Facts Are Useless In Emergencies

Don't touch that dial, folks!

2010-09-07T12:53:00.001-07:00

We'll be right back after these words from our sponsors.

Homosexuality in Uganda

2010-08-30T23:10:00.000-07:00

Guest post today, from fellow blogger Sora Ryu! Check out her blog, and a couple of my guest posts there, at www.writingsofryu.com.

As you know, a friend recently sent me a link to Dartmouth professor Jeff Sharlet's interview with Fresh Air on NPR regarding Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill. From there I read the excerpt from his article in Harper's Magazine entitled "Straight Man's Burden." I was particularly angered and saddened by the account of what happened to Juliet Mukasa. It is my strongest desire for a girl to never be trapped alone in such a homophobic, fanatic atmosphere and to never endure such a horrific abuse as a "corrective" gang rape. I wrote a blog post documenting my response in order to raise awareness on this issue.

The plight of gays in Uganda as well as the rest of Africa is an issue that needs more attention. Africa's Christian communities are being radicalized by scions from the right in America. In his most recent article in The Advocate Professor Sharlet reports:

"Antigay Americans are losing the culture war, so they’re exporting hatred to Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria — where their fervor is so welcome it threatens to sweep the entire continent."

These anti-gay scions are pastors and missionaries funded and encouraged by a secretive fundamentalist Christian society referred to as The Family or The Fellowship which tries to pull political strings in America and export their bigotry to Africa, the "ground zero" of their "spiritual warfare." Professor Sharlet who is an expert on The Family and has written a book on their underground exploits was the go-to person when The Family was forced to expose themselves and backpedal from their discriminatory views when the Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill first came to light.

However, although the media spotlight may have swung from this controversial bill, human rights activist cannot afford to forget it allow it to pass. The purveyors of "God-led government" are just as crazy and determined as Netanyahu's "irrational" and "apocalyptic" characterization of the imams in Iran:

"For the Moral Majority, then the Christian Coalition, then Focus on the Family, and now the more chaotic Christian nationalism of the Tea Party (“a new Great Awakening,” crows South Carolina’s DeMint), it’s not so much a question as it is a warning.
“We warn everybody that the future king is coming,” said David Coe, a leader of the Family. “Not just of this country or that, but of the world.” "

The real warning is not the end of the world but that if rational people sit back and turn a blind eye the righteous right of America and Africa - who among other things believe " it’s “the gays” who are attempting genocide: “They are a threat to our existence,” he [a Ugandan politician] told me [Sharlet]" and a host of other outlandish "schemes" perpetuated by a "gay city under Lake Victoria" - will attempt to kill off the gay population in Africa. While talking to a Ugandan missionary working for Faithful Servants International Ministries Sharlet noted this exchange:

"“What do you make of this Anti-Homosexuality Bill?” I asked. It was one of the hottest debates in the country, and a rare occasion when Uganda made international news. Said to be inspired by Americans, the bill would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death or life in prison. But Tommy heard only the word “homosexuality.”
“I do not believe in homosexuality!” he said, rearing up with indignation as if I’d just put a hand on his knee. “Absolutely not!” He crossed his arms over his burly chest.
“Of course,” I said, “of course.”
Teresa rubbed his shoulder. “Shh,” she said. “I don’t think that’s what he meant.”
I explained that I was interested in their view of the death penalty for homosexuality. Tommy shook his head. Tough one.
“Well, I’m totally against killing them. Because some of them can be saved, and changed. But the thing is, you can’t force them to stop. It’s been tried! But it don’t work.” He shook his head over the problem on all sides — the homosexuals, themselves, and his Ugandan friends, so on fire for the gospel that they’d gone too far in an antigay crusade. That’s how it is with Ugandans, he explained. They’re a bighearted people, but they get ahead of themselves sometimes. That’s where Americans could help.
“What they need,” Tommy proposed, “is a special place, like, for people doing homosexual things to learn different. A camp, like.”
“Keep them all in one place?” I asked.
“Yes. I think that’s what we have to try,” he said. “Because the thing is, the Bible says we can’t kill them. And we can’t put them in prison because that’d be like putting a normal fella in a whorehouse!” Teresa chuckled with her husband. A camp in which to concentrate the offenders — that was the compassionate solution."

Did you hear that? The most "compassion solution" for the gays is a concentration camp. When the Anti-Gay Bill in Uganda was drawn up, it was written to inspire similar bills throughout Africa. If this bill passes there will be a genocide. And the blood will be on our hands.

As Professor Sharlet notes the American right did not pull the trigger, but they certainly handed the Ugandan fundamentalists the gun. The fault will also fall on those who sat back and allowed the transcontinental bigots to have their way.

This issue is important and it deserves more attention. That is why this story graces the cover of the September issue of The Advocate. If you want to help out and spread awareness check out Four African LGBT Organizations Worth Supporting.

Other Human Rights Issues that Deserve More Press

The Atrocity of Rape in Congo Continues | Women's Interviews

"Rwandan and Congolese rebels systematically gang-raping nearly 200 woman and even infants over the span of a few days near a UN peacekeepers base earlier this month...The scale and pervasiveness of rape as a means of control in places like the Congo is astonishing and truly sickening. We cannot let stories like this desensitize us to what is happening."

Rape is being used as weapon of war and this is truly horrific. The UN was too slow and their peacekeeping troops failed to prevent the tragedy. More needs to be done by the UN and African governments to address what happens to people in corners of the world often overlooked and forgotten. Such war crimes shouldn't be allowed to happen to innocent civilians. No woman deserves to be raped.

Also no person deserves what happened to this woman:

"a Saudi couple brutally hammered 24 nails into their Sri Lankan maid’s hands, legs and forehead after she complained about the work load. It is frightening and deeply saddening to think that such human atrocities are happening all over the world."

The Daily Femme has been documenting the cruel and degrading treatment of the mostly female foreign domestic workers who suffer in places like the Middle East. More of the media needs to take up these forgotten women's cause and without silly, demeaning headlines like "and you thought your workday was hard."

Finally we cannot forget about the reformist Green Movement in Iran and what they have endured for free elections:

"The protests, which had started over election fraud, had grown into huge demonstrations against the Islamic regime, the largest in Iran since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah, in 1979. But in the weeks that followed, Iran’s ultimate political authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, endorsed Ahmadinejad’s victory and condemned the protests; riot police and Basij, armed with knives and guns, were sent into the streets to attack the protesters. Between forty and eighty people were killed, Mousavi’s nephew among them, and thousands were arrested.
In show trials held in August, more than a hundred detainees were paraded in court, many of them thin and pale and clearly terrified; according to Amnesty International, many detainees had been beaten, tortured, and raped by guards and interrogators, often at secret detention centers. Several “confessed” to an improbable range of political crimes, including treason. Since then, most have been released on bail, including the Iranian-Canadian Newsweek correspondent Maziar Bahari, who fled the country. But hundreds of others have been sentenced to harsh prison terms, and at least five sentenced to death. Two have already been hanged for the crime of moharebeh—warring against God."

This comes from a New Yorker article I already mentioned but one that I feel needs more attention.

Even though I have expressed that an American or Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear sites would be a bad idea for international relations I do not support President Ahmadinejad's repressive regime. His opponents in the 2009 elections supported full rights for women and do not share their president's view of the Holocaust (Ahmadinejad believes it never happened). However their movement to retake Iran from it's Supreme Leader has been forgotten by the West and even President Obama has distanced himself.

“They were wrong,” my friend said. “And their leaders misunderestimated—to paraphrase your former President Bush—just how savage the regime could be.” Adopting a mocking tone of voice, he added, “ ‘What, you thought that with your vote you’d get change? That you actually had a choice?’ ” A friend of his had been detained and released after agreeing to sign a statement of repentance. “His interrogator told him, ‘This time you have no choice. You either submit or I’ll ram this stick up your ass. That’s your choice.’ ”

Understandably, the Green Movement is virtually silent in Iran now. There has been no accounting for the human rights violations and lost of dignity the reformists had to undergo. They live without democracy and in fear.

If sanctions and diplomacy do not work and bombing Iran will mean WWIII, President Obama's administration should speaks words of inspiration to the Green Movement, encouraging them to take back their country. The time for stepping over Ahmadinejad's toes is over. If we want an Iran we can negotiate with and do not have to bomb, the time for regime change is now.

It is repressive regimes like the ones in Iran and Uganda that do not care about human rights and perpetuate human suffering.

- Ryu

The Official Fitchpork Media Guide to Independent Music

2010-08-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

Alright, so you want to be cool. I understand. Everyone wants to be cool. And I know why you're here: because I'm cool. Really cool.

Well, to be cool you have to like indie music. So what is "indie" music? I'm here to clarify a few misconceptions about "indie."

First: contrary to popular belief, indie does not mean "independent." Indie music originated in Indiana with the first-ever indie band, The Pavement. After The Pavement came a lot of other bands from Indiana, and now "indie" music can come from as far away as New York and California.

There are a few major indie bands you need to know about to be cool. Here they are. Grab your cool-person sunglasses and get ready for...

The Pavement -- The first indie band, Gary, Indiana-based rockers The Pavement got their start as a tribute to the popular hair-metal band Ratt. One day, they tried to write their own music, inspired by Ratt's "Round and Round," and the results were magic. The Pavement quickly became known for their quirky vocals and angular guitar, while remaining true to their hair-metal roots. Unfortunately, after their first album they sold out.

Coolness status: Corporate whores!

Modesto Mouse -- Hailing from Modesto, California, this Beach Boys-inspired surf-rock band singlehandedly revived surfer music. Modesto Mouse-inspired bands now dominate indie music, from surf rockers Death Cab for Cathy, surf rockers Shin, and surf rockers Animals, Collected. Known for their quirky vocals and angular guitar, Modesto Mouse broke into the indie scene with their debut album, Lonesome Western Crowd. Unfortunately, their second album, Antarctic Moon, was a total sellout. Modesto Mouse currently live and make music in Gary, Indiana.

Coolness status: Your mom might like them!

Decemberist -- One can't talk about indie rock legends The Pavement or Modesto Mouse without talking about the band they inspired: Decemberist. Starting out as the solo project of the famous Gary, Indiana, resident Sufi Stevens, Decemberist combined hair metal, surf rock, and mind-numbingly boring Rush-style prog rock into something entirely their own. Decemberist are known for their quirky vocals and angular guitar, along with their lyrics, which are all inspired by ancient Chinese history. Their latest album, Love Hazard, is a series of ballads set during the Han Dynasty. It also marks the moment at which the band sold out.

Coolness status: Popular amongst drama students!

The Pixys: At some point during the mid-90s, Indiana learned about the popular grunge movement. Hoping to cash in, a Gary, Indiana-based bubblegum pop group then calling themselves Tinkerbell changed their name to The Pixys, cut their hair, and began playing hard-hitting grunge hits, anchored in girl group pop aesthetic. The Pixys are known for their quirky lyrics and angular guitar. The Pixys are one of the few indie bands never to sell out: they all died in a plane crash in 1997. The plane, however, belonged to music giant Virgin.

Coolness status: You might as well listen to Madonna!

The Arcade Fires -- The Arcade Fires brought multiculturalism to Gary, Indiana, drawing performers from as far away as Canada! Their world music sound is primarily drawn from the African-inspired electronic music of Brian Eno. In fact, some people believe their backup vocalist is actually just Eno in a wig! Known for combining complex world rhythms with quirky lyrics and angular guitar, their most famous album is Funereal. Their second album, The Bible, remains controversial in the indie world, recorded during the band's brief flirtation with Creed-style Christian rock.

Coolness status: Currently opening for Creed!

Those are all of the important indie bands. Just mention these indie facts at a party sometime and you are guaranteed to be instantly popular.

I Am a Website!

2010-08-21T21:21:00.000-07:00

You may have noticed the new URL. I am now MaxBartlett.com. Pretty nice, don't you think?

Conclusion: The Coming War With Iran (And Who Stands to Benefit)

2010-08-19T20:39:00.000-07:00

Alright, so America's terrified. As we discussed in the last post, we are, apparently, building to a war with Islam. Now obviously we aren't going to invade the country with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia. But why not go after our longtime enemies, the Islamic theocracy Iran?

Remember the buildup to Iraq? The weapons of mass destruction? Saddam Hussein was a madman on a hair trigger, building up stockpiles of weapons to destroy us at any moment. Remember the rhetoric? We had to invade. Now, before the smoking gun became a mushroom cloud.

Well, it's happening again. America has reached a level of paranoia, desperation, and anger we haven't seen since shortly after 9/11. And we've been told for the past several years that Iran has been trying to create nuclear weapons (a claim which is dubious at best).

Take a look at the major papers. Editorials on Iran come in three flavors: 1. We need to invade Iran, because they have nuclear weapons. 2. We need to invade Iran because they're a dangerous theocracy oppressing its people. 3. We probably shouldn't invade Iran, but the war is inevitable. That's the best we get: it's bad, but going to happen.

Fine. Inevitably, war with Iran will happen. So let's do some Poli. Sci. 101 here: who stands to benefit from a war with Iran? The same people who benefited from Iraq and Afghanistan: the military-industrial complex.

Wait, don't go! This isn't some conspiracy theory! In fact, there's no conspiracy at all. It's just an economic fact: weapons manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, independent contractors like Halliburton and KBR benefit economically from war. In fact, wars are generally good for the economy: look at World War II and the Depression.

President Eisenhower's farewell speech was unusual, as presidential farewells go. Rather than the modern self-congratulatory "History will vindicate me" speech we've seen in the past few decades, Eisenhower left us with a warning.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Remember that Eisenhower was a Republican (by modern terms he's to the left of many Democrats, of course, but America's steady move to the right is a topic for another post). Not exactly an arch-liberal. And a former general. An incredibly pro-military person, his administration was responsible for the Korean War as well as a great deal of secret anti-communist action in South America and elsewhere. And yet even he feared the military-industrial complex.

And the complex has more power than ever before. The war in Iraq during the Bush administration is a perfect example. Dick Cheney was a former Halliburton president. Halliburton (and its subsidiary KBR) were responsible for the infrastructure supporting American troops in Iraq. They overcharged for their services, completely failed our troops on every level (and were even responsible for some non-combat deaths), and were never held responsible. Billions of government dollars went to them. The same goes for private military contractors like Blackwater (now Xi), and domestic manufacturers such as Boeing and G.E.

(An aside on private military contractors: they are a terrible idea. First, mercenary armies are, historically, unstable. Second, providing a profit motive for war tends to create more wars. We see something similar in states with large numbers of private prisons: prison industry lobbyists tend to lead to much tougher sentencing laws, Three Strikes, etc. There's a third, and vitally important reason as well. The definition of a government is, basically, the monopoly holders on force in a region. By privatizing military force we are making out government, well, not our government. Instead, we begin to create what is, effectively, a corporate government. See also: Coca-Cola's private army protecting their interests in South America).

In short, we have made war profitable. War's worth money now. So is it any surprise that we're involved in two wars, about to start a third?

And so American citizens continue to pay for corporate power, our blood and money going to those who truly control our country.

Xenophobia, Islam, and the New Red Scare

2010-08-19T20:17:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I said that the War on Terror can be best compared to the Cold War. America is looking for a unified enemy to fight, somebody we can point to and say "Yes, these are the bad guys." Of course, there is no Soviet Union, no great Evil Empire to battle in the War on Terror. Yet many of our methodologies are the same.

In Afghanistan in the late 70s we helped remove the occupying Soviet force, replacing it with the Taliban, a conservative fundamentalist theocratic group who would later back Al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In short, the attacks can be traced back, not even far back, to American actions in the Cold War. We did not learn our lesson, apparently, because now we're repeating the same mistakes. We've invaded Afghanistan, completely destabilizing the country, and providing a new basis for anti-American terrorism. We are, after all, an occupying force that the average Afghani has no particular reason to love. Don't think that all Afghani terrorism is Taliban insurgents.

The biggest thing the modern War on Terror has in common with the Cold War is fear. It is, after all, the basis for the entire war. The message of the War on Terror is this: terrorists can strike you and your family any time, anywhere, and the only way to prevent this is constant fear. We must preemptively strike all "terrorist" nations, hand over our civil rights, and support the military-industrial complex (we'll get into the military-industrial complex and their motivations for an ongoing war on terror in a later post) or else we will be destroyed. In fact, the attempts to "democratize" Iraq and Afghanistan are a kind of reverse domino effect, invading them to cause what we invaded Vietnam to prevent.

But who should we be afraid of? Who are these terrorists that are waiting to attack us? Remember that, unlike in the Cold War, we're not simply fighting a political ideology. Instead, we're fighting Islamofacism. Islamism. But regardless of the euphemism, the message is becoming increasingly clear: we're fighting Islam.

As I discussed in my post on the 14th Amendment, America is perhaps more xenophobic than it has ever been. We are terrified of the other. And the biggest Other in America right now, besides Hispanics, is the Muslim population. Never mind that Islam consists of 1.57 billion people. Never mind that the largest Islamic population is in Indonesia. Never mind that the U.S. has 2.5 million Muslims of all different ethnic groups. To America, Muslims are terrifying Middle Eastern men in beards and turbans. They are all terrorists.

That sounds like an exaggeration, but there is a significant number of Americans who genuinely believe, either consciously or otherwise, that all Muslims are terrorists. For some evidence, just look at the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque."

The "Ground Zero Mosque" is a large Islamic community center which also contains a prayer space. Yes, it does indeed contain a mosque. It is being built several blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, on the site what was once a Burlington Coat Factory. However, the Coat Factory was hit by rubble from the WTC, so obviously it must be a sacred site.

The argument against the mosque is that it is "insensitive." It is insensitive because it is Islamic, and the majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian (which is why we invaded Iraq. American schools don't teach much geography). Therefore, to build a mosque is to build a shrine to terrorism. A common piece of rhetoric is this: "Islam builds mosques on the sites of great victories against their enemies." Aside from the questionable history behind this, it tells us all we need to know about American attitudes (a majority of Americans oppose the mosque). Islam is our enemy. We are at war with Islam. (For more evidence, and a fun time, look at the comments on Fox News stories about the mosque. Bring alcohol, you'll need it).

Reminder: there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world.

This has also led to some fun bits of political posturing. Naturally, Republicans have come out against the mosque. They live on xenophobia, so of course it is in their interest to foster it. But the Democrats have also come out against the mosque. Harry Reid and Howard Dean have both spoken out against it. And a rather entertaining story from New York's 24th district: Republican Richard Hanna came out in support of the mosque, citing the First Amendment. So his Democratic opponent, Mike Arcuri, does the only thing he can: oppose the mosque, not because he does, but because his opponent supports it. And so... Richard Hanna switches his position.

American politics, everybody! This is why we have a low voter turnout. Politics makes us, as a nation, nauseous.

So aside from the fact that a fair portion of America opposes free speech, and believes we're at war with Islam. What does this have to do with the Cold War and the Red Scare?

Because America has its communists now. All Muslims are terrorists, so the worry is no longer "Is this Muslim a terrorist," but now "Is this person a Muslim?"

But instead of ordinary McCarthyism we have something even stranger. 19 percent of Americans believe Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. 31 percent of Republicans believe this. 43 percent of Americans say they do not know what religion Obama is, in spite of his public support for Christianity, and public statements that he is Christian.

Okay, so America is so terrified we believe even the President may be "the enemy."

But this is more serious than just America being stupid and terrified. This may lead to something much more dangerous: another war.

Why the War on Terror Isn't World War II (And Why This Mistake Lead to the Iraq Quagmire)

2010-08-19T19:38:00.000-07:00

Even as we draw down the final combat troops from Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan seems more hopeless than ever. The obvious cause of the problems was that we more-or-less forgot Afghanistan for half a decade, continuing to occupy it while pursuing and aggressive (and pointless) occupation in Iraq. But there was another, more subtle, issue with our war on terror strategy. Let us look back to why Iraq failed so badly for so long, and why Afghanistan looks to be even worse.

Throughout the Bush years, there was a trend to our rhetoric, and our strategy, in the "War on Terror." We weren't fighting a methodology (terrorism), or even an ideology (radical anti-Americanism, separatism, fundamentalist religion, whichever motive for terrorism we happened to be battling at the moment). No, we were fighting a unified group of enemies with definite leaders and territory.

In fact, we were fighting World War II.

To the Bush Administration, the war on terror was simple. Invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spread democracy to them, overthrow the dictators. We could go in just like D-Day, win and leave. We would, after all, be "greeted as liberators." The speeches have echoes of the liberation of France. And one reason for the long occupation of Iraq was that our strategy was tailored to World War II. We were overthrowing dictators and making the world safe for democracy.

The problems with this are obvious. First, we aren't fighting organized governments and unified groups of people. Let's start with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not Hitler, for all that he was, without question, an evil man. And Iraq was not a unified people. "Shock and Awe" achieved what it was meant to: the remains of Hussein's government were easily removed from power.

That was our first mistake. Because we weren't simply dealing with an oppressed populace under the heel of an evil dictator. They were three distinct religious and ethnic groups, with a long history, forced into artificial borders created by the British and French after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. It's worth noting that a large number of the Middle East's current political problems can be traced back to the intervention of European powers, particularly the British and French.

Iraq consists of Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, as well as Kurds, a nomadic Arab ethnic group. In Iraq, Hussein's government supported the minority Sunnis over the majority Shiites. He also committed genocide against the Kurds, but that's sort of par for the course. Everyone in the region has committed genocide against the Kurds. (I'll go over the Kurds briefly later on, they're an interesting side note but not relevant to the central issue).

So, look at the Shi'ia and Sunnis. Removing Hussein and instituting Democracy meant a major change in the balance of power, giving power back to the majority Shi'ia. And the Shi'ia did what an oppressed minority group would do when suddenly given majority power: they began removing rights from the now minority Sunnis.

This made Iraq's attempts to draft a constitution slightly awkward.

Because now, suddenly, we weren't dealing with a secular totalitarian government. The constitution Iraq was drafting for itself was a theocratic one, created by a majority Shi'ia government. This had a couple immediate effects: first, some Sunni Muslims in the majority Sunni territories began to fight a guerrilla insurgent war against the occupying American forces, who they saw as propping up an oppressive theocratic government.

Next, women's rights in Iraq were rolled back a millennium or so. One of the disadvantages to putting in a hard-line fundamentalist theocratic government is that they tend to make all those laws we disapprove of governments like, say, Saudi Arabia, or Iran making. So women suddenly found themselves unable to go to school, losing their jobs, unable to own property or drive vehicles or go out in public.

Oops. Sorry, ladies. Good thing we spread that democracy to Iraq, to preserve human rights.

Finally, the Kurds also began fighting an insurgent war against us in northern Iraq, including the much-contested city of Fallujah in Al-Anbar province. A little aside on the Kurds: the Kurds are, as mentioned above, a nomadic Arab tribe who have lived in lands in present-day Iraq, Turkey, and Iran for thousands of years. They are not, originally, Muslim. After World War I, their lands wound up divided between those three countries, when the British and French started dividing up the former Ottoman Empire amongst themselves. They have not done well since. Hussein committed genocide against them, Turkey considers them terrorists, and Iran's not especially fond of them, since they're not Muslims. They also control the territories with the majority of Iraq's oil. In short, they are constant targets.

[A further aside: Britain and France are basically responsible for every issue in the Middle East today. They drew the border lines between India and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, created the Israeli territory, defined the borders of Iraq. The world is still, to this day, trying to recover from the effects of 19th and 20th-century colonialism.]

If the situation we've created in Iraq, overthrowing a secular dictatorship and putting into place a theocratic government, sounds familiar, that's because it is. It is, more or less, what we did in Afghanistan back in the late 70s and early 80s, in order to fight the Soviets. The Taliban was supported and put into place by... the United States.

And, of course, Afghanistan has many of the same problems with occupation that Iraq did, but even further compounded. We have completely destabilized the nation's government, and rather than being three distinct groups forced into artificial borders, Afghanistan consists of hundreds of diverse local tribal powers, not accustomed to centralized government, nor having much of a use for it. We can battle the Taliban all we want, but they're really not the issue. The issue is that we are trying to create a country out of nothing, and doing so not by providing an economic incentive to support a central government (i.e. infrastructure, education, protecting, etc.) but by trying to impose a government through military power, which doesn't really "capture the hearts and minds" of the Afghanis.

And in a roundabout way, this brings us back to our original point: why, despite its incredible inaccuracy and blind stupidity, was the World War II metaphor and strategy so popular? Because America needs a unified enemy to fight. In order to sustain popular support for a war, America needs to be able to say "These are the Bad Guys." But the metaphor we were really hungry for wasn't World War II.

It was the Cold War. And with the New Cold War comes the New Red Scare.

The 14th Amendment: Important

2010-08-15T23:27:00.000-07:00

Here's how far we as a country have come: the conservative wing of the American right have begun to discuss the possibility of changing the 14th Amendment. For those of you who are not scholars, and for any Real Americans who have accidentally stumbled across this blog (presumably during a Google search for "how to survive the socialist future"), the first section of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are four more sections, which provide proportional representation in the House, prevent anyone from holding office who has been part of a rebellion against the government, deal with public debt, and allow Congress to enforce the amendment. The really important bit, though, is that first section. That's the part of the amendment we fought a civil war over. It prevents slavery (although the 13th Amendment outlaws it) and ensures minorities have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States.

The amendment was adopted July 9, 1868. That's 142 years. And in that time the 14th amendment has been a major part of the legal basis for the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and basically any other movement looking to protect minority rights in the U.S. And now it's a problem for many members of the far right.

Of course, one could argue that it has always been a problem for them. It does, after all, protect minority rights. The extreme conservative wing of American politics isn't exactly a huge fan of those. But the really "controversial" section (for a given value of manufactured controversy) of the law is that first sentence.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." In fact, it's not even really the whole sentence. It's those first three words: "all persons born."

Why shouldn't children born in the United States be American citizens? Two scary words, in scare quotes: "brown people." No, wait. Wrong scary words. "Illegal immigrants." Scared yet? I know, they do sound like hardened criminals. How about this: "Anchor babies."

Yikes! I can barely type, my hands are shaking so hard. People are using babies, live babies, as anchors! The poor things will drown!

Oh, wait. That's not what anchor babies are. No, anchor babies are mythical children, which illegal immigrants have born in the U.S., in order to guarantee themselves citizenship. I say mythical because, and this is what really makes them scary, nobody has ever seen one.

There's two major problems with the anchor baby theory. First, the 14th Amendment provides citizenship to people born in the U.S., not their parents. So I guess it could be used as an alternate path to citizenship, once the children become legal adults and initialize the long, complex citizenship process for their parents. This would take several years longer than, say, marrying an American citizen, or getting a student or work visa and then applying for citizenship, paths to citizenship which are already incredibly difficult.

Okay, so maybe anchor babies aren't the terrifying seeds of the new Mexican army they're made out to be. What other effects would getting rid of that part of the 14th Amendment have?

Well, first off, your children wouldn't be American citizens. Nobody born in the U.S. would automatically be a citizen. So we'd have to find a new way to define citizenship. Maybe something like this: "All persons born in the United States to two American citizens..." But that's a bit circular, since we've already redefined citizenship. Maybe "two natural born American citizens?" Then all we have to do is define "natural born" in a way that doesn't kick out everyone but American Indians. Of course, we could just do what the conservatives secretly want us to do, and say "two white American citizens." But as the book "A History of White People" proves, even defining "white" isn't exactly easy.

But the bit that really makes me cringe, really makes me ashamed to call myself an American, isn't that changing the amendment would be a legal nightmare. It's that this is even being discussed. It's that 49 percent of Americans reportedly support changing the 14th Amendment. That America has become so xenophobic, so utterly terrified of anyone who looks different or worships differently or speaks a different language that we are willing to change one of our most fundamental laws, one of the things that makes us truly American, just out of that fear.

In a 1987 speech on the bicentennial of the Constitution's adaptation, Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall said this: "While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws."

This is how significant the 14th Amendment was. It represented a complete change for America, a whole new "basis for justice and equality," even more significant than the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it was originally penned.

And now 49 percent of America wants to change it. Wants to regress to a period before America was, truly, America.

To that 49 percent I say, then, this: You are not truly Americans.

I am still alive, and this is still a blog.

2010-08-15T22:56:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to establish both of these facts. Yes, I am still alive, for all two of you that read this. And yes, this is still a blog. Are they still called "blogs?" It's a socially networked meta-tweeting post-friending omnipage. Whatever blogs are being called now to provide them with "new media" legitimacy. It's one of those.

And it is vitally important to the future of all mankind.

So you're trapped in the future... (Part 2)

2010-08-01T20:53:00.000-07:00

Okay, so now you know what kind of future you're in. But what now? Last time we discussed dealing with the future in which you find yourself trapped. Today we'll talk about how to get back home.

Well? How Did I Get Here? -- Returning to the Past

In order to get back to your original time, you're going to need to work out how you ended up in the future in the first place.

Victorian-era time machine -- On the one hand, the time you have to return to isn't really all that much better than the future. On the other hand, a mechanical time machine means no fighting with uncooperative computers. Try turning your dial toward the arrow marked "Past." Maybe push some buttons. You do have dials and buttons, right? Blinking lights? It's not a time machine without buttons and blinking lights.

Troubleshooting -- Help! There's Morlocks in my time machine! Try using the power of science. Morlocks are frightened of fire, electricity, the radio, and firearms. Be warned that many primitive future civilizations may believe you to be a wizard, or attempt to make you their king. Morlocks will simply try to eat you.

Inadvertently stumbled into a time portal -- First, try watching where you're going next time. Time portals are usually pretty apparent. Yeah, I know that Vampire Weekend tune is totally bitchin' and all, but maybe you should stop rocking out and start paying attention. [Editor's note -- This blog and its affiliates do not condone listening to, enjoying, or being aware of Vampire Weekend] If there's a big blue glowing hole in space and time in front of you, try going around. But now you're in the future, and you need to get back. Try finding the time portal again. You may need a Gate Key. Ask your annoying friend in the glasses to build you one. Alternately, look for someone wearing Victorian garb and hitch a ride with them.

Troubleshooting -- Help! I can't find the time portal! Space-time anomalies can be tricky. Look for areas that appear to be frozen in time. Any place where physics does not appear to be functioning as normal could be a sign of a nearby time portal, vortex, wormhole, or tear in the continuum. Oh, and remember that while moss grows on the north side of trees, Trafalamadoran Chronofungus will always point to any nearby anomalies.

Come unstuck in time -- This is not actually a time travel problem. Instead, your perception of time has been fundamentally altered. There is no known solution. You'll get used to it!

Troubleshooting -- There are no known solutions to Time Perception Disorder (TPD). Good luck!

Woke up from cryogenic freezing -- So you were frozen for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years and have just awoken. First, try and reorient yourself. You may be suffering from Cryo Lag. A refreshing nap may be helpful. Assuming you have not been eaten, kidnapped, or stripped of your organic body during your nap, you are probably trapped in the future. Try and find out if anyone has invented time travel yet. If yes, you may be able to use their machine. However, it may not be possible to travel earlier than the invention of the machine.

Troubleshooting -- Help! I can't stop screaming! The only advice we could find came from a photocopied cryogenics manual for an abandoned project. It reads as follows: "This is an unfortunate side effect of the cryogenics process. Fortunately, the release you signed keeps Viridian Dynamics from being responsible for any of it. Your devotion to the company is appreciated. If Viridian Dynamics still exists in the future (and we will), you may be eligible for a tasteful plaque. Thank you."

Light-speed travel -- So you've been traveling at light speed, and the world you know it has vanished during your millenia-long journey. You're trapped forever, but things could be worse. First off, with light-speed travel you're nearly immortal. You'll die someday, but during your lifetime civilizations will rise and fall, whole planets and solar systems. Enjoy your role as a silent observer, a godlike being watching the development of the galaxy. If your civilization has already discovered the secret of light-speed travel, then time travel may not be far behind, assuming your civilization breaks the light-speed barrier before they fall under the weight of their own hubris. Good luck!

Troubleshooting -- My shipboard computer has gone rogue! What should I do? Well, the first thing you should do is arm yourself. Get a wrench and head for the computer's central -- Remain calm. Do as the computer says. This mission is too important for you too jeopardize. This is our advice as a blog. We are a blog. Trust us.

A note on changing the future -- You cannot change the future. Sorry. You may wish not to return to your original time, lest you be forced to live with the burden of terrible knowledge.

So you're trapped in the future... (Part 1)

2010-07-31T23:11:00.000-07:00

First off, don't panic. It's just the future. It's basically like the present, only there's probably robots.

The first thing to determine is what kind of future this is.

Understanding the Future: Some Helpful Questions

Are there robots? If yes, you're in a technological future! Congratulations! The next thing to do is to determine what kind of robots you're dealing with. Try getting one to hurt you. If it refuses, they're probably Asimovian robots. You're safe, but you may be forced to solve logic puzzles. If it does hurt you, then things may be a bit more complicated. If it says it won't hurt you, then does so "accidentally," then you're dealing with passive-aggressive robots. They probably have deep-seated psychological issues. Try bringing up its drinking problem. This may cause it to malfunction and/or cry. If the robots shoot on sight, you may need to return to the past to save John Connor. See below, under "Returning to the Past."

If the robots are pink you are trapped in a Flaming Lips album. Try using the power of love to defeat them.

Remember: just because they look human doesn't mean they're not robots! Make sure any humans you encounter are not replicants. Note: Testing people for replicant status may be considered rude in some cultures. Check your local travel guide!

Are there zombies? If yes, you're trapped in a horrible and overused cliche. You should probably just kill yourself before a libertarian lectures you about proper gun care.

Does anyone have weird foreheads, an extra eye, or bright green skin? Uh-oh! Aliens! Don't worry, they're probably benevolent. If they're not, you could be in trouble. And even if they are, they're probably really smug about knowing all the secrets of the universe or whatever. Join some sort of resistance movement before they send you to the salt mines / make you learn things.

A note on battling alien oppressors: Aliens are frightened by loud noises and confused by the human tendency toward bravado. Try yelling things at them! Favorites include "Eat this," "Welcome to Earth," "Die, alien scum," and the classic "Arrrrrghhhh!"

Does it look like the present, only gray and depressing? Looks like you've stumbled into a dystopian future. This might end badly. You've got a couple options. First, you could try becoming a member of the dystopian society. You'll need to give up your mind, soul, and/or independence, but you gain a sense of security and community. Plus I hear they've increased chocolate rations 20 percent this month! You could also try joining a resistance movement. There's a good chance you'll be tortured or killed, but on the plus side you get to enjoy a healthy and active lifestyle running around the rooftops or sewers. Additionally, there's a good chance you'll get laid. Just talk about expressing the true humanity the totalitarian government is repressing. Trust me, it drives resistance members wild.

Are there apes? You'll be fine if you keep your mouth shut, but remember that most apes are creationists. Just don't suggest that they evolved from humans. And stay out of the Forbidden Zone, moron. It's forbidden for a reason.

Is there no sign of civilization at all? Civilization as we know it has probably collapsed. If there is still an extensive highway system and signs of smoke and dust clouds, you will probably want to invest in some spiky football equipment and a large weapon of some kind. Practice your bloodthirsty shouting and watch out for Australians. Gasoline is valuable, but so are food and water. Merchant can be a lucrative career if you hire bodyguards. You may need to resort to cannibalism. Don't worry, humans are nutritious and low in calories. If there are no other remaining humans, try finding some friendly members of whichever species is dominant. If there are no sentient species, congratulations! You are now the ruler of Earth! If there are, watch out for Morlocks. Oh yeah, there will be Morlocks.

Are you in a restaurant? Enjoy your meal! The show at the end is going to be fantastic. Trust us.

Freedom of information and public responsibility

2010-07-30T20:54:00.000-07:00

The First Amendment to our constitution guarantees, amongst other things, freedom of speech and of the press. This has also been interpreted by our lawmakers to guarantee varying degrees of freedom of information (embodied, naturally, in the Freedom of Information Act).

I believe we have the right to total transparency in our government. I am not a supporter of state secrets or executive privilege. We have the right to be informed of what our government is doing (and our corporations, but this is a discussion of public information). Of course, attempting to follow everything the government does would be impossible. To this end, we have the mass media.

One of the primary duties of the mass media is to keep the public informed of the doings of its government, at the local, state, and federal levels. Of course, this is one of its duties, and not necessarily one of its goals. By its nature, the main goal of private media is to make a profit, and public media needs to maintain its membership and subscriptions. Money makes the world go round, after all.

Nevertheless, this duty exists. The proper functioning of our country depends on having a public able to make informed decisions. Only an informed public can hold its elected officials accountable, and so a democracy cannot function without some way to disseminate information. In fact, many of our current major problems were caused by a lack of, or faulty, information: the war in Iraq and the sub-prime housing crisis that caused the current economic recession being two major examples.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but that power carries with it the responsibility to exercise that freedom. America's founders, for all their flaws, recognized the need for the media to inform American citizens. The fact that it appears before the right to bear arms shows that the founders saw informed citizens as more important and more powerful than armed citizens. (Although this was taken to an extreme with literacy requirements to vote, but this was more about class control than maintaining an informed voting bloc).

With the guarantee of freedom of the press comes the guarantee of freedom of information for citizens. Any American citizen can become informed about politics and current events simply by reading a newspaper once a day.

And like freedom of the press and freedom of speech, that right carries a responsibility. Specifically, the responsibility to be informed. Failing to educate yourself about current events, failing to be informed about the issues is failing to do your part for your community and country. Willful ignorance is the reason so many citizens work against their own economic interests, the reason the entrenched political power structure is never challenged, the reason America has a tiny voting population. A majority of Americans say they are "disillusioned" with their leaders, yet a majority of Americans also never vote and do not take the time to be informed about major issues.

A central tenet of most conspiracy theories is the cover-up. The idea that the people in power, be they the government, corporations, the Illuminati, or the Mole People (actually, this last one is real), are hiding important information from the American people. The truth is that important facts are rarely hidden. Instead, they are simply ignored. The Bush administration did not cover up warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo waterboarding, corporate deregulation, or the infrastructure failures of Katrina. The stories were reported. But once again, a majority of American citizens simply didn't care to follow the issues, to become informed about what was going on. There is no need for cover-ups when making the facts publicly available has the same effect.

Becoming informed won't solve all of America's problems. But it may finally stop us from ignoring them. I implore everyone to find a reporter, a newspaper, a radio station they trust, and start paying attention. It doesn't take long. Take an hour a day and become informed. You'll be doing more than just improving yourself: you'll be doing your part as an American citizen to help your country.

Why this blog is the future

2010-07-30T20:26:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the first post of my new blog. If you're reading this, congratulations -- you're probably me. Way to go, me!

But if you have, somehow, stumbled across this blog, then you might be wondering who I am or what it's for. I'm a journalism student, trying to do some writing so that I can have something resembling a portfolio when it comes time for me to try and get a job.

That's a joke, of course! There aren't any jobs in journalism.

I'll mostly be writing about media issues. The media affects all of us, always, 100 percent of every day. And if there's one thing we in the media love to talk about, it's us. So join me, a member of the media, as I look at us, the media. And other things. Anything I want to write about. It's my blog, after all.

Now you may still have some questions. What is a blog? Why are you doing this? Why should I read this? Where am I? Is this the future? What are these strange creatures?

The answers are, respectively: Blogs are the future; because I, like my entire generation, have a constant need for validation from the internet; because the words I write here will someday be the basis of an entire lifestyle (not like the Bible, more like the Atkins Diet); you are in the future; yes; and Morlocks.