won, how there would be a march on Washington, and how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be gloating.
"Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but, seriously, considering the history of what blacks have gone through here, it would be an astounding achievement. It would be a huge deal. "
We went back and forth some more; I honestly can't remember everything he said, but he told me this story about a conversation he once had with a Jewish guy. Hoan first explained that he is Catholic, and said as they were talking the word tolerance came up. The Jew said, "don't you ever mention that word."
After Hoan said this he just kind of stared at me.
"Well, what did he mean?," I said. "There's a lot of ways you can interpret that."
Hoan grabbed two pills off the shelf and set them on the counter about five inches apart from one another. Then he set a sharpie in between them.
"Tolerance or coexisting is this: you stay on your side of the line and I'll stay on mine. You don't cross over and fuck with me and I won't cross over and fuck with you. Keep things like that and everything will be alright." Grabbing the pills and moving them back and forth across the sharpie he said, "But what has to happen is someone has to cross the line. You need to come over to my side and so we can talk, we can empathize, and we can share our stories and learn from one another. Then we can be on one side of the line. That's how it has to be."
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Friday, December 28, 2007
Benazir Bhutto, and Thoughts on Collectivism
I was reading TIME magazine on my way to Chicago last October. I was reading it cover to cover because, well, there was nothing else to do, and I came to this article on Pakistan. Normally I would have bypassed this article, but I started reading it because I thought either I would get into it and find it interesting, or I would read it, find it boring, but at least learn something. The article was about the former woman prime minister of Pakistan (which I found surprising, since Pakistan is a Muslim country) who had come back to Pakistan from a self-imposed exile to a groundswell of support and celebration. It was a good article and I kept track of the ongoing development in this story of this woman leader who was going to bring democracy to Pakistan. I found her compelling and courageous as she had survived numerous assassination attempts. In fact, an attempt on her life was made the day she came back to Pakistan when a suicide bomber blew himself up killing over a hundred people. After all, this was a wealthy Harvard and Oxford educated aristocrat who could be globe-trotting and living it up. If it were me I wouldn't have voluntarily gone into a country where so many wanted me dead.
So, with that said, I was stunned yesterday morning when I got up and flipped on MSNBC so see the headline: Benazir Bhutto assassinated. All I could do is gasp and then sit there in silence. Not only had I come to admire this woman, but I immediately began to empathize with her supporters. This woman represented hope to these people, and you could see the devastation they were experiencing. Not only was this a huge loss to Bhutto's numerous supporters, but this a big deal for U.S. foreign policy. Pakistan is teetering on Islamic extremism, and there was a deal in the works for Bhutto to become a co-president. This would have made Pakistan a more moderate, secular country; as well as making Pakistan a stronger partner in rooting out terrorists. But now that these hopes have been destroyed with an assassins bullet, there isn't anyone to act as successor to Bhutto. She was it.
Later I realized that virtually every American today was going to be confused by the fuss over this woman with the funny name who was killed in some foreign country. Honestly, this pisses me off, as it does much of the world. Americans would have been more upset if Brad and Angelina broke up. We tend to think we're the only people who matter. For much of us, our attitude is that we're the biggest, baddest and richest so who cares about all those other countries. I know this is true, not only because I see these sentiments expressed on TV and in people I talk to at work and elsewhere, but because, up until a couple years ago, I too acted this way. What changed my thinking was my church's growing concern for poverty abroad, a shift in the kinds of authors I read, and a quote by former president Bill Clinton.
A couple years ago I was reading a news magazine and it featured an interview with Bill Clinton. I couldn't tell you what the interview was about, but something he said struck me. It wasn't anything too profound and it's something I think most people would agree with, but it's always stuck with me. He was asked about our current foreign policy, and he said that right now we're the only superpower, but there will come a day when we're not the biggest dog on the block. And so it's important to work with other countries and form relationships. He then went on to talk about how India and China's economies are exploding, and the possibility of them forming an alliance of some sort. It's a statement that's true, yet I know it's a reality most Americans don't want to swallow; especially these assholes, who are why I think we're in Iraq, but that's another post. Most of us like our empire. We live sedated existences. We're sedated with Hollywood, pop-culture, the mainstream news organizations who trumpet American greatness, tabloids, some forms of Christianity, and having it "my way." We're happy in our own little worlds, and are oblivious to what's going on in the rest of the world.
I get irritated when I hear pundits always talking about doing what's best for America, or when they talk about how many Americans have died in Iraq. What about what's best for the world? What about the Iraqi's who have died? What about the soldiers from other countries? Maybe this is a macrocosm of what I mentioned above. The fact is, is we are an empire, and all empires have eventually fallen. We are part of a global community. The way we live, who we vote for and the way we interact with the rest of the world matters. At some point we won't be the biggest dog on the block.
I'm probably writing this because I've become something of a collectivist in the past couple years. I tend to focus on the common good rather than just what benefits me. Take health insurance for example. I have health insurance. I work in the pharmacy of the largest hospital on this side of the state. My job isn't going away. My health insurance isn't going away. What the hell do I care if our next president is a free-market, privatization-cures-everything Republican? I'm still going to have coverage. I care because there are people that won't, and our country has the capability to see that everyone is covered. The whole is more important than me.
That's also why I mourn with the Pakistanis the loss of a great leader. Their country matters, not only because it's nuclear and bordering on unstable, but because they're fellow humans who are part of this world too. All men are created equal, right? God love's everyone. My hope for 2008 is that we'll get a president who focuses on diplomacy, whose very, very last resort would be war, and a president who doesn't mis-pronounce the names of foreign leaders. That's why I'm voting for change. Vote Obama '08 ;)....JK....Ok, not really.
So, with that said, I was stunned yesterday morning when I got up and flipped on MSNBC so see the headline: Benazir Bhutto assassinated. All I could do is gasp and then sit there in silence. Not only had I come to admire this woman, but I immediately began to empathize with her supporters. This woman represented hope to these people, and you could see the devastation they were experiencing. Not only was this a huge loss to Bhutto's numerous supporters, but this a big deal for U.S. foreign policy. Pakistan is teetering on Islamic extremism, and there was a deal in the works for Bhutto to become a co-president. This would have made Pakistan a more moderate, secular country; as well as making Pakistan a stronger partner in rooting out terrorists. But now that these hopes have been destroyed with an assassins bullet, there isn't anyone to act as successor to Bhutto. She was it.
Later I realized that virtually every American today was going to be confused by the fuss over this woman with the funny name who was killed in some foreign country. Honestly, this pisses me off, as it does much of the world. Americans would have been more upset if Brad and Angelina broke up. We tend to think we're the only people who matter. For much of us, our attitude is that we're the biggest, baddest and richest so who cares about all those other countries. I know this is true, not only because I see these sentiments expressed on TV and in people I talk to at work and elsewhere, but because, up until a couple years ago, I too acted this way. What changed my thinking was my church's growing concern for poverty abroad, a shift in the kinds of authors I read, and a quote by former president Bill Clinton.
A couple years ago I was reading a news magazine and it featured an interview with Bill Clinton. I couldn't tell you what the interview was about, but something he said struck me. It wasn't anything too profound and it's something I think most people would agree with, but it's always stuck with me. He was asked about our current foreign policy, and he said that right now we're the only superpower, but there will come a day when we're not the biggest dog on the block. And so it's important to work with other countries and form relationships. He then went on to talk about how India and China's economies are exploding, and the possibility of them forming an alliance of some sort. It's a statement that's true, yet I know it's a reality most Americans don't want to swallow; especially these assholes, who are why I think we're in Iraq, but that's another post. Most of us like our empire. We live sedated existences. We're sedated with Hollywood, pop-culture, the mainstream news organizations who trumpet American greatness, tabloids, some forms of Christianity, and having it "my way." We're happy in our own little worlds, and are oblivious to what's going on in the rest of the world.
I get irritated when I hear pundits always talking about doing what's best for America, or when they talk about how many Americans have died in Iraq. What about what's best for the world? What about the Iraqi's who have died? What about the soldiers from other countries? Maybe this is a macrocosm of what I mentioned above. The fact is, is we are an empire, and all empires have eventually fallen. We are part of a global community. The way we live, who we vote for and the way we interact with the rest of the world matters. At some point we won't be the biggest dog on the block.
I'm probably writing this because I've become something of a collectivist in the past couple years. I tend to focus on the common good rather than just what benefits me. Take health insurance for example. I have health insurance. I work in the pharmacy of the largest hospital on this side of the state. My job isn't going away. My health insurance isn't going away. What the hell do I care if our next president is a free-market, privatization-cures-everything Republican? I'm still going to have coverage. I care because there are people that won't, and our country has the capability to see that everyone is covered. The whole is more important than me.
That's also why I mourn with the Pakistanis the loss of a great leader. Their country matters, not only because it's nuclear and bordering on unstable, but because they're fellow humans who are part of this world too. All men are created equal, right? God love's everyone. My hope for 2008 is that we'll get a president who focuses on diplomacy, whose very, very last resort would be war, and a president who doesn't mis-pronounce the names of foreign leaders. That's why I'm voting for change. Vote Obama '08 ;)....JK....Ok, not really.
Friday, December 21, 2007
BAM!
Cornel West from Democracy Matters:
"The journey for the Constantinian Christians from Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 to George W. Bush's selection in 2000 has been a roaring success based on the world's nihilistic standards.
Never before in the history of the American Republic has a group of organized Christians risen to such prominence in the American empire. And this worldly success-- a bit odd for a fundamentalist group with such otherworldly aspirations-- has sent huge ripples across American Christendom. Power might, size, status and material possessions-- all paraphernalia of the nihilism of the American empire-- became major themes of American Christianity. It now sometimes seems that all Christians speak in one voice when in fact it is only that the loudness of the Constaninian element of American Christianity has so totally drowned out the prophetic voices. Imperial Christianity, market spirituality, money-obsessed churches, gospels of prosperity, prayers of let's-make-a-deal with God or help me turn my wheel of fortune have become the prevailing voice of American Christianity. In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes mere Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word heard about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be-- with the glaring exception of abortion... I speak as a Christian-- one whose commitment to democracy is very deep but whose Christian convictions are even deeper. Democracy is not my faith. And American democracy is not my idol. To see the Gospel of Jesus Christ bastardized by imperial Christians and pulverized by Constantinian believers and then exploited by nihilistic elites of the American empire makes my blood boil."
"The journey for the Constantinian Christians from Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 to George W. Bush's selection in 2000 has been a roaring success based on the world's nihilistic standards.
Never before in the history of the American Republic has a group of organized Christians risen to such prominence in the American empire. And this worldly success-- a bit odd for a fundamentalist group with such otherworldly aspirations-- has sent huge ripples across American Christendom. Power might, size, status and material possessions-- all paraphernalia of the nihilism of the American empire-- became major themes of American Christianity. It now sometimes seems that all Christians speak in one voice when in fact it is only that the loudness of the Constaninian element of American Christianity has so totally drowned out the prophetic voices. Imperial Christianity, market spirituality, money-obsessed churches, gospels of prosperity, prayers of let's-make-a-deal with God or help me turn my wheel of fortune have become the prevailing voice of American Christianity. In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes mere Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word heard about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be-- with the glaring exception of abortion... I speak as a Christian-- one whose commitment to democracy is very deep but whose Christian convictions are even deeper. Democracy is not my faith. And American democracy is not my idol. To see the Gospel of Jesus Christ bastardized by imperial Christians and pulverized by Constantinian believers and then exploited by nihilistic elites of the American empire makes my blood boil."
Thursday, December 13, 2007
A Republican I'd Vote For
I just listened to the NPR Republican presidential debate . Take much of what John McCain has said and done with working to end ridiculous spending and his position on the environment, take Huckabee's compassion for the poor and what he says about education, take Romney's call for Universal healthcare, Ron Paul's view on the war and Iran, and what you'd get is a Republican nominee I'd vote for. The fair tax thing I'm not so sure about though.
By the way, this was worth listening to just for Alan Keyes... :)
By the way, this was worth listening to just for Alan Keyes... :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)