dyslexic begonias

After seeing a special tonight on PBS on the life of Benjamin Franklin, I thought it was appropriate to pull out of the archives a little meandering piece I wrote about 10 years ago on the Declaration of Independence.

Here's the first bit ...

We
Meaning the authors who have written this document, or in a greater sense, those who have affixed their signatures hereto, and even in the largest possible sense, each of us who exist upon this planet (and even, perhaps, on others) who fosters within their heart - and even those without a sense of compassion and understanding that the authors may assume to be an integral part of the human makeup, but are quite willing to admit that such an assumption is a dangerous but relatively forgivable oversight, and such creatures who are bereft of the benefit of such emotion may arrive at similar conclusions using only pure reason, logic, and process of elimination - the belief that all creatures that exist have intrinsically similar instinctual processes and needs as related to survival, coexistence, and codependence

Hold
By which we mean to say believe, have great faith in the humble truth thereof, want to pretend that it somehow makes a difference, or even in our darkest moments clutch fast to a modicum of hope which allows us to assume that by so holding we cannot be severed, swayed (by any means of coercion, be they physical, monetary, emotional, intellectual, or the suggested patterns of acceptability as presented by a so-called, self-righteous and for the most part, logically defunct majority), taken from (as in given in times of convenience and for short-term benefit, and taken away in times of duress and so-called national hardship as perceived by those in whose hands the balance of power may tend to lose its calibration to the detriment of any who have not immediate and useful access to those who have been designated and in fact have no other authority save as agents expressing the direct will and opinion of their constituents

These Truths
Meaning, rather, ideas and fixations which we hold in such high regard that they are assumed, wished, or hoped to be true and binding over all creatures great and small, rich and poor, able-bodied and minded or otherwise disposed. Truth, which has been variably defined as conformity to fact or actuality, fidelity to an original or standard, reality or actuality itself, a statement proven to be or accepted as true, sincerity and integrity, or even by process of elimination of lesser powers, to actually be the expression of the mind of God, the Creator, the Supreme Being, the Life-Force of the Universe, the Universal Greater Than, and even the expression of that which at this present time (and in fact, throughout the history of Earthlife and existence) is undefinable and may in fact not exist as a greater, all-powerful, all-encompassing, meta-metaphysical, super-physical, psychological, physiological, actuality or understanding

To Be
To be, meaning, not created, resurrected, or at any time forced upon the world by beings mortal or divine, not intended to be created at such time in the future when convenience and the differing opinions of creatures vegetable, animal or mineral may see fit to put into being, but here and now existing without question or pause

Self-Evident
Meaning obvious, without exception; once again, an assumption on the part of the authors that any creature giving thought to such a proposition will logically, emotionally, and basically without hesitation accept these precepts as a given.

That All
All, not part or sum, but the entirety, not to be segregated or considered different, lesser or greater based on any criterion, be it color, creed, race, educational background, income, neighborhood, sex, character, beliefs, etc. In other words, there are no exceptions. Any infringement of this basic concept of all-inclusiveness should be considered treasonous as applied to the truths presented within.

Men
Well, all men, women, children, ambisexuals, seniors, middle-aged and adolescent, able-bodied or not, dogs, cattle, sheep and chickens, tree and bush and flowering plant and mossy tendril, cat and mouse and rat and peacock, including but not limited to all things existent on this planet (and others), as well as that which we have never seen and may in fact doubt the existence thereof - a personal opinion of the authors, which is not be misconstrued or otherwise assumed to be a suggestion, recommendation, directive, imperative, etc., that anyone be taken seriously who may or may not hold these truths to be self-evident.

Are Created
Whether we consider Creation to mean brought and gathered from the dust to resemble our current form, or whether evolved over generations from apes or lung-fish or other such creatures as may be determined to have at a minimum a million to one chance of becoming whatever creatures they currently have become, or spawned from the remnants of outposts of alien invasion, or if we simply mean born into this world due to the interaction of a male and female of their respective species, or by windborne spore pollination, or any other means by which one cares to classify.

Equal
Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another; being the same or identical to in value; having the same privileges, status, or rights (equal before the law); being the same for all members of a group (gave every player an equal chance to win); having the qualities, such as strength or ability, necessary for a task or situation; adequate in extent, amount or degree. Old meanings for equal run the gamut from impartial, just, and equitable to flat, level and smooth to tranquil and equable.

That They Are Endowed
Or provided with, property, income, or a source of income, or more appropriately, equipped or supplied with a talent or quality, or even a dowry, as it applies to gifts that are provided free of charge, no interest, no hidden clauses or small print.

By Their Creator
Whether the Father or Mother Creator, the Chaos of the Cosmos, the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Earth Mother, Great Spirit, Brahma, Vishnu, that which shall remain nameless, the eternal spirit of life, etc., etc., or just simply your own parents,

With Certain Unalienable
Unrevokable, untakable, unswappable, unstealable, unsaleable, unmistakable, unseparable from the creature so endowed; one might go so far as to say that even if a creature were to wish to part with said unalienable properties, that they are such an intrinsic part of the body, soul and very being of every creature that it is not possible to remove them from a creature, even at their own request. This, of course, implies a great deal of responsibility - whether it is known or unknown, wanted or unwanted, exercised or not, these unalienable properties will continue to exist.

Rights
Or right, privilege, prerogative, perquisite, franchise, birthright, title, etc., meaning a just claim, legally, morally, and traditionally.

That Among These
But not only these, not limited to, or to be assumed to include any less than these

Are Life
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction; also, the physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute a creature's existence; and further, actual environment or reality, as in nature.

Liberty
The condition of being free from restriction or control; the right to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing; the condition of being free from confinement, servitude, o
r forced labor; freedom from unjust or undue governmental control; a right to engage in certain actions without control or interference; or even if a creature should choose, not in confinement or under constraint, free, not employed, occupied, or in use.

And The Pursuit
Which is the act or an instance of chasing or pursuing; the act of striving toward; or a vocation, hobby, or other activity regularly engaged in. It does not mean that what is being pursued is ever actually achieved, caught, or realized, nor does it imply that it is possible to achieve, catch, or realize such a goal, target, or objective.

Of Happiness
Or good luck or fortune, which leads to enjoying, showing, or being in a state of pleasure or joy. It can also mean a well-adapted, appropriate attitude, or a state of cheerfulness and willingness. The dark side of happiness, however, includes a spontaneous or obsessive inclination to use something, or enthusiasm about or involved with to a misappropriate degree, as in money-happy.

Fifteen years ago, when I was a young and foolish singer-songwriter (LOL), I wrote a lot of personal songs that made sense only to myself (I was very influenced at the time by Van Morrison's Astral Weeks). However, at the same time, I managed to write something that seemed to be sorely missing from the Music business at the time (1988, the last year of the Reagan presidency) ... a heartfelt, intimate, personal and yet universal protest song. And believe me, then as now, there is much to protest about. Like Stevie Wonder said at the Bob Dylan tribute concert a few years back, as he was preparing to cover “Blowing In the Wind”, it is unfortunate that songs like this still need to be sung, and that they still have the same level of truth. That indicates our society “ain't going nowhere” or is basically glorifying the wrong things.
ANYWAY ... I wrote this song, and of all the things I've done, it always makes crystal clear sense to me, and I'm proud for having been interested in enough in the future of America to have written it.

There are three recorded versions of the song, one recorded as a duet with Aaron Flinn in a 3 a.m. session in the Berklee studios (yet to be digitally available) and two available here in Real Audio for your listening pleasure:

Hello Mister America - live acoustic version - 1999 remix version

Enjoy.

For those who are interested, here is a link to an early one-act farce that I wrote while at college. It is in PDF format, so if you don't have the free Adobe reader, you'll have to download it in order to read this piece.

An Evening of Card Playing
Enjoy.

As a preface, I would like to say that my family has fought in every conflict this country has ever engaged in, from the French-and-Indian War to the Operation Desert Storm. We are among the Daughters of the American Revolution, an ancestor of mine was married to General McClellan (Civil War), a cousin was a Brigadier General in charge of Marine forces in Korea. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam ... I am the descendant of a long line of pro-Americans. Both sides of my family came to this country seeking opportunity, equality and freedom. Some to escape the feudal hierarchy (from Germany in 1741), some to find relief from starvation (from Ireland in 1886), some for religious freedom (from Switzerland in 1891). This is MY country, in other words. And some of the things that we are doing, as a nation, right now, piss me off.
Like THIS (thanks to for the link): Mass Arrests of Muslims in LA
Can you say “Japanese Internment Camps”? Can you say “Indian Reservations”? Can you say “McCarthyism”? I thought you could. FUCK our perceived “manifest destiny”. We are a STUPID people, sometimes not worthy of our concept.
On The Price of Freedom
19 DEC 2002

“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
with silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
-- from The New Colossus (Emma Lazarus [1849-1887])

Gimme an F…
Gimme a U…
Gimme a C…
Gimme a K…
What’s that spell?
What’s that spell?
What’s that spell?
What’s that spell?
What’s that spell?
yeah, c’mon on all you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he’s got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder with Saddam
so put down your books and pick up a gun
we’re gonna have a whole lot of fun
and it’s 1, 2, 3, what’re we fighting for?
don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn
next stop is Baghdad, man
and it’s 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates
well there ain’t no time to wonder why
whoopee! we’re all gonna die
well c’mon generals, let’s move fast
your big chance has come at last
gotta go out and quash those threats
the only good terrorist is one who’s dead
and you know that peace can only be won
when we’ve blown ‘em all to kingdom come
chorus
well c’mon on Wall Street
don’t be slow
why this is war a-go-go
there’s plenty good money to be made
by supplin’ the Army with the tools of the trade
just hope and pray that if we drop the bomb
they drop it on the doers of wrong
chorus
well c’mon mothers throughout this land
pack your boys off to fight Saddam
c’mon pops, don’t hesitate
send ‘em off before it’s too late
be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box
and it’s 1, 2, 3, what’re we fighting for?
don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn.
…
(originally by Country Joe & the Fish)

Liner notes from Jimmy Miller, producer of the Stones' Sticky Fingers ...
“A bit of advice from Jimmy M: Maximum cycle characteristics and frequency response of high decibel level have been set according to standards suggested in the GUY STEVENS Producer Manual, chart #357, in index, page 304. These recommended standards were compiled by the same authority having recently measured audible damage created by supersonic aircraft - if for any reason you do not agree with these standards - turn it up.”
My favorite Stones' song has always been “Moonlight Mile” - it seems one of the most perfectly crafted pieces of pop Music ever recorded. I liked it so much that one of my old bands recorded one of my songs to mimic the feel of it ...
I've got silence on the radio
Let the airwaves flow, let the airwaves flow
Chains of Love: vocals, acoustic guitar, piano and end lead guitar (yep Mick Taylor for a day) - me, circa 1989 with the Moondogs :)

Someone, please explain the appeal of Celine Dion. While you're at it, convince me that she is to Las Vegas in the 21st century what Elvis was to the Strip in the 1960's/70's. And then, try to help me overcome my disgust with anyone who didn't flinch while listening to Celine warbling through a Stevie Wonder cover, pondering her youth as a “nappy headed baby boy”.
Yes, I know she is the highest selling female artist of all time. But we all know that sales don't prove you are any good, they just mean you are well marketed.
First off, and of course, these are only my opinions, she is NOT an entertainer. She's not funny, she can't dance, is not sexy, sensual or alluring. And the Mary Martin haircut doesn't help, either. She looks like an anorexic Enya trying to be all things to all people - but she's not Liza, Barbara, Aretha, Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Maria Callas or even Joel Grey. And she DEFINITELY isn't Elvis. That comparison to me is insulting. She sounds particularly stupid trying to be funky. And I have never liked her over-the-top oh won't someone hand me a torch caterwauling. Her voice, which I have NEVER liked, sounded thin, whiny and grating at its BEST in the live broadcast the other night.
And interestingly enough, she didn't speak a word of French during her show's US television debut. Wonder why? Are they serving Freedom Fries at Caesar's Palace, too?
The Cirque de Soleil parts were of course overdone, as well. But that's to be expected. To be honest, I also expected Celine to be one of the clowns onstage - and I was not disappointed. Three years and $95 million for that pile of crap show?
And you know what's really irritating? No one, not a single reviewer of this monstrous catastrophe, seemed to be put off, bored and/or nauseated by the experience. Which means, of course, that I must be the only person in the world whose bullshit detector is still working properly.

Watching the joyous celebrations by the people of Iraq, and the continuing news broadcasts hinting that demonstrators on both sides of the war and anti-war campaign might now be more or less inclined to comment, I began thinking about something.
It is obvious to me that the people of Iraq are happy to be free of Saddam Hussein. I think there is little doubt that his regime was not a pleasant one in which to live. This leads me to believe that at this precise instant, at this limited window of opportunity, the armed forces of the United States have done a good thing.
But that does not mean we did it for the right reasons. The right reason would have been for no reason at all. Except that it needed to be done. No suggestions of post-war rebuilding, no potential enhancement of the pro-Israel element in the region, no possibility that the oil-rich elements in the United States were interested in Iraqi oil. If the REAL reason is the Iraqi people, then the operation was for the right reason.
And it seems obvious that the leader of the free world would have done what we have done so far for that reason alone. Not because Saddam Hussein's activities supported destructive actions against the US. Not because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological threats and might use them against us, or provide them to others who might use them against us. Not because our national security demanded that American lives must be protected. The leader of the free world would have done it because Iraqi lives needed to be protected. That those weapons were used against ANYONE would be a good enough reason.
Now, obviously there are a lot of places in the world where those who have money are considered to be more important than the poor. Where those who do not practice the “official” religion of a place are prosecuted, persecuted. Where power-brokering behind closed doors determines the course of politics. Where special interests exist. Where any interest is considered more special than others. Where elections are NOT open, fair and non-disputed. Where representatives do not represent all their constituents, but only a select few who can do them favors. Where a political campaign is ABOUT character, rather than CONDUCTED with character. Where bribes are taken. Where there is an old-boy network, a glass ceiling, a double standard, a hidden agenda. Where the nation's industry building weapons of mass destruction, armaments, and military strength has a bigger budget than the nation's education system. Where friends get preferential treatment. Where national boundaries define us and them. Where race, religion, class, creed, sex, orientation, or any difference is seen as an obstacle, an aberration, an abomination. Where freedom of speech does not really mean freedom of speech. Where the accused ARE assumed guilty until proven innocent ...
But the leader of the free world is NOT one of those places.
Because the leader of the free world is leading. Teaching compassion, understanding, kindness. Breaking down barriers instead of erecting them. Doing the ethical thing - which is “Thou Before I”. And helping, by whatever means necessary, to promulgate the belief that EVERY person is a human being, an equal, worthy, respectable, interesting, confusing, beautiful, struggling, learning, growing, adapting and EVOLVING being. Because if you teach that, there isn't any dictatorship that can stand. There is no despot that can wreak havoc upon an unsuspecting populace. There are none with secret grudges that must find their expression only in violence because no one deems them worthy of communication or is willing to accept whatever truth is in their argument.
At some point, if the human race is to survive (at a minimum) or to evolve, all its members must contribute to, and benefit from, that egalitarian ideal. But evolution is not a sudden step. It is not a regime change. It is a slow, painstaking, and ultimately painful process, that must be encouraged because it is the ONLY thing to do, not because it might appear to be the “right” thing to do from within our currently non-fully-evolved frame of reference. At that point, in a completely egalita
rian society, individuals will lead when their expertise is required, and follow when it is necessary to defer to the expertise of others. When people recognize their interdependence and honor and value the fact that truth is a pathless land - a land that we each inhabit, each of us standing with a useful pair of feet on a unique, individual piece of truth - but only a piece. Until that occurs, there must be a leader, a master, a guru, so to speak. A leader that does not point the way, but IS the way.
And that leader's only responsibility is to lead by example. If their example is not good enough, they are not the leader - no matter how much they would like others to think so. The leader of the free world MUST practice what it preaches, or it has no business preaching. And it certainly has NO right to say that its interests are the best interests. But then again, a true leader would never say that to begin with.
So who is the leader of the free world?
Who qualifies on these terms?

Sometimes I wish it wasn't so that I'm a Democrat
Perhaps if things were different it wouldn't come to that
But as it is I often wish the slate could be swept clean
And then I wouldn't have to choose from Kerry, Clark or Dean

Sure there are other candidates and other parties, too
But in the end they rarely count or stir up much to do
So while I wait for something more substantial on the scene
I'll have to take my chances backing Kerry, Clark or Dean

If only they would stand together there against the idle rich
Or put their shoulders next to one another in the ditch
Instead, it seems that all they want to do is stand and bitch
It makes me think that Florida was not a pointless glitch

Oh, Democrats, where are your backbones vigilant at night
Why can't you talk cohesively about putting things right
And don't you get that half the country won't know what you mean
As long as the best things we've got are Kerry, Clark and Dean?

I've nothing 'gainst these gentlemen, they seem honest enough
Between the three I'm guaranteed they know some of their stuff
But none have really fired my spirit, or inspired my dreams
They each seem rather boring, these boys Kerry, Clark and Dean

Now don't react with vitriol to these few humble lines
I only wish that I could read the Democrat's designs
So that come late October when the leaves have turned from green
I'll know which one might unseat Bush of Kerry, Clark or Dean

Because the country, nay the world, is riding on this race
And as we know, there must be no doubt who's in second place
The win must be substantial, by a margin quite extreme
So who can do it most decisive? Kerry, Clark or Dean?

The future of the human race may rest upon this year
So I'm not looking for the man who's had the best career
Nor spouts the greatest rhetoric, nor looks most neat and clean
So in November who shall it be, Kerry, Clark or Dean?

Can This Thing Fly?

a series of septenary stanzas

It's doubtful that democracy's dense doyens can reclaim
the country's core without creating more sorrow and shame,
to count coup on the status quo, entrenched in apathy,
seems like the wisest way to go, at least it looks to me.

The Left Wing's fawning satyrs spawn their imbecilic imps
who feign as fiends for filibuster, but are worthless wimps,
while on the Right, cropped high and tight, the fascists frolic on
investing in the right of kings and trampling the pawns,

and in the Middle's mild morass, the muck is made and sold
that so entrenches everyone, they just do as they're told.
The nation's fate is fixed, with fools all wrestling at the wheel;
Smart money might just scan the hand, and demand a redeal.

13 APR 2004

The Press Conference

a descort

No outrage, just amused
(perhaps its because I can't stand the sound
of his voice)
It reminds me of a song by Robyn Hitchcock
“He's the president of Europe and he's talking to the dead /
They're the only ones who'll listen or believe a word he's said”
That, and Wenn ich Kultur hore
entsichere ich meinen Browning*
runs through my head as he testifies
(as in testifying about his faith, under oath
only to his God)
There ought to be a law against running the country
without a mandate to do so
(like say, the popular vote).

13 APR 2004

* Hanns Johst, a German playwright of the Nazi era, wrote “Wenn ich Kultur hore... entsichere ich meinen Browning” (When I hear the word “Culture”, I reach for my Browning (rifle)).

Unofficially from 1919, and officially since 1931, The Star Spangled Banner has been the national anthem of the United States. Prior to that time, My Country, 'Tis of Thee written by Samuel Francis Smith, sung to the tune of God Save the King was the official national anthem. It presents quite a different perspective on our national scene, particularly if you consider the minor changes I have made to this text, as follows:

My country, 'tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty
that now I sing.
Land where my fathers died
(fathers you now deride,
and from each mountainside
dull freedom's ring)

My native country, thee,
land once noble and free,
Thy dream I share.
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
Those who this spirit kill,
Let them beware.

Let Music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song.
Let concerned tongues awake;
Let all that dream partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

Our nation's goal, 'tis this,
setting aside hubris,
we strive to sing.
Once more may this land glow
and by proof, make it so ---
against each perceived foe
we pledge this thing.

My country, lost to view
What has become of you,
Can you stand tall?
Drop all your false pretense,
learn from experience
Make your ideals self-evident
to one and all.

10 JUN 2004

Democracy is dependent upon a single, basic premise: that those with power as a result of wealth and social standing are willing to reject the advantage conferred by the possesion of this power and reject the use of any such advantage in the defense of their position against others with differing viewpoints and agendas who do not possess similar advantage. In short, democracy demands equality before the law. Despite the obvious fact that individuals are NOT equal with respect to environment, education, race, religion, intellect, physical prowess, social standing and/or graces, financial wherewithal, and so forth, the intention of a TRUE democracy is to ignore those factors and regard each person as legally interchangeable.
There are, of course, safeguards built into our legal system to ensure this. But unfortunately, they do not address the fact that there is in practice, if not in the theory upon which that practice is based, a great disparity between the resources available to some versus others. In our democracy, for example, a defendant is provided with legal counsel in matters of criminal court. In a true democracy, it would be either ensured that this legal counsel vouchsafed an indigent defendant is comparable (in education, experience, and expertise) to the counsel for the prosecution, or that the party prosecuting the case would be no better than the individual produced by the defense. Likewise, for a wealthy defendant, it should be ensured that the quality of their attorney should be correlative with the quality of the prosecuting attorney.

With respect to democracy by representation, true democracy requires that the agent, or representative, be truly of the people they represent. For example, a congressman should be of similar educational background, financial status, cultural milieu and so forth of their average constitutuent. That means no congressperson should being wearing suits that the majority of their district cannot afford. Likewise, the salaries of government officials should never exceed the average per capita income of their "flock". In regard to campaign contributions, no political candidate should receive from ANY contributor (personal, or corporation --- which legally is the corpus or body at the head of which is the representative of any number of stockholders who have chosen to invest their individual monies and/or opinions in the legal person thus incorporated) more than the equivalent of one week's salary of their average voting bloc. That would eliminate the campaign finance issue altogether, perhaps --- and salary increase issue as well --- because the only way for a candidate or congressperson or president to get more money (either in salary or contributions) would be to actively improve the living wage of their constituency. Now of course, you might say that will increase the jostling over "prime districts". Well, I think it only need be sorted out at the smaller district level. Larger districts, such as states or countries (i.e., senators and presidents) typically include a wide range of income, including much that is NOT wealthy. In California, for example, it is probably likely that the district that includes Beverly Hills would have a high median income, versus the district that includes Compton and Gardena. For a Senator, that would probably wash out at some level. For a Representative, however, Beverly Hills represents a cushier spot. However, the basic premise of democracy as defined above can be applied here. The point is that financial, social, etc., inequality MUST not influence legal equality. Therefore, the average amount of campaign contributions from the wealthiest quarters CANNOT exceed the average contribution amounts from the poorest quarters. That means that if Pickens County, Arkansas
as a whole contributes only $500, then Los Angeles County, California can only contribute the equivalent per capita amount (for example if there are 500 contributors in Pickens County, Arkansas that roughly equates to $5 per contributor; to apply that to Los Angeles County assuming a population of 5,000,000 means that the most that could be used by that constituency is $5 each, or $25M. But that is a VERY wild theory that probably in five minutes will make no sense.

The point is this, I guess. To me, it's like televangelism. There are no circumstances when a preacher should be wearing a Rolex unless the majority of the constituency to which they preach ALSO not only can afford Rolexes, but chooses to spend their monies on such things. By the same token, under no circumstances should an elected official be wearing a suit, driving a car, living in a home, that the majority of their constituents could not afford. Not on the distribution of wealth, but the distribution of numbers. Because, you'll remember, democracy is about legal equality. Which is a numeric base. 1 = 1.

Of course, military service should be determined on the same basis. Particularly in a draft. There is no legal way, in a true democracy, for a wealthy child to get a deferment when a poor child does not. As far as the law of democracy goes, they are absolutely equal. Anyone who bends that system does not believe in democracy. And should NEVER be elected mayor, governor, senator, congressperson, president or even head of a homeowner's association in so-called democractic nation. Or something like that.

The difference, in a nutshell, between what Michael Moore is saying and what I'm saying:

MM: The emperor is naked!
ME: That naked man is NOT the emperor!

LOL

Well, I have done it. Purchased the "official" 9/11 report. And read it through, at least at this time on a cursory level. I will re-read it in detail, of course.

There are a few things that trouble me. They are as follows:

1. A war on terrorism will not succeed. That is because terrorism is the symptom, not the cause. The cause is a state of global affairs that gives rise to the belief that terrorism is, for many, a justifiable and perhaps the only viable alternative to advance their agenda to the point where it will be considered.

2. If we are to engage the problem of alternatives to terrorism for those who now employ it as their sole means of communication, we have to start looking hard at the fact that we are a single human family. National "rights", and boundaries, really must have no meaning if we are to address, fairly and honestly, the grievances of one group of people versus another. The fact is, that as a human species, we are in effect a single family --- albeit in some cases only distant cousins.

This makes EVERY war in effect a civil war. Brother against brother --- for the majority of religions on this planet accept as one of their tenets some degree of universal brotherhood.

3. With respect to that universal brotherhood. The United States must make a statement to the world, and must lead the other "so-called" civilized nations in one very important point. We must accept Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Druidism, Wiccanism, Sufism, Voodoo, Santeria, Ba'hai, Sikhism, Confucianism, Atheism, and all the rest, as absolutely equally viable paths to that exclusively human (at least, human-claimed, for none of the other species that have evolved and existed for millions of years on this planet have found it necessary to indulge in the nuances of comparative theology) province, enlightenment. If we are capable of being enlightened (as we claim), then we need to accomplish it. That means returning spiritual truth where it belongs --- to each and every individual.

4. We need to focus our resources not on exerting our influence through military might, or covert operation, or corporate interest, but through demonstration of our principles by enforcing them upon ourselves. Eliminate special interests. Eliminate preconceived biases. Restore (or, rather, considering our own systematic programs of terrorism that checker our own historical national agenda --- vis a vis the Comanches, for exampl?) "justice for all." Not justice that meets our needs or serves the expediency of the moment, but justice that punishes our friends when guilty, and praises our enemies when they are courageous and in the right.

5. Finally, we need to think long and hard about something that G.I. Gurdjieff once said, that was almost echoed in Obama's recent speech at the Democratic convention: "As long as a single person is in prison, no one is free." No matter what the reason --- because prison population, like terrorism, is a symptom. And to address the cause, we cannot continue to just build more prisons and graveyards. Or schools that teach rigid ways of looking at the world. Or churches that preach hatred and xenophobia in the guise of building their own brand of "chosen people" to pit against the rest of the world.

Ah, I could go on.

pietrosperoni, or the artist formerly known as fool_in_spirit has asked me to provide, in the Wiki version of the 9/11 report, my thoughts on the document. I plan on doing so, but the interim steps in which I get my thoughts together I will process here.

Let's start with the logical premise of the 9/11 report: That terrorism must be prevented from affecting the United States. The proposed method for doing that is to increase intelligence about terrorist organizations and their actions, and to increase security to deter those actions. I think that is the wrong method.

First, the most logical method for deterring terrorism is to reduce terrorism. The fact of the matter is that terrorist groups exist because at some level, there are world governments or other bodies politic that believe that these terrorists are justified in their purpose and actions. If this were not the case, they would be eliminated. Consentually, and globally. To accomplish this end, we must as a nation, and a consortium of nations, separate those who don't like us for the wong reasons, and those who don't like us for the right reasons.

The first group can only be eliminated by education. And that education must begin at home. If we are the leaders of the free world, we must lead by example. There is a reason why third-world countries focus their available budgets on military strength and neglect health care and education. The reason: becaus? we do it. Until our spending on education and healthcare is greater than our military expenditures, we cannot expect anyone else in the world to value education and healthcare more than military might. As a corollary, our education (both at home and abroad) must not present bias, or be combined with or contingent upon, other factors. For example, the delivery of 100,000 textbooks must not be coupled with the delivery of 100,000 cases of Coca-Cola. The delivery of 100,000 vaccine units must not be coupled with 100,000 Bibles. And so on. We're leading, as you might have guessed, to a discussion about doing right for its own sake --- or Dharma with no Karma. But that will be discussed in greater detail in a later post.

The second can only be eliminated by addressing these right reasons, admitting where there is fault on our part. In essence, this also relates to practicing what we preach. First, the United States must be accountable to international law. Second, any United States-based corporation or entity operating outside the United States MUST in its dealings outside the United States be required to adhere to either local law, or United States law, whichever is MORE restrictive. For example, child labor and minimum wage law in the United States must be applied to workers for American corporations outside the United States. That's only a beginning. Anti-trust legislation should also be in effect. If a company wishes to do business in or with the United States, it must follow its laws EVERYWHERE. And it must apply those laws evenly. For freedom of speech to be truly appreciated, it must include the right to say "Fuck the United States", at the most general, and "Fuck McDonalds" more specifically. In addition, IF we provide aid to one side of an argument (say, the Israelis), we must provide aid in equal proportion to the other side (say, the Palestinians). To do otherwise is not only to produce the impression of impropriety, it is to explicitly be unfair. Weapons or money for one side MUST equal money and weapons for the other side. Or more to the point, NOTHING for either side should they fail to conform to international law and/or their agreed upon conditions.
Of course, the delineation of groups that hate us into those that are misinformed versus those that are justified is dependent upon a single thing --- that we listen to what they are saying, and assume from the get-go that they have valid viewpoints. These viewpoints may be disproved. But to go into a discussion with the opinion that you are always right, and they are just ignorant and belligerent troublemakers, is NOT the answer. They may be right about us. And what does that say, if we are not willing to admit our faults, correct our leaders, corporations, policies, and actions where they are short-sighted, self-centered, bigoted, biased or otherwise detrimental?
If the United States is to actually be, rather than appear to be, the leader of the free world, it must remember one very important thing. The most powerful nation is not automatically the greatest nation. The greatest nation is the one that leads the world as a whole to a better future, not just itself. The greatest nation is the one that is the most admired, not the most feared, or hated. The greatest nation is the one that leads by example, not by coersion. The greatest nation is the one that wages war on the conditions under which terrorism appears to some to be the only viable option. The greatest nation does not declare a "war on terror". The greatest nation gives terrorists no basis. By ensuring that the entire world is a place in which terrorism is not justified. Not for the glory of the greatest nation. But for the progress, evolution, safety, happiness, and well-being of the entire planet.

More to come. I'm starting to feel like a speech writer.

Here is a poem from a few months ago that I used on my John Kerry volunteer page:

America, your shadow casts a lengthy darkness where
it should serve as a lamp to guide the blind;
and those enemies you imagine beyond your hallowed gates,
fermenting with opportunities to express their angst
and shake you from your complacent sleep,
why do you seek to destroy them, wishing them dead?

Does not a worthless and weak opponent serve
to weaken your own resolve and reduce your own strength
while encouraging the illusion that you are omnipotent?
Wouldn't the best defense against the Red Menace,
rather than castrating the Left Wing,
been to strengthen democracy,
live up to your stated ideals,
proving by example the fallacy of your evil foes claims?

Surely, America, you are more than empty words
backed by full missle tubes, aimed at any dissenting voices.
Do you believe in equality? In the sanctity of free speech?

Wouldn't the best course be to act
as if your sacred principles were the truth?

America,
your hypocrisy is that you don't believe in yourself;
and yet, your jingo jangle rings across the globe,
your corporations seek to spread your gospel
laced with the poison of underlying greed.

There is a better way to defeat your enemies.

Make them no longer your enemies.

To fight the war of proof,
using weapons that defeat your message,
underhanded dealings,
covert operations,
torture,
corporate pandering,
strong-arm tactics,
and ulterior motives,
is to lose your self,
and without that, America,
you are just another fascist regime
that supports self-righteousness
because it entertains your illusions of profit,
at least while they are expedient.
America, yours is not a national campaign ---
it is a return to the high ground that is required,
and that elevated place knows no borders
but shares its light
rather than casting a shadow.

09 JUN 2004

Neoconservatism is not a threat to the free-living, free-wheeling, bleeding heart liberal philosophy of us drug-crazed, sex-minded hippie freaks.
No, despite its definition as "an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)", it is not the left wing, per se, that is the target of neoconservatism. It's target is not to return us to before 1960, but before 1760. After all, the traditional point of view in politics or theology is not democracy. It is monolithic, totalitarian and unquestioned rule. It is fascism, painted with a nostalgic brush called "the good old days" --- those days before liberal science gave us the conveniences that gave us the free time to sit around and reminisce without having to actually experience the minor setbacks of medicine, culture, diversity, equality, and economic well-being that were in those halycon days available only to the extremely wealthy, or extremely lucky (and luck would be defined as in the right place to benefit from the temp
orary whims of the current dictatorship). It is belittling, beheading, excommunicating, exiling, or executing any who disagree with your point of view. And it is the point of view of rich, white men --- who have convinced, somehow, the remaining 95% of the population of this country (that's right, 95% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the people, remember, and those aren't people living in Harlem, or Watts, or Chinatown) that this is the agenda upon which America should settle. The course which we must steer by. Our mandate.

Let me get this straight --- our mandate, as a democratic nation, is to abandon democracy, much as the Anasazi abandoned New Mexico.

Under a banner of religious self-righteousness, jingoistic nationalism, military might and xenophobic paranoia --- particularly regarding people of Semitic origin and language.

Careful with that swastika, Eugene.

You will not successfully barter the illusions of freedom and liberty for the illusions of control and safety on my watch. The former may be undisciplined, untamed and only nebulously defined, but even in that raw, feral state they are worth ten times the most alluring manifestations of the latter.

That's what I call a Neo-Liberal agenda. Fixing the broken left wing so the eagle doesn't have to spin in circles and wear itself out trying to leave the ground.

Or to put it more bluntly, you can have the Constitution to wipe your ass with when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

The right to bear arms is NOT the same as the right to own or use a gun.
Schools and hospitals should be a greater priority than prisons and graveyards.

The ends never justify the means.

A Democracy is more fragile, and therefore needs more protection, than a Republic. The former is an idea, while the latter is a thing. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance is somewhat misleading. A symbol, such as a flag, stands for an idea or ideal, not a thing. A thing is a limited interpretation, a casting in the temporary stone of time, so to speak, of an idea. It is not the idea itself, only a small part --- in the same way that a religion is merely a bucketful of seawater mistaken for the entirety of the ocean.

Once you disregard ideas in favor of things, you stop thinking. Once you stop thinking, it doesn't matter what the polls say, because the opinions you are offering are not your own, anyway. Most likely they have been given to by someone who does not know of, care about, value, respect, understand, or have any responsibility for, your life.

The responsibility, at least, they can never shoulder anyway. Responsibility is the price you pay for ideas --- whether your own or someone else's.

... and searching for common sense.

I have said before that if you're in a band, and you don't think you're at least as good as the Rolling Stones (or whoever your particular idol is), then you might as well hang up the guitars and become accountants. The point is that while every garage band does not have what it takes to become a legend, if it does not THINK it has what it takes, it doesn't have a chance --- even if it has whatever other ingredients are required. Ringo Starr once said, “For a while, we thought the Beatles were the greatest band in the world. And it turns out, we were.”

The same thing applies to everything we do --- but particularly to political activism, I think. We look at figures like Gandhi, Tutu, King (and maybe even Abbie Hoffman) and say, “Man, we'll never have that kind of impact. We'll never be that.” And so we never have the chance.

The bottom line is this: either you think you can change the world, or you can't. Changing the world is not a small undertaking. In fact, no one in their right mind even expects that changing the world is necessarily a good thing, or possible. Even fewer really believe that they know how it should be changed.

But it can be done. It must be done, on occasion. But in order for it to occur, there have got to be people out there not who believe that they are on a par with Gandhi, or Tutu or Mandela, but who are their own equivalents. It's a dangerous path. Gandhi didn't believe that he was changing the world. He just did what he knew was right.

The trick is to avoid those comparisons altogether. To stop ranking revolutionaries by their press. And to believe that you can make a difference, simply by doing what is right. If you don't believe you can do it, it will never happen.

Activism

A recent article I read
bewailed the current clime:
where democrats are losers,
and the left wing in decline.

It said, observing Tutu dancing,
we will not be him;
our causes never quite that grand,
our aspirations, whims.

Most activists I know, in fact,
regard themselves as small,
and rate their struggles miniscule
despite grand names and all.

That seems so self-defeating;
to restrict yourself to trite
rehashing of some petty cause
and never see the fight.

It's like a band in a garage
when someone dares suggest
that they could be the Rolling Stones...
and awestruck, only jest.

While it is true, the fighter's forged
in a specific flame,
one can be just as meaningful
without being the same.

Too many think the battle's
in the streets or on TV;
the truth is, wars are won or lost
inside of you and me.

21 JAN 2005

So we've inaugurated him
the Jingo Kid, ol' Cocaine Slim
to serve again as our great chief.

Despite the obvious belief
of many folks that he's the spawn
of Satan. Soon he will be gone,
and who will fill his king-sized shoes?

That we're in sad shape is no news,
and four years hence things will be worse
fed evil pap from this wet nurse.

I wonder, though, if just for spite
the constant scheming God-filled right
won't train a Democrat or two
to follow on the Shrub, Part Deux;
and hoist some harmless seeming Left
upon a nation, now bereft,
its sense of truth and honor gone,
its holy cause, freedom, a pawn
used as a ploy to sell your way
on next inauguration day.

I'll end with this, and make it brief:
next time you pick our chosen chief
be sure to check at your hairline
for three tattooed inverted nines.

22 JAN 2005

I have been reading a lot of blogs lately. And this poem is a response to a great many of them.

For Stephen Stills

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the streets
Singing songs, and a-carrying signs
Mostly say, "Hooray for our side"*

We have become so polarized. The lines
are drawn so black and thick between each side,
the pickets filled with stark and ugly words
that only emphasize a hate that grows

when one's own thoughts have turned to stone
fit just for use as weapons behind walls,
where in a soldier's stance we fear what change
would come if doubt encroached upon our minds.

Our single drops of rain gather for storms
that we would have directed at our foes;
yet as the skies turn somber and morose,
we each lament, and blame the restless clouds.

Is this the force that would improve the world,
with great lambasting vitriol and spite?
Have we forgotten that the ends become
perverted by such cold and heartless means?

With scorn emblazoned on our barbed wire hearts,
we seek to prove our way the truth and light;
but bury any hope for growth or peace
and for compassion dig a shallow grave.

04 FEB 2005

* from For What It's Worth, by Stephen Stills and recorded by Buffalo Springfield during the Vietnam War

My last entry reminded me of a related poem I wrote about two years ago:

On the Burning Times

23 FEB 2003

It did not start with a single matchstrike,
or bonfires blazing brightly in the night;
it began with thinking they did not like
the fact that they might not be in the right
about everything; and so found kindling
that could easily burn (at least catch fire);
once the ready supply began dwindling
they had to begin to plot, to transpire
against perceptions, to find illusions
that could ignite the passion of the crowd
to step beyond thought and discount reason.

In this chaos, amidst such confusion,
can any call themselves brave or be proud
if they are not currently in season?

When we say, never again, do we mean
not to us, or never to anyone?
Because we have been burned, are our hands clean
when the call for blood has again begun?

Or is it this: that we truly believe
one man in prison means no one is free;
that one widow or one orphan that grieves
is too many? Are we too blind to see,
despite our claim of universal kin,
that the warm safety of our little den
is fueled by our dissident neighbor's pyre?

How long will we continue to buy in -
until the flames come just for us again?
Who will be left to put out that great fire?

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
House Minority Leader

Dear Congresswoman Pelosi:

I recently received a mailer from you that included the following text:

>> Dear Friend ... why don't you take the enclosed George W. Bush Disapproval Poll and use it to me me how high (I doubt it) or low President Bush ranks with you. It's your chance to tell me exactly what you think of the 43rd President. If you give George W. Bush grades of A or B, then I have bad news: First, you are a Republican. Second, you are going to be on the losing side of history. BUT ... if you give George W. Bush C's, D's or F's then you are a true-blue Democrat and I urge you to join us in our fight to hold the line against President Bush's radical agenda and begin laying the groundwork for victory in the 2006 mid-term election ... <<

I would like to offer you my thoughts on this effort of the National Democratic Committee.

I am in fact what most would consider to be a "true-blue Democrat". I don't think there's any doubt of that. For 22 years I have voted a straight Democratic ticket. However, I find myself having a great deal of trouble believing what you say, despite my inclination to give more credence to junk-mailers who at least pretend to be on my political wavelength. Your message sent up a number of warning flags, I must admit.

To start with, "History" is written not by those who are right, but by those who are in power. What determines the "losing" side of history is what the "winners" determine the opposite side from their own. At this juncture, I'm not too sure that the "losing" side is going to be written in a manner pleasing to "Democrats" for quite some time. Why? Because the problem is not just that George W. Bush is doing wrong. Although I agree there is a lot of wrong-doing going on.

The problem, as I see it, is that giving George W. Bush a "failing" grade on this poll doesn't make me a true-blue Democrat, as much as it makes me a complete and total IDIOT. Because I appear to be supporting a political party that has no vision of their own, that has not been too effective in countering these horrible policies, that is afraid of being called un-American for fighting a fascist-leaning, right-wing, neo-conservative agenda. A party that has no plan of their own, except to tell me what's wrong with the other guy's plan. That has in essence conceded that morality, right, truth, justice and the American Way are the property of the Republicans, and has contented itself with whining and bitching that those damn "righty-tighties" are just misusing those properties differently than a Democrat might misuse them if given the opportunity. What line exactly are "we Democrats" holding? And what good does it do to hold some imaginary line when there are so few of our so-called representatives that are willing to stand up for what they claim their constituents stand for? Further, for all these issues where George W. and his radicalized cronies have forced their way upon the unsuspecting American public, where have the Democrats been? In short, what good are they?

I'd like to see some groundwork, Congresswoman Pelosi. As you state in your letter, even though the right-wing doesn't have one, I'd like to see a platform that unites, instead of divides. I'd like to see the Democratic Party come up with such a platform, and stick with it. I don't think anyone can claim sole right to morality and doing the right thing. And surely, the 80% of people in the USA that claim some affiliation with Christianity (and the other 20% that follow equally valid and morally-based religions, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Sikh, Shinto, Zoroastrian, Druid, Bah'ai or even Atheism) can't be all Republicans. And Republicans aren't the only ones capable of girding themselves with the mantle of the self-righteous ... what about a little Democratic righteous indignation now and again? I can't think of a better time that right now.

To be frank with you, Congresswoman, I'm disgusted with the political process. I'm disgusted with voting Democrat just because it seems like the lesser of two evils. I'd like to be able to vote, with a clear conscience and sense of accomplishment, for something worth believing in. Something that the big party Democrats are willing to state, in public, they believe in, too. Something, and a serious set of someones who are not straw dogs, but actual contenders. But remember, there's not much point in picking who we're going to travel with until we've figured out where we are going. The journey dictates the skills we'll need, and not visa versa. So please, give us a something before trying to foist off another glad-handing someone in a suit more expensive than the average Democrat's income can afford.

Just a suggestion: if you want a Presidential candidate to be elected "by the people", you've got to be "for the people", and whoever you put on that ballot had better be "of the people". Not Democratic leadership people. Not Beltway Brotherhood people. Not "because anything is better than a Republican" people.

Don't worry. I'll keep voting Democrat until I die. However, I'm sick of knowing that underneath the surface, regardless of which candidate I choose, the bottom line doesn't change for me, nor for millions of others who seemingly cast their votes in a seeming maelstrom of futility. After that, watching the few Democratic candidates who DO make it into office only wring their hands and cry, "oh, those neo-cons are ruining the country" is decidedly anti-climactic. And discouraging.

The bottom line is that George W. Bush's F looks like an A to most people, and that's why they voted for him. That occurred only because in order to give ourselves any kind of excuse for what either party is doing, the American People have been forced to grade on a curve. And the sad truth is that neither the Republicans or Democrats deserve to pass the class.

Feel free to use any part of this letter you wish to improve the Democratic Party.

Sincerely,

John Litzenberg
New Orleans, LA

The fascist right ... the commie left ... the accusations fly,
with neither side, in truth, much worried 'bout the little guy;
they do not represent him, even though that's what they claim,
'cause behind all their rhetoric, they're pretty much the same:

Both sides make heartfelt speeches to a captive audience,
who, face it, have eschewed most logic and good common sense,
in thinking that these politicos, who speak of some gesalt,
have anything in mind but finding someone else at fault.

Just once, I'd like to hear a politician state the truth:
that they'd said anything to get you in their voting booth,
and that the numbers they rely on are in fact just lies,
manipulated to reduce their opponents to size.

And further, I'd like congressmen, and senators, to boot,
instead of claiming justice is their sole end of pursuit,
to simply say they're sorry, but the way that things are now,
free speech, fair play, and honesty they simply can't allow.

At least then I know where I stand, as if I couldn't guess:
a once-great country trying to deny it is a mess;
a people proud of learning less and less each day in schools,
whose main interest is money-making, educated fools;

a flag that isn't fireproof, because it does not wave
for truth, justice and liberty for all, free man and slave;
instead, by some selective wind, it chooses its flagpoles
by special interests, narrow vision, and pretense at soul.

I wonder, as I hear them speak on C-SPAN or the news,
if anyone who is in office really knows my shoes.
They do not know my first name, that I'm sure of. After all,
it's never them in person making their fund-raising calls.

Bipartisan, bischmartisan; blue, red, and purple hues;
Republican or Democrat; evangelist or Jew ---
why don't they get it? Why not look beyond such simple lines,
and think what's best for the whole country, while there is still time?

12 MAY 2005

From the wonderful book The Maiden King: The Reunion of Masculine and Feminine by Robert Bly and Marion Woodman. This bit from Marion:

...the arts are becoming frills in the eyes not only of the government but of many citizens as well. As budgets are being balanced, the arts suffer because so many tutors [status quo protectors] are so far away from the soul they simply don't care...Their head is separated from their heart. What these pathetic tutors who pass these laws do not realize is that young people do start out with imagination, with enthusiasm. Take away their disciplined outlets and they are birds without wings. Moreover, their frustration at not being able to soar results in rage, which they have no idea how to contain. Any one of the arts can give them a container strong enough to hold their natural frustrations until it distills into paint, or dance, or song. Any teacher knows how much energy is required to teach a student how to hold the container solid enough until the emotion has time to resolve itself into an art form. That is what culture is. Our tutors are passing laws that will destroy what has taken centuries to build --- a civilization that can contain its own vision. Without the arts, the principal is shot in his office instead of Julius Caesar being massacred with yardsticks in the classroom. Raw instinct runs rampant in the streets, imagination is ciphered into primitive behavior, spiritual and moral values cease to exist, and the millions that are saved are spent in building boot camps to try to contain thugs.