Santhood

I've fallen under Gus Van Sant's hypnotic gaze. I've always liked his more conventional films, "Drugstore Cowboy" and "To Die For" especially (and I'll always have a soft spot for "Good Will Hunting," for reasons that, if you read this humble space on a reg basis, should be immediately apparent), but for years he fell off my viewing radar, and when he released "Gerry" in 2002, the description of it didn't rouse me to rush to the theater ("Rental" I told myself, like Harmony Korine's "Julien Donkey-Boy," neither of which I've yet seen). Then came "Elephant," Van Sant's interpretation of the Columbine killings, and here my interest kicked in. I've long been fascinated with and horrified by school shootings, seemingly a unique American phenomenon, and one I can sort of understand on a raw conceptual level, having been a bullied teen myself. But unlike the other Columbine flick, "Zero Day," which packs immediate punch, "Elephant" drifts slowly along, taking its time while playing with time, gently but steadily placing us in the middle of an innocuous high school day, only we know what's coming, and the long single takes before the violence erupts increases our anticipation and anxiety.

Truth be told, I didn't like "Elephant" upon first viewing. It was my initial exposure to Van Sant's newer, smaller, slower style, and I was extremely impatient while watching those kids walk and walk and walk across school grounds and through the hallways. Still, the film stayed with me, and when I watched it again about a month later, I enjoyed it a lot more, and understood, cement-head me, what Van Sant was attempting and appreciated what he achieved. So when he followed "Elephant" with "Last Days," I knew that I had to allow the film to guide me, and not force my attention on it. Releasing my grip, I got so much more out of the viewing, watching it twice over the weekend.

"Last Days," as I'm sure you know, is about, well, the last days of a popular drugged-out rock star named Blake, who is clearly modeled on Kurt Cobain. Nothing much happens. The majority of the action, such as it is, takes place inside a dilapidated rural mansion where Blake and his two bandmates (along with their two girlfriends) shuffle around, get high, listen to music, watch TV, sleep, fuck, eat, pet kittens, stare off into space. A Yellow Pages salesman and a pair of young Mormon missionaries enter and leave quickly, and there is a subplot of sorts (never developed) where a private investigator, sent by an unseen Courtney Love-ish character, is looking for Blake, but doesn't find him as Blake, in a rare burst of energy, bolts outside and hides amid the trees. And that's about it. Blake says practically nothing to anyone, and when he does, you can barely hear what he's muttering. He continually changes his clothes, nods off here and there, plays a little guitar, but overall seems imprisoned by his own emotions, his drug habit, and by the financial pressure to go on tour, which he doesn't want to do. So he slowly wastes away, seemingly convinced that whatever is passing for reality really isn't worth engaging.

Van Sant's single, slow, beautifully-shot takes hauntingly convey Blake's numbed-out world -- a dope-tinged voyeurism where you feel the heaviness that weighs Blake down. I've never done smack, or anything close, but I have, in younger times, participated in days-long drug & booze fueled communal partying where everyone stumbled over each other, doing nothing constructive save for keeping the buzz going for as long as possible. Though unlike Blake and his band, we did from time to time engage in political/artistic discussions, however hazy and unfocused. But I know that underwater-like sensation, and Van Sant captures it well. It's depressing as hell and counter-creative and reserved for the young and supposedly fit. Yet when you watch Blake walk as if he's eighty-years-old, the physical endurance of youth seems fragile and easily destroyed. For Blake, it's the self-inflicted punishment for fame.

The clearest performance in "Last Days" belongs to Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth who, I'm guessing, is playing herself. She urges Blake not to be a "rock star cliche" and offers him a chance to escape his slow suicide and get cleaned up. But Blake is beyond escape, mumbling from under his dirty blonde locks, and Gordon reluctantly leaves him to his fate. I know that Nirvana got its first big break opening for Sonic Youth, and that Gordon and partner Thurston Moore were quite close to Kurt Cobain. I don't know if either of them ever tried to get Cobain some help, but this scene feels as if Gordon is talking to Cobain's ghost, sadly chastising him for making such a foolish and predictable choice. It's perhaps the film's most conventional scene, the sole direct attempt to shake Blake out of his stupor. The look on Blake's face after Gordon exits shows that he's aware of where he's soon headed, but he's either too weak or too resigned to do anything about it.

"Last Days" ends with Blake's dead body discovered by a gardener. Though he's been playing with a shotgun through parts of the film, we never hear a blast nor see Blake pull the trigger. There's no "Kurt and Courtney" speculation about whether or not Blake had help ending his life (that film's director, Nick Broomfield, believes that Kurt Cobain acted alone) -- just a thin pale corpse in tattered jeans and sneakers, finally free of this mad world, naked soul climbing up to something presumably better. After enduring Blake's ponderous and painful final days, the last scene seems somewhat happy, or as happy as one can hope for in a story so layered in sadness.

Reads

Having read very little of Victor Davis Hanson's output, I'm indebted to Ian Garrick Mason, who apparently can ingest large amounts of Hanson's inflated prose without choking to death on the guy's pro-slaughter sanctimony. Ian's review of Hanson's new happy war tome was just pubbed in The Spectator, so read it already. Ian, a Toronto-based scribe and new friend of mine, is much calmer than I would be were I to review that book. Actually, I wouldn't review that book. I'd feed it to a woodchipper, then use the remains to line a Habitrail for the hamsters to crap on -- a form of "functional literacy" that goes beyond mere reading.

As I'm sure you've noticed, Ian has joined my semi-revised blogroll, along with pal K. of Bitch/Lab, satirist Barry Crimmins, a great guy who once wrote for Dennis Miller and emerged with wit intact, Michael Bérubé, an academic lib who's readable and actually funny, and Against The War on Terror, a new site run by grad students at Columbia who are asking and exploring overlooked and quite necessary questions about our present degraded state. Read them all. That should buy me enough time to cough up some new posts.

Damn You, Democracy!

How many blue- or purple-fingered Hamas voters have you seen online today? Given our deep deep love of democracy, you'd think that bloggers far and wide would be posting numerous pix of happy Hamas supporters showing that they, too, are down with this voting thing. Yet, for some strange reason, I can't find any, save for a single photo on the NYTimes site (but then, what can you expect from that America-hating rag?). Doesn't Hamas' electoral victory further prove that President Bush's freedom crusade in the Middle East is right on track?

As I've said before, for upstanding Americans, there is the Right Kind of Freedom, and there's the Wrong Kind of Freedom. Hugo Chavez winning in Venezuela was Wrong. Evo Morales winning in Bolivia -- Wrong. And Hamas winning the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament? Wrong, so very very Wrong.

Not that the US didn't try to steer Palestinian voters to vote Right. After all, we sunk some $2 million into the Palestinian Authority's coffers, another sign that Americans favor freedom (though only we are allowed to financially influence elections in other countries). But damn it, those Palestinians clearly didn't appreciate our altruism. Instead, they've handed the keys to a radical Islamic party. What does that say about their values?

Normally, I avoid most rightwing and related warblogs, simply because once you've read them, you've read them, and there's only so much monotonous kettle drumming I can take. But in the wake of Hamas' strong showing, I had to see what the Freedom Lovers were saying, and to a patriot they are pissed when not resigned to what some believe was an inevitable outcome. After all, the Palestinians are pretty much a terrorist race, and their electoral preference simply reinforces the fact. Roger "Hold On To Your Hat!" Simon opined, "I am glad Hamas won. Elections should reflect the will of the people and this one reflects the will of the Palestinians. Now we know." Ed Morrissey bluntly mused, "[T]he Palestinians should be judged by the choices they have made this week. They have chosen war and the annihilation of Israel over the two-state solution favored publicly (if not fervently) by Fatah . . .Clearly, the Palestinians want war, and they have made no secret of using their children and grandchildren as bomb fuses in order to perpetuate it." Cap'n Ed ended his post by fantasizing about Israeli-led ethnic cleansing, so his optimism for the region's future hasn't completely eroded.

When the Israelis voted in veterans of terrorist militias like Yitzhak Shamir, Menachem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, men not only committed to war and territorial expansion, but also opposed to recognizing Palestinians as human beings, much less as equal negotiating partners, I don't remember many people writing that this proved that Israelis as a whole were devoted to state terrorism, or that Jews as a race reveled in war and endless bloodshed. And what about we fine Americans? Aren't we responsible, as a people, for re-electing Bush and thus endorsing his war and torture doctrine? There are plenty of people worldwide who believe this and think, should we get hit again by a terrorist attack, that we have it coming. But try saying that in the American media and see where it gets you. Yet when it comes to the Palestinians, few flinch when comparable arguments are made.

Amid these and other outbursts today, some rather relevant history is being studiously avoided. Much is being said about Hamas' past, but no one I've read is reminding us that Israel helped Hamas take its first serious steps as a political alternative to the PLO. Faced with a moderating Fatah that was calling for mutual recognition and mutual security guarantees, Israel, while continually rejecting these offers, began pushing and funding Hamas, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, in an effort to weigh down the PLO's secular nationalism and hopefully drain some of its support in the territories (as a US government official put it to UPI's Richard Sale in this 2002 piece, "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place . . . Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with"). This, combined with corruption in Fatah and its relocation to Beirut, worked incredibly well, as we now see. Factor in Hamas providing social services in some of the poorest areas of the territories, as well as being seen by many powerless and brutalized Palestinians as standing up to Israel, and what happened yesterday is really no surprise.

There are those, like former Saddam supporter Daniel Pipes, who are calling for Hamas' destruction, claiming that Hamas is the same as al-Qaeda and therefore must perish. Apart from the fact that al-Qaeda is not a fixed political/religious party that runs candidates in open elections, and that unlike Hamas, which derives what power it has directly from its own people, al-Qaeda is parasitic, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, attempting to destroy Hamas would be largely impossible, and would result in a massive death toll, given its deep support in the territories. Plus, it would lead to more terrorism, which death cultists like Pipes would welcome since he could then call for more violence against the Arab/Persian world. As it stands, Hamas has declared that it will continue to honor the cease-fire it negotiated with Israel in February 2005, so long as Israel does the same. Why would you attack someone who is holding up their end of a cease-fire? Again, in Pipes' case, the answer is obvious.

How yesterday's Palestinian elections will ultimately shake down is anybody's guess. The Palestinians remain caged inside the West Bank and Gaza while surrounded by an Israeli military that has superior firepower. Much of their population are unemployed and live in abject poverty. That they went to the polls in such large numbers shows that the desire for some kind of political say hasn't been extinguished, but it has been seriously sharpened. Hamas isn't going away, and if one seriously wishes that its members moderate their views and take a political path, then perhaps calling for Hamas' violent extinction isn't the best tactic to employ, especially when it comes from Americans. Given our heavy role in grinding Palestinians into the dirt, we've said enough as it is.

MUST READ: I don't want to oversell this, but if you find extreme political stupidity at all humorous, then you cannot pass up this howler by Debbie Schlussel. So good that FrontPage carried it today. What better endorsement do you need?

Smearing

After reading dozens of libs denouncing Chris Matthews for ostensibly comparing Osama bin Laden to Michael Moore, I'm left wondering what kind of media they truly think we have. Yoking the Enemy Of The Moment to whatever dissident or muckraker is making the most noise (or has made a significant cultural/political dent) is part of the program. Been going on for decades, and not all of those smeared have had the wealth and media power of Michael Moore, whom I suspect, given his response to Matthews, is scarcely shaken by it. Indeed, any publicity is good publicity, as a PR pro like Moore clearly appreciates.

Besides, who really cares what Chris Matthews says? The majority of the country doesn't watch him, and even among those who for some strange reason look to cable news nets for information, his ratings are not all that impressive. But if you live on a steady diet of Crooks and Liars and Media Matters, as well as some of the bigger lib blogs, then hacks like Matthews are huge stars, their nightly utterances ringing loudly from coast to coast. And when Matthews says what he did about Moore, ZAPPO, a fresh blog site pops up to counter him and tries to shame him into apologizing to Moore and retracting his slander.

All good fun as far as it goes, like letting people line up and throw rotten fruit at a cardboard cut-out. Channels some hostility and makes you feel a bit better. But even if Matthews were to flog himself with razor wire while standing in a bucket of bullshit, begging Moore and outraged online libs for forgiveness, the media structure that makes him inevitable remains, and there are plenty more mouthpieces who'll say, and have said, pretty much anything to get attention and thus an extra ratings point.

The Bash Chris Matthews campaign buys into and extends the politics of personality and celebrity, and diverts attention away from the real issue, which of course is the corporate stranglehold on the "public" airwaves. The beauty of the Web is that average citizens can be seen and heard in a way unthinkable less than a generation ago, and the instant, uncensored connection between people who've never met ensures that ideas and calls to action are spread to areas where door-to-door canvassers could never reach with any regularity. So why waste time demanding that Matthews say he's sorry? There are much more urgent problems to address and larger themes to take apart, as I'm sure many of you are aware. What Chris Matthews thinks of Michael Moore is meaningless, as is all this online "talking back."

Boom Laden

Osama's latest cut came at a good time for Bush, what with the negative buzz over wiretapping and the increasing unpopularity of the Iraq madness. But taped threats (and an offer of a truce, however genuine and already dismissed) can carry an embattled prez only so far. The real sizzle will be felt if/when another terrorist attack or series of attacks actually goes down. That's when we'll know how deep the opposition to Bush truly is. Justin Raimondo believes that the next round of mass killing on US soil could destroy Bush and his presidency once and for all -- that people will blame his violence in Iraq for creating more jihadist anger and reprisal, and that "far from marking the beginning of a new era of repression, it would more likely spark a popular upsurge bordering on open revolt."

Err, I'm not so sure about that. Anything can happen amid chaos and slaughter, of course; but somehow I doubt that a devastating attack will push most Americans to rattle the White House gates, demanding royal scalps. I'm guessing the opposite will happen, that people will rally 'round Dear Leader yet again, looking for certainties and reinforcement as the images of burning buildings, bridges, cars, whatever, loop endlessly on cable news and chat. And you know the corporate media's not gonna turn on Bush after an attack, esp after all the huffing and puffing seen on Fox & MSNBC yesterday, inspired by a single ratty-sounding tape (the cable nets feast crazily at times like this). Think more piles of dead and dying Americans at home will weaken or topple Bush? If anything, that'll make more toxic the domestic scene, and I seriously doubt that Bush bashing will be seen by the majority as a proper, much less "patriotic," response.

We're locked into this insanity for some time to come, I'm afraid -- theologies committed to carnage and control clashing as larger economic and geopolitical wars are waged by the global elite (business class) with we poor schmucks stuck in the middle of it all, urged to cheer on the Home Team (a false but comforting construct) by screaming lunatics & bullshit artists employed by privately-owned media outlets.

I plan to flesh out these thoughts and themes in the days ahead. But for now, I'm too fucking disgusted to tappa tappa tappa.

Matrix Liberals

Yesterday's post about Al Gore's police state past inspired a lot of anguish & invective that flew my way. Somehow, I expected this, for when you go after lib idols like Gore, who according to many online libs and obedient Dems is a populist messiah resurrected to tame these troubled times, you're gonna hear the wailing. In many ways, libs are easier to anger than their reactionary opposites, for they truly believe themselves to be level-headed, compassionate, "reality based." Call them out on this or show that their premises are not all that different from those they politically despise, and they get pissed, as a good number did after reading my critique of Gore.

Some dismissed what I said as simple RNC talking points, for if you attack a mainstream Dem, then you must be a Repub. What other position exists? Others weren't sure if what I said about Clinton/Gore's enthusiasm for domestic spying and surveillance was entirely true, but even if it was, that's all in the past and we need to focus on what Bush is doing today. But the one reaction that both delights and frightens me is that, yes, Clinton/Gore did indeed push for police state measures; but unlike Bush, they did so within the law.

Big difference there, Red boy! Your pitiful, hateful attempt to equate Gore with Bush on this front is fallacious on its face!

Well, equation wasn't really my point. As I clearly wrote, Gore, in concert with Clinton, helped to set the stage that Bush has now commandeered in his typically reckless way. It's nice that Gore is apparently upset with Bush's criminal behavior, but Gore's hands are not entirely clean in this regard and I thought that should be remembered. But again, many libs don't want to remember the Clinton years that way. Disrupts the pleasant narrative in their heads. And besides, as I was repeatedly informed, Clinton/Gore's expansion of police and federal power was done so legally. End of story.

There's a sharp funny poem by Charles Bukowski titled "Law" which fits in nicely here. (I don't have it in print form, only audio, so I won't attempt to construct the stanzas, as I'm sure I'll get it wrong.) Bukowski looks out his window and sees children hanging in the trees, all dead and dying. He asks his friend next to him, "What does it mean?" and the friend replies, "I don't know. It's authorized."

Next day, the trees are filled with dead and dying dogs. "What does it mean?" Buk asks again. "Don't worry about it," his friend tells him. "It's the way of things. They took a vote. It was decided."

Next day, cats. Day after that, horses. All hanging in the trees, dead and dying, according to the law. Finally, Buk's friend pulls a gun on him and says "Let's go." They walk outside and the trees are filled with dead and dying adults.

"What does it mean?" Buk asks for the final time.

"It's authorized. Constitutional. It passed the majority," his friend informs him as a noose is tightened around Buk's neck. Both then wonder if the last person alive will have to hang himself.

Buk says, "What if he doesn't?"

The friend gets upset. "He has to! It's authorized!"

Buk shrugs and mutters, "Let's get on with it."

Gore apologists embrace the same reasoning -- "Yes, Dems have spied on citizens, tapped their phones, checked their bank records, used the IRS as a weapon, but you see, we had to, because it's the law!" As I've said before, libs and Dems have no serious problem with an expansive, intrusive state, so long as the repressive laws they pushed and got passed aren't being broken. Bush's real crime is circumventing the police state legislation laid down by Clinton/Gore, though something tells me that even if Bush had stayed within "the law," online libs would still be crying foul. Again, when Dems operate the machinery of state, it's all good, and only bigots and wingnuts would question this.

One sensitive lib asked me why I use such harsh language when criticizing her tribe. What's behind all that? Well, even though some of my best friends are liberals, I really can't stand their sanctimony and smug belief that they alone represent progress and overall decency. I've worked on many campaigns with active Dems. I've phone banked, driven the elderly to the polls, canvassed neighborhoods and all the rest, so I've seen pointblank how Dems operate, and a more self-satisfied bunch I've yet to fully experience. Even that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the collective delusion that a political opportunist and authoritarian like Bill Clinton embodied progressive values while he catered to and adopted many of the same positions as the reactionaries he supposedly opposed. Al Gore's record isn't much better, despite what his liberal fans want to believe. At least when rightwingers act like assholes, I expect it. But when libs claim to believe in social progress, then stump for Dems who support the death penalty, criminalization of the poor, the drug war, "terror" wars, and related police state measures, it truly sets me off. They are no better and in some ways are worse than the Repubs, who are consistently horrid and thus true to their creed. Liberals, for the most part, fool themselves and throw a fit when they fail to fool others.

But that's a behavioral critique. My deeper disdain stems from the fact that American libs are pretty happy with this corporate-owned system, indeed, call themselves "patriotic" when defending it. Their main problem with the Repubs is that the GOP doesn't run the system to their liking, but the system itself is fine. So the rest of us are locked into this fixed arrangement whether we like it or not; and when voting time comes 'round, we are told that we must push the Dem button, no matter how awful the candidate, because the alternative would be worse.

Thus, Al Gore, who headed the most rightwing Dem ticket in memory, will save us from the likes of George W. Bush.

This is our political "reality." These are our boundaries, the left side of which is patrolled by the Matrix Liberals. But unlike Morpheus in the original film, the Matrix Liberals offer only the Blue Pill, which keeps us blind to the prison that surrounds us and so under control. It's gonna take a regiment of Neos to break that hardened grip.

Al Be Damned

Liberals, when not arrogant about their righteousness, can be and usually are true suckers & saps. Clinton worship is the main sign, a chance for libs to shill for the death penalty, either thru lethal injection or a federal assault on private citizens, and to lecture the poor on their bad social habits, a Clintonite fave since the early days of welfare "reform." And while we wait for the you-know-they're-coming justifications for President Hillary, we have the spectacle of online libs fainting and fawning at Al Gore's feet.

"Not the Al Gore, the guy who headed the most rightwing Dem ticket of modern times?"

Yep. Him.

Since throwing in the towel to the Bush gang in 2000, Gore has undergone a semi-political makeover, making populist noises and bellowing about Bush's corruption, incompetence and deceit -- easy enough to do since there's so much to denounce. But in a Martin Luther King Day address in DC, Gore attacked Bush's police state spying apparatus and pleaded for Congressional Dems and Repubs to get back in the business of serious legislative oversight. All well and good. Problem is, Gore failed to mention his and Bill Clinton's rather major role in setting the repressive stage for Bush.

Clinton/Gore, in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, came forth a year later with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which, under the guise of fighting terrorists, was a frontal assault on the Fourth Amendment and further expanded federal police power. The Clinton/Gore admin also was in favor of roving wiretaps, which they felt the FBI should conduct without a court order. But even before Oklahoma City, Clinton/Gore sought more state control over the populace via the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, passed in 1994, which aided police and federal spying on citizens by tapping digital phone networks. Not only did the phone companies have to allow any and all surveillance of their networks, they also were required to make phone call records available to the state. On top of all this, anyone being spied upon was not to know that they were under federal or police suspicion for whatever reason.

Then there's the expansion of prison building and the use of the federal death penalty (while curtailing death row prisoners’ habeas corpus appeals), as well as tightening the screws on the poor that Clinton/Gore actively supported and pushed into action. But let's not pile on too much here, for whenever I bring any of this up to Clinton/Gore libs, they get very testy, and if sufficiently prodded, they take pride in their heroes' "law and order" stance. In other words, many libs have no real problem with domestic spying and limitless state power. They just don't like it when the Repubs are at the wheel.

Maybe Al Gore has truly changed. Maybe he's become some kind of civil libertarian. Appearing on the same stage with Bob Barr, whose record on this front is much much better than Gore's, suggests that he might take seriously what he says. But before we can believe anything this career politician and friend to the powerful proclaims, acknowledgment of his role in subverting the Constitution should be demanded. Only then can this purported "conscience of the Democratic Party" be considered even moderately clean.

MLK

Two white Florida teens beating a black homeless man with bats -- what better image to wake up to on Martin Luther King Day? I'm sure you've seen the mugs of those assholes, currently in custody for killing another homeless man in the Fort Lauderdale area. Now they get to test their toughness in prison. Good luck, boys.

Nearly 40 years after King's assassination, savage bullshit like the above continues in America, and probably always will. The Civil Rights movement did much to change white people's opinions about and conduct toward those of African descent. When I grew up, nigger jokes were told openly and without second thought. Today, those who still find humor in racist jokes must mutter the punchlines as if passing a secret code. Apart from a Klan picnic or skinhead Nazi oi concert, you simply won't hear most white people spewing such hateful crap. The Civil Rights movement altered their personal behavior for the better. That's an improvement.

Yes, the Civil Rights movement did much more than change the way white people think. It brought blacks into the American mainstream and opened doors for other minorities, as well as giving a nice political jolt to the feminist movement and those fighting for queer rights. In short, the Civil Rights movement helped to democratize American life, however unevenly or raggedly. (Even Malcolm X came to this conclusion, after dumping all the anti-King bile fed him by Elijah Muhammad.) Of course, there was negative, violent reaction to all this, and it continues today. But King and those whose names we'll never know forever changed American life. They did so in the face of racist hostility and government suspicion and infiltration. For that effort alone, and the fruits born of it, a moment of silence today would be the least we could offer their memories.

As the British Labour leader Aneurin Bevan put it, reaction loves to wear the medals of its defeats; and you cannot move far in rightwing bloggoland without seeing puffy chests festooned with plastic medals and gaudy ribbon. Judging from some of the reactionary takes on King, you'd think that the late Civil Rights leader was always celebrated as a fine fellow, a decent American, and if the Heritage Foundation is to be believed, a conservative who would, had he lived, doubtless stump for the likes of Bush/Cheney. This is a collective effort of ideological ass-covering. The National Review at the time not only was hostile to King, it editorially supported state's rights in the South when Civil Rights workers were being beaten and murdered. To much of the American right of the 1950s-60s, King was a commie race-mixing agitator who sought to undermine if not destroy the American system. And when King began speaking out against the Vietnam War and the capitalist assault on the poor, the Liberal Media, which patted King's head after Selma, turned decidedly against him. As my friends Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon wrote in a 1995 piece about the Martin Luther King the corporate media has forgotten:

"By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his Beyond Vietnam' speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 -- a year to the day before he was murdered -- King called the United States 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.'

"From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was 'on the wrong side of a world revolution.' King questioned 'our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America,' and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions 'of the shirtless and barefoot people' in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

"In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about 'capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries.'

"You haven't heard the 'Beyond Vietnam' speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 -- and loudly denounced it. Time magazine called it 'demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.' The Washington Post patronized that 'King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.'"

Also, on "Meet the Press" in 1967, just after Israel launched its successful military land grab of the West Bank and Gaza, King spoke of the Palestinians and wondered what might be their fate under Israeli-occupation. So ahead of the curve was King on this issue that the panel of journalists let the comment go. I doubt they knew what he was talking about. But imagine King alive today saying any of the above, in addition to his other radical statements. Think David Horowitz and the lightweights on National Review's Corner would be singing King's hosannas? He'd be branded a traitor and soft on Islamofascism. Horowitz would probably run a graphic at his wretched site suggesting that King be executed for criticizing the Iraq war, a war King would probably denounce, given his political and theological position (imagine the slime Hitchens would fling at King and his pacifism). Of course, we'll never know, and this allows American reactionaries to pretend that they were with King all along, or worse, that he was one of Them. I seriously doubt that King would ever link arms with such squalid figures, but then, he believed in forgiveness and eliminating hatred through peaceful positive action. That such powerful transcendent emotions would be largely wasted on those committed to endless war and political repression is beside the point -- no, it is the point. Of all the examples Martin Luther King left us, loving your enemy was, and is, the hardest lesson to learn and put into practice.

King gave his life in pursuit of this lofty goal. What are we doing?

Redemption

Taking a quick breather from mocking the trog-right (his main act, these days), James Wolcott waded into the James Frey fray, sharing the amusement that so many others have shown in the wake of Frey's apparent memoir fraud. Frey certainly had it coming, it seems, for how do you claim to undergo a root canal minus anesthesia and not expect some suspicion in return? Then there's all his alleged criminal behavior, reading Tolstoy in jail, and so on -- too cinematic to be remotely true, or so thought the diggers at Smoking Gun who exposed Frey's deceit to light and sent him scurrying for cover. In a culture where the slickest lies earn the biggest paychecks, you really can't blame Frey for doing what so many others would try, or have tried and failed. Reality is fiction taken seriously, something many Americans are comfortable with, the screens in their minds playing various but familiar scenarios.

I suppose I should be harder on Frey, given that I'm writing a pseudo-memoir of my own, and Frey's mini-scandal further muddies the water for my and other's efforts. Ah well. What can you do? Publishing's choked with hucksters, so throwing eggs at Frey is wasted energy, esp with larger, deadlier problems we the living face. But Frey's main theme -- redemption -- got under Wolcott's prickly hide, causing him to scratch out this:

"I'm just automatically suspicious of every tale of woe that's peddled as a tale of redemption. The whole concept of redemption seems fishy to me, another form of sentimentality. How many people do you know have found redemption? What does 'redemption' really mean? It's got a lofty religious sound, but the vast majority of people improve or worsen in varying degrees over time, and even those who radically turn their lives around or pull themselves out of the abyss still have to go on doing the mundane things we all do, often suffering relapses or channeling their sobriety and sadder-but-wiser maturity into passive-aggressive preening of their own moral goodness. Most change for better or worse is undramatic, incremental, seldom revealed in a blinding flash or expressed in a climactic moment of heroic resolve. The whole cult of 'redemption' has acquired a Hollywood-holy aura emanating from the therapist's couch. And when a tale of redemption becomes a success story, it's as if the monetary reward is the special prize bestowed on spiritual growth in this bountiful, forgiving land, where each closeup tear from Oprah and her readers is worth its price in gold (closing price today: $545.70 an ounce)."

It's certainly true that a redemption "cult" of sorts exists -- more of a market, actually. So many people fuck up so many things in their lives that they naturally warm to anyone who can express the sadness, confusion and the hope of overcoming bad decisions or rotten luck that they themselves cannot put into words or images. And naturally people like Frey take advantage of this. And while Wolcott is right about the crass commercial uses to which "redemption" is put, he's decidedly wrong about the very concept of redemption itself.

Redemption does exist and people experience it every day. Not all redemption is a full-blown widescreen CGI encounter -- indeed, I suspect that rarely happens, and if it does, I doubt that any person could fully grasp or comprehend such a serious emotional upheaval and/or cleansing. I imagine you just roll with it and see where it takes you. But turning your life around, or seeing the world from a different or better angle is nothing to sneer at, as Wolcott does above. In my case, part of which I shared here, everything changed for the worse within a matter of weeks. And no, I didn't suddenly see the light and march upward to seize and use it to illuminate my preening "moral goodness." I went through a number of negative emotions and levels of self-pity before I s-l-o-w-l-y became aware of another reality, one I'd dismissed with the same elitist scorn that Wolcott displays. I'm not a Maoist, nor do I revel in thoughts of parading intellectuals in dunce caps before a heckling proletarian crowd, but I do think that NY scribes like Wolcott should take a break from brunching at the Telephone Bar and trading quips with Conde Nast stablemates and sink into some anonymous, blue collar work from time to time. If nothing else, it'll strengthen his arms, back and legs; and who knows, maybe there's a bit of redemptive emotion hidden under all that cynical cover.

Freedom Granted, Freedom Won

It is the Soldier not the reporter, who has given us Freedom of the press. It is the Soldier not the poet, who has given us Freedom of speech. It is the Soldier not the campus organizer, who has given us the Freedom to demonstrate. It is the Soldier not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier, who salutes the Flag, who serves beneath the Flag and whose coffin is draped by the Flag, who allows the protester to burn the Flag.

Columns of drums beat as a solemn white male voice -- Sam Elliott? -- recites each line, indicting those who don't fall to their knees at the sight of a camo-painted Hummer or a Predator drone cleansing some Haji-infected neighborhood.

Stirring stuff. Gets the wood nice and stiff. Only thing is, it's bullshit.

Of all American manias, military worship is particularly noxious. Much of this fetishizing comes from civilians who've never worn the uniform, but who get excited at the idea of others Kicking Ass. They believe that the military is a sacred religious order to be obeyed and revered without question. But there are those who've worn and wear the uniform who feel pretty much the same way. It's drilled into them from boot camp on. It appeals to those who have little else in their lives.

I know. I was there. I saw it. When I was in boot camp, our Drill Sergeants, when not calling us scum, maggots, ladies, faggots and pussies, told us how special we would be once we went into active duty. We were part of a fearless Warrior Tribe, the fiercest in the world. We were connected to something larger than ourselves, a sacred trust where no one was left behind and everybody had your back. To a bunch of 18/19-year-old kids, mostly rural whites and inner-city blacks, this was hard-core stimulation. Many of those I trained with had little in the civilian world to go back to. This was their best shot to achieve greatness and no commie civilian was gonna tell them otherwise.

A seductive pitch. So I understand where this mindset originates, how powerful it is to those who desire some kind of power in their lives. But even a general glance at American history shows us something else.

The claim that the "Soldier not the reporter" gave us freedom of the press, and the "Soldier not the poet" gave us free speech, while reassuring, is mostly wrong. Actually, war, the threat of war, and post-war periods often deliver the opposite of free press and speech.

Look at the post-Revolutionary period and discover numerous violations of freedom of the press and speech, mostly notably in the Federalist-supported Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which essentially made it illegal to criticize the president (John Adams), the possibility of war with France (desired by Alexander Hamilton) being a motivating factor.

Continue through the 19th century and you'll find writers, speakers and activists, primarily those who advocated for women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery, harassed and silenced via sedition and criminal conspiracy laws. Neither the Mexican War of 1846-48, nor the Civil War of the 1860s, ensured, protected or expanded free speech and a free press. Those rights were fought for and won by the writers and poets themselves, oftentimes in the face of mob violence (as was the case with Mexican War dissidents). The grabbing of Mexican territory and the smashing of the Confederacy had more to do with expanding and consolidating Federal power (while enriching those with the right connections) than with clearing the path for unfettered discourse.

In the 20th century, American wars and those who waged them further undermined critical speech. Woodrow Wilson's repressive actions were justified by war in Europe and class war at home. The Sedition Act of 1917 and the Espionage Act of 1918 made it a crime to criticize U.S. entry into World War I. Newspapers and magazines were shut down or denied mailing privileges. Public speakers were banned, harassed, and in the case of Eugene V. Debs, jailed for daring to oppose Wilson's autocratic laws.

During World War II, conscientious objectors were herded into work camps under a program called Civilian Public Service. They were sentenced to hard labor for nine hours a day, six days a week, and had to pay the government for room and board. Those who refused this arrangement were imprisoned. After the Second World War, loyalty oaths, censorship and blacklisting further narrowed permissible public speech. Again, it was civil libertarians and other activists, not soldiers, who battled the government and beat back political repression.

During the Vietnam War, the government spied on dissidents (when not, as with Fred Hampton, killing them outright), infiltrating their ranks and helping to create disorder and exploit rifts. In today's Terror War world, we have the perpetual Patriot Act as well as an increase in domestic spying and surveillance of those who are critical of endless war, rendition, and corporate state power.

In short, the romantic idea that American soldiers fought and died to allow dissidents room to breathe really doesn't hold up.

You might point to the defeat of Nazi Germany as an exception, assuming that the Germans had the power to invade and occupy the U.S. (The war with Japan, begun years before Pearl Harbor, was a battle over oil reserves and control of Asian markets.) The Soviet Union played a major role in Hitler's downfall, yet I rarely see American patriots give Stalin any serious credit. Corporate outlets make it seem as if the U.S. won World War II largely on its own. So in the one case where their claim may be valid, patriots must romanticize reality in order to make it true.

The freedom to demonstrate, the right to a fair trial, the freedom to burn the flag -- it was the activists, lawyers, writers and other advocates who were on the frontlines of those battles, at times facing the very soldiers who supposedly were granting all that freedom to begin with.

Soldiers, by and large, are tools used to advance the interests of those who own and run the country. They are lied to, conned and conditioned to believe they are fighting for "freedom" when in most cases they are killing, dying and being maimed to enrich domestic elites and their allies/business partners.

A hard truth to swallow, which is why so many Americans prefer the standard story. Recently, I caught on radio a reporter just back from Iraq and he addressed this very issue. Some of the soldiers he spoke to were upset that their recruiters and officers lied about what awaited them in Iraq. The con job was cracking.

Instead of exploring why this was so, many of these disgruntled soldiers further retreated into a black and white world. They are fighting for Good while those opposed are Bad. Understandable: no one likes to be lied to or made a fool. But it's also dishonest and potentially destructive, both to soldiers and society at large. The Soldier Mantra above is an authoritarian appeal and historical dodge. You don't honor the troops by making them gods. This deprives them of their humanity, their only hope of finding some peace.

Roll Over

When last we saw dogs in Abu Ghraib, they were doing this:




Some Americans found all this (and worse) funny or necessary or no-big-deal, while others gasped and hoped that this was the work of a few very bad soldiers with no connection whatsoever to a higher chain of command. But I heard nothing said about the dogs themselves. Were they mere cogs in the machinery of torture? Or, like hunting dogs who wish to please their masters in the brush, did they pick up on the human fun vibe and get into the Haji-biting/bashing as well? I don't recall anyone ever really exploring this. Not even PETA had a harsh word to say, preferring to picket KFC and its barbecued bird corpses.

I suppose it takes a true liberal to find the humanity in canines, and who has better lib cred than Al Franken? Yes, he hosts one of the most boring and slowest-moving programs in the history of radio, and yeah, he's little more than a mouthpiece for centrist/rightwing Dems of the DLC persuasion. Also, after backing Bush's invasion of Iraq, believing or trusting that it was a robust exercise in humanitarian democratic intervention, Franken now has questions -- not serious ones, mind you, since he still believes that the US attacked Iraq for essentially good reasons. But some of the corruption and cronyism and lack of security concerns for the frontline troops has caused Franken to scratch his head and wonder What To Do Next. Again, Franken has no real idea What To Do Next, but he supports the occupation for as long as the occupation is needed, whenever that might be. In the meantime, Franken finds what Good News he can, and part of his quest has taken him to Iraq several times, most recently during the holiday season.

Franken was there to entertain the troops, his wicked Saddam impression being the highlight of his act (you can't say that Franken doesn't take artistic chances!). But while in Iraq, Franken made his way to Abu Ghraib. He later joked that he may be the "only comedian" to play that torture center, which I suppose is a milestone of sorts. Yet amid all the laffs, Franken found a serious moment to pose with two fans:





Now, I know that liberals feel at a deeper level than the rest of us. And there's no proof that the guard dog Franken petted had anything to do with prisoner abuse. Still, there's something a bit off-putting, at least to me, about posing with a German Shepherd outside Abu Ghraib. Perhaps this is part of Supporting The Troops, something that is holy and beyond question. If so, then Franken was simply doing his patriotic duty. But given what went on in the bowels of that prison, and what doubtless still goes on, not only there but in numerous unknown cells and cellars, I really don't see a positive side to this. In fact, quite the opposite. It's a bit like posing with Bull Connor's dogs in Selma. They might be nice mutts off the clock, but when working, they're not engaged in the noblest of efforts.

Does Franken recall that when the dogs were let out in Abu Ghraib, the Red Cross estimated that 70-90% of those held and presumably tortured and/or beaten and bit were charged with no crime of any kind, and were later released? And, as Seymour Hersh has reported, there are videos and photos shot in that prison (which have been seen by a few but have yet to see general release) where boys are beaten and raped, among other ghastly deeds. Do you still joke about being the "only comedian" to play that room?

The above photo, taken at face value, is a pretty casual shot, and I suspect that most people see it that way. But viewed within the larger context, it suggests, if not an endorsement by Franken, then certainly a passive acceptance of what the US has done in Abu Ghraib, all in the name of sacred troop support. And don't forget that Franken has moved back to Minneapolis in order to establish residency so he can run against Norm Coleman in Minnesota's '08 Senate election. Photos like the one above will not hurt Franken in a TV campaign -- the tough liberal takes a stand in the Terror Wars. Hell, it may force Coleman to fly to Iraq himself, so he can be photographed yanking a tortured Iraqi on a leash. Indeed, that race has the potential to become decidedly satirical in tone. And if it does, Coleman will have little chance to win. Franken's written enough mock political ads in his career that the real thing would be a snap. Coleman will be the butt of Franken's jokes, as will the electorate, though the latter may not realize this until Franken takes his act to Washington, where posing with criminals, torturers and those who profit from them is serious business -- or not, depending on what you find "funny."