• Demilitarized Zone:

  

• Recent Posts

  • And now for something completely different…
  • Mindwalk
  • A Provacative Debate Falls Flat
  • An Unequal Struggle
  • Overstepping Sovereign Boundaries
• 
  

• Categories

  • activism
  • Afghanistan
  • art
  • capitalism
  • civil disobedience
  • climate change
  • consumerism
  • corporations
  • defense spending
  • environment
  • food
  • foreign policy
  • Gandhi
  • genocide
  • Guantanamo
  • health
  • Howard Zinn
  • imperialism
  • Iraq
  • Israel
  • Jesus
  • Martin Luther King
  • militarism
  • military
  • nationalism
  • Noam Chomsky
  • nonviolence
  • Palestine
  • peace
  • pop culture
  • religion
  • sustainability
  • Tolstoy
  • torture
  • vegetarianism
  • voting

• Recent Comments

  • Jason on Television’s Greatest Indictment of Power, Politics and Capitalism
  • Sarah on What It Really Means To Be Anti-War
  • E.S.M. on Exploiting Activism
  • Lisa Ferber on The People’s Voice
  • clare grady on Exploiting Activism

• My Photos

  

• Archives

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008

• Meta

  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
• 

Here are two stories that really turn the news that our mainstream media is peddling on its head…

Iran says to sue U.S. and Britain over mosque blast

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran’s judiciary said on Monday it would file international lawsuits against the United States and Britain, accusing them of providing financial support to those behind a blast in a mosque that killed 14 people.

Hamas condemns the Holocaust

The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history… We are not engaged in a religious conflict with Jews; this is a political struggle to free ourselves from occupation and oppression.

I just came upon a lost gem of a movie–recommended by my dad–called Mindwalk. It was released in 1990, but has never made its way to dvd. After watching it, I’m not surprised, given that–as the Washington Post described it at the time–the “film has virtually no action, no drama and no narrative.” With that sort of criteria, a film would have to be some sort of touchstone French new wave art house classic from the ’60s to get released on dvd. But really, it’s a wonder that Mindwalk ever got released in the first place.

The film is essentially a two-hour conversation between three characters: a politician (played by Sam Waterston), a physicist (Liv Ullman) and a poet (John Heard). The setting is the medieval island of Mont Saint-Michel, where all three characters have converged to escape from their respective midlife crisis. But what this movie lacks in Hollywood elements, it makes up for with an intense existential dialogue on the very meaning of life–but more than just that, it’s the clashing of two distinct ways of seeing life.

Although it is structured like a dialogue, the movie is in large part a monologue or–perhaps more accurately–a forum for the physicist to espouse her new world views upon a reluctant old world politician (described as a conservative democrat) and his generally open-minded poet friend. This approach definitely comes off as a bit too didactic at times, but I’m willing to forgive the filmmakers because it’s clear they too were aware of this pitfall and attempted to compensate by inserting a daughter character, who periodically pops in to remind her mom that no one wants to hear her crazy boring ideas about how the world should work.

Nevertheless, the physicist–whose withdrawl to the island stems from the realization that her work was being fed to the U.S. Defense Department–begins her lecture by telling the politician that he suffers from a mechanistic view of life that dates all the way back to Descartes.

Her next lesson is that this mechanistic view of life has dug its way into society has a whole, creating a “crisis of perception.”

She then recommends a new vision of the world.

This new vision of the world reminds me of what Dr. King said in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

It’s no wonder that she earlier declared herself a non-voter and further explained that the basic political ideas of right and left are outdated and ill-equipped to solve these larger systemic problems. But how do we solve systemic problems? By understanding the very nature of systems, which is–as the physicist explains in her final lecture–the very essence of life itself.

It’s striking how much of this is relevant to me now, nearly 20 years after the making of this film. The candid talk of global warming, child death rates, and weapons spending shows how little things have changed in the time my generation has grown of age. The Cold War was coming to an end when Mindwalk was released. And perhaps a new world vision seemed possible. Yet somehow, in the years since, it seems like we’ve only become more entrenched in the old world vision of machination and exploitation.

It would be easy to draw the conclusion that the ideals forwarded in Mindwalk are unrealistic and unattainable. But I see something positive in my attraction to this movie (and it’s the same reason I’m drawn to the teachings of King, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, etc.). Among each new generation that finds its world in disarray, the popular solution continues to be the championing of interconnectedness and an appreciation for all living things.

Incidentally, if this entry has interested you enough to watch the whole movie, your best bet is to download it or watch here on Google video.

I attended a rather lackluster debate on Wednesday night between former NY Times Middle East correspondent Chris Hedges–who was promoting his new book I Don’t Believe In Atheists–and writer/communist Sunsara Taylor–who was representing Communist party leader Bob Avakian and his book Away With All Gods!–on the provocative topic of “Atheism, God and Morality in a Time of Imperialism and Rising Fundamentalism.”

The event started off strong with Hedges comparing the Christian Right–something he calls the most dangerous force in American history–with the new Atheist movement–led by the likes of writers Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. The similarity, he believes, is that both groups are fundamentalists that engage in the same sloganeering, such as calling for the eradication or conversion of those who do not share their beliefs. In conclusion, Hedges argued that the world’s problems stem from the evil that exists within every person, not religion.

Unfortunately, Taylor’s rebuttal was not as well prepared. She offered only cursory observations in defense of atheism–essentially that the Bible says bad things–and never addressed Hedges’s core argument of its similarity to Christian fundamentalism. Furthermore, her incessant plugging of Communism and refusal to disown its violent past stood in the way of any real solid point she could have made.

While my own convictions are pretty similar to those of Chris Hedges and I was heartened to see him bolster those convictions with such convincing and well-thought arguments, it’s still disappointing that his counterpart couldn’t offer any jabs of opposing wisdom. In the end, a good debate is not about one person dominating the other, but rather a duet in which the participants push each other to reach heightened states of truth and knowledge.

For a sampling of what Chris Hedges spoke about, check out this short video produced by The Nation to promote his new book:

Even in the most progressive of circles, the plight of the Palestinians is grossly overlooked. For instance, a recent editorial by Bradley Burston–a senior editor for Haaretz, one of Israel’s leading newspapers–declared, “I want the Palestinians to Win.” But the message beneath this provoking headline was rather centrist at best. Mr. Burston believes “For that to happen, both sides have a lot of growing up to do.” No where in his article does Mr. Burston mention acts of apartheid in the West Bank or ethnic cleansing in Gaza being carried out by the Israeli government. It seems he thinks both Israel and Palestine are equally wrong. Of course, violence should be condemned no matter who is using it. But when one side is clearly using it more than the other, the solution to conflict is not merely both sides coming together like mature adults to solve their differences.

If you listen to the far right, you’ll be led to believe that rocket and suicide attacks on Israel vindicate the building of a 400-mile wall through the West Bank and the cordoning off of Gaza into an open-air prison. If you listen to the left, you’ll be told that both sides are wrong–as if that is somehow the fairest treatment of the conflict. And then you have the facts: something both sides ignore.

It is clear from this graph, printed in the Economist with statistics coming from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, that Israel (and by extension the US–it’s greatest financial backer) controls the situation and could–if it so chose–end the horrible loss of innocent life, on both sides.

Ecuador’s parliament approved a law last week banning foreign military bases within its borders. This law will be included in the country’s new constitution, which Ecuadorans will vote on later this year. If ratified, the US will then have to withdraw from the Manta air base when its lease expires in 2009.

Ecuadoran president Rafael Correa has long been an opponent to the US military presence in his country. He once promised to cut off his own arm before extending the lease beyond 2009. There is, however, one condition on which he’d renew the base (also presumably the only condition the US would never accept): “That they let us put a base in Miami — an Ecuadorean base. If there’s no problem having foreign soldiers on a country’s soil, surely they’ll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.”

While some have argued that the Manta air base plays a key role in the US “war on drugs,” an investigation into Colombia’s recent attack on a rebel camp in Ecuador indicates that the base violated its lease agreement by assisting Colombia with the reconnaissance mission that killed 25 people. According to the agreement Washington signed with Ecuador, Manta air base is to only be used for counter-narcotics operations.

There’s little doubt this sort of US military interference is an isolated incident. Most likely incidents like the one in Ecuador are occurring frequently around the world. We currently maintain bases in over 130 countries and on every continent except Antarctica. The Pentagon admits to 737 bases worldwide, but being that countries like Japan and Italy hold 100 each, it’s not hard to imagine that figure being much greater.

Meanwhile, just a couple months ago, White House press secretary Dana Perino was quoted as saying, “I’m not aware of any place in the world - where we have a base - that they are asking us to leave. And if they did, we would probably leave.” She did, however, make the singular exception for Guantanamo.

I’m not sure how to preface this, so here it is: I like a Nickelback song. Yes, I’m talking about the band that sounds (and looks) like all the worst elements of the grunge era were dumped into Pro-Tools and produced by the CEO of Warner Music himself. I discovered this rather shocking truth while dining at the (also embarrassing to admit) Hard Rock Cafe in Times Square. But here in lies the redeeming value: Surrounded and overcome by all things corporate, I noticed the phrase “What would happen if everyone cared?” flash across a tv screen, soon followed by footage of 1970’s peace marches in Northern Ireland, the orange jumpsuits of Guantanamo protesters and other human rights/social justice imagery. This instantly felt like the most subversive piece of “art” I had ever encountered–not just because it was playing to a lunchtime crowd of tourists and Midtown Manhattan account executives, but more so because the message was being promoted by the most mainstream of mainstream rock acts. Just think how many people have seen this video. The song itself is featured on the band’s seven-times platinum album All the Right Reasons, which also happens to be the longest running album on the Billboard 200–at nearly three years. So maybe the song doesn’t turn anyone into an activist, but it sure does get an awful lot of people thinking about issues of real importance and their own ability to do something about it. The video closes with a fitting quote by Margaret Meade: “Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” So, that leaves me wondering: What would happen if every Nickelback fan cared?

One question has been coming up a lot–although, perhaps not explicitly–on this blog recently: How should the antiwar movement engage in the 2008 election?

I’ve danced around this question–essentially saying that we need to push Democratic candidates to take a harder stance against the war and military spending. But my message could certainly be more articulate and well defined. If I were to do that, however, I’d essentially be paraphrasing two great articles that came out this week.

The first one is by Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill, both Nation writers with NY Times best-sellers out at the moment. They make a great point about how Clinton and Obama could be (as well as have been) pushed to change their position on Iraq (which is essentially to continue the occupation indefinitely):

The candidates know that much of the passion fuelling their campaigns flows from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous war. Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp. When the Nation revealed that neither candidate was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, Clinton changed course. She became the most important US political leader to endorse the ban - scoring a point on Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start.

This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of battle has the power to energise voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.

Let’s remember, unlike the outgoing Bush administration, these candidates need the support of the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq. If opinion transforms into action, they won’t be able to afford to say, “So?”

The second article that tackles this subject is by former NY Times Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges, who offers a more challenging message for the antiwar movement about third party candidates:

Those of us who oppose the war, who believe that all U.S. troops should be withdrawn and the network of permanent bases in Iraq dismantled, have only two options in the coming presidential elections-Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. A vote for any of the Republican and Democratic candidates is a vote to perpetuate the occupation of Iraq and a lengthy and futile war of attrition with the Iraqi insurgency. You can sign on for the suicidal hundred-year war with John McCain or for the nebulous open-ended war-lite with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or back those who reject the war. If you vote Democrat or Republican in the coming election be honest with yourself-you have voted to allow the U.S. government to continue, in some form, the campaign that needlessly kills ever more Americans and Iraqis in a conflict that has become the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history and a crime under international law.

While both articles contain vital messages, I find the latter to be more compelling. Some may be drawn more to the pragmatism of Klein and Scahill, who want to push a mainstream candidate as far left as they will go, but I believe it’s going to take far more than the compromising nature of pragmatism to unseat a system that has been oppressing people the world over for some 200 years. Not that Hedges’ message is without practical merit (e.g. “If the anti-war movement gets behind [Nader] and McKinney, if it stands behind its principles, it could begin to shake the foundations of the Democratic Party.”), but it offers something more nourishing for the soul: the chance to stand up for the millions of voiceless and innocent people who are typically strangled by the imperialist grip of US foreign policy.

If that’s something you think is worth standing up for, then you will surely find inspiration in these words, spoken by Dr. King–and regarding his unpopular opposition to the Vietnam War–just days before his assassination, :

On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question–is it politic? Vanity asks the question–is it popular? Conscience asks the question–is it right? There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. I believe today that there is a need for all people of good will to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “We ain’t goin’ study war no more.” This is the challence facing modern man.

Being that World Water Day just passed a few days ago–without much attention–it’s worth noting perhaps the biggest issue facing our most basic and precious resource. As reported by The Independent of London, Britain’s International Development Minister says that the world faces a future of “water wars”, unless action is taken to prevent shortages and sanitation issues escalating into conflicts. As much as two-thirds of the world’s population could live in water-stressed countries by 2025.

While we should be concerned about these potential developments, there are also many current water issues afflicting the world’s poor. The Independent also reports that “Each year 443 million school days are lost globally to diarrhea and 1.8 million children die unnecessarily from these diseases.”

With that in mind, we should all stop and consider how much we take water for granted. Perhaps the best way to do that is to measure your water usage using this nifty H2O calculator. It not only adds up your shower, laundry, and dish water usage, but also figures how much water goes into trickier things like your diet. For instance, if you eat meat, you’ll find that your water footprint is much higher because of all the water it takes to feed an animal.  Compared to the average person, who uses 1,190.5 gallons per day,  I’m doing rather well at 876 gallons day (even though that number still sounds insane). Still, it’s caused me to think more about ways I can reduce my water usage, such as cutting my 10-minute shower time in half (yes, I do like a bit of a long shower in the morning) or installing water saving devices on my faucets and toilet.

Yesterday was the annual Good Friday Way of the Cross march through midtown Manhattan, sponsored by Pax Christi–a leading group in the Catholic peace movement. The several hundred who participated–including myself–walked from 47th and 2nd to Times Square, stopping at fifteen symbolically-significant places along the way to reflect on the suffering and injustices going on in the world today. We prayed for victims of our indifference to the Darfur genocide across from the Nigerian Consulate, those without access to affordable health care and medications in front of the Pfizer building, the homeless outside Grand Central Station, and the working poor in front of banks. We also prayed for an end to global exploitation by greedy corporations, our contribution to global warming, and–most dramatically, as it was in the middle of Times Square–military recruitment and the death penalty.

If you’re wondering what all this has to do with Good Friday or are hesitant to find approval with a faith-based protest, consider that the final suffering hours of Jesus before his execution by the state was a public event and that most of us in this country are sheltered from the suffering of others. Even on this holy day, most Christians retreat to their churches and private thoughts to recall the suffering of one man, when such suffering is going on outside their very door. Yesterday’s march was an opportunity to not only bring awareness to such suffering, but to force passersby to confront it–if only for a second. It was a fulfillment hearing our voices echo through the canyons of commerce and watching the expression of tourists being caught off-guard or those lunching in overpriced corporate venues like Bubba Gump Shrimp Company break from their food to observe our disturbance. In realizing that the tranquility of peace can overcome the most chaotic and sensory overloaded spot on Earth, I remain hopeful that the world is not deaf to our cries for change.

Check out the link to my Flickr page for more photos from the march.

Yesterday’s entry received quite a response over at the Huffington Post–which happened to pick it up. By and large the consensus seemed to be: “You have a point about Obama’s shortcomings, but now is not the time to bring them up.” Some thought I put too much emphasis on the little bit that was wrong with his speech, saying “He can’t be perfect.” Others thought discussing the Middle East was out of context in a speech that was largely about race in America. Nevertheless, Obama did make a statement that would no doubt anger most Palestinians. And wasn’t Obama’s speech largely about empathy? If his speech was great for that reason then it follows that we must extend that empathy beyond the domestic realm to all places where inequality dwells–particularly in a place like Palestine, which suffers under the occupation of a government funded by our tax dollars.

It may be easy for us to look the other way because we don’t truly know what occupation is like and praise an otherwise great speech, but eventually this and other topics (such as his talk of increasing the defense budget and not withdrawing troops before 2013) will come to the front. Perhaps it is better to push him on these issues now. It could actually help him gain more votes. A CBS News Poll from this week shows that 46 percent favor troop withdraw in less than a year. Only 6 percent think they should stay for more than five years. Also, a Gallop Poll from last month reported that 44 percent of Americans believe the government is spending too much on the military, while just 22 percent think it’s too little.

Blind praise is not helping Obama and it’s definitely not going to help us get off this devastating track that so many people are unhappy with at present moment. In a democracy, we owe it to ourselves, as well as those affected by our foreign policy, to voice our discontent with a candidate’s weaknesses.

Next Page →

• Where Does Your Income Tax Go?

  

• Your Tax Dollars At Work:

  

• News Sites

  • AlterNet
  • Antiwar.com
  • Asia Times
  • CommonDreams
  • Danger Room
  • Democracy Now!
  • Electronic Intifada
  • Grist
  • In These Times
  • Media Matters
  • Mother Jones
  • RealClimate
  • Sojourners
  • t r u t h o u t
  • The American Prospect
  • The Christian Science Monitor
  • The Independent
  • The Indypendent
  • The Nation
  • The Palestine Chronicle
  • The Progressive
  • Think Progress
  • TomPaine.com
  • TreeHugger
  • Truthdig
  • ZNet

• Organizations

  • Albert Einstein Organization
  • American Friends Service Committee
  • Buy (Less) Crap!
  • CorpWatch
  • FAIR
  • If Americans Knew
  • National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund
  • Pathways to Housing
  • Peace Brigades International
  • PETA
  • Voices for Creative Nonviolence
  • Voices In The Wilderness
  • War Resisters League
  • Witness Against Torture
  • World Wildlife Federation

• Political Art

  • Adbusters
  • Banksy
  • Catch of the Day
  • Just Seeds
  • The Yes Men

• Radical Communities

  • Catholic Worker Movement
  • Haley House
  • Jonah House
  • The Simple Way

• Writers

  • Bill McKibben
  • Chalmers Johnson
  • Chris Hedges
  • George Monbiot
  • Howard Zinn
  • Michael Pollan
  • Mickey Z
  • Noam Chomsky
  • Norman Solomon
  • Robert Fisk
  • Robert Jensen
  • Sean Gonsalves
  • Wendell Berry
•