HARRY CALLAHAN'S DILEMMA: Why the "War on Terrorism" Will Damn America's Soul

Dirty Harry was one of the first cultural artifacts in what would eventually be an enormous mass media backlash against the progressive gains of the 1960s. Harry Callahan is San Francisco's avenging stormtrooper, brutally violating civil rights while his audience can't help but cheer him on; in fact, to the manipulative credit of the makers of the film, and Clint Eastwood's charisma, it is quite difficult for film viewers to resist his fascist allure. By the film's end, Harry asks Scorpio if he feels lucky: the narrative is such that audiences almost beg the psychotic killer to reach for his gun. When he does and Harry blows him away, we are satisfied. Dirty Harry helped to give an emotionally powerful mythology to Nixon's "War on Crime" rhetoric--it is no accident, I think, that the film is set right smack dab in the middle of one of the USA's most liberal cities.

(To be fair, the film is, in fact, more sophisticated than I am saying, with some subtle nuances that play against Harry's violent contempt for civil rights--in fact, to this day, Eastwood denies that the film promotes fascism; he says it's "anti-authortarian." For the most part, however, the message that the film strongly pushes is clearly a mandate for cops to gleefully violate the Constitution while apprehending crooks.)

However, Dirty Harry's sequel, Magnum Force, throws a wild card into Callahan's ideology. Harry is confronted with the dark and distorted logical conclusion to the argument that he makes in the first film. A secret quartet of crack-shot rookie traffic cops conspiring with Harry's superior, Leiutenant Briggs (Hal Holbrook), acts as an anti-Mafia death squad, dramatically decreasing organized crime in San Francisco. Harry is appalled--these new guys go too far. Harry, of course, deals with the situation in typical form and, of course, his murderous ways are entirely satisfying on an emotional film-viewing level. This is, however, simply a deus ex machina, a plot device that resolves the movie's story but not its themes. Magnum Force asks an enormous moral question that inconspicuously goes unanswered.

This, then, is Harry Callahan's dilemma: at what point does the ruthless efficiency of violence and murder become unacceptable?

This is also America's dilemma. Terrorism (as defined by Bush, rather than being inclusive of state-sponsored terrorism, which actually makes for a better definition) is used by desperate people who have a massive grievance against an institution or a state, but do not have an army with which to make war. The United States cannot possibly wage "War on Terrorism" because, by definition, terrorists have no military with which to fight. Blasting civilian populations in the Islamic world will not end terrorism. It will, however, inspire even more terrorism in retaliation for very real injuries inflicted by the United States. The State Department and the Department of Defense agree: it's called "blowback."

How will the American warmongering establishment react when it becomes clear that its military adventures have been utterly ineffective? My best guess is that they will do what the death squad in Magnum Force did: turn up the heat. So, too, will the forces of Islamic terrorism. And, then, so will the US. And so will they. And so will we.

Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (who Bush called "a man of peace") is already an expert on this dynamic.

The dark and distorted logical conclusion to this line of thinking can be seen in the history books. The Nazis, in retaliation for "terrorism" or partisan resistance, massacred entire villages. American soldiers slaughtered the elderly, women, and children at My Lai and hundreds of other villages during the Vietnam War. Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet ruthlessly eliminated his political opposition at the National Stadium in Chile. Salvadoran right-wing para-military soldiers murdered liberation theologist and Cathloc Archbishop, Oscar Romero, while he said mass. It has already begun anew in Afghanistan.

(It is important to note that, except for the Nazis, from whom our military learned, all of the above mentioned examples involve the US government in some way).

This is our future if we continue along these lines: the US will continually escalate its own violence and killing; all the while, terrorism will escalate. Our future will be less like Dirty Harry and more like Mad Max or Brazil. This is the end of morality for our people. The very soul of America will turn from its traditional tarnish to a deep, dark, wretched rot. I know that President Bush, as a fundamentalist Christian, believes in Hell. I wonder if he ever fears going there.

some research also done at ClintEastwood.net

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WOODY ALLEN: JAZZMAN

"For more than three decades, filmmaker Woody Allen has been playing jazz clarinet on Monday nights in intimate Manhattan settings. He spent 25 years performing weekly at Michael's Pub, famously missing the 1978 Oscar ceremony. While Annie Hall was winning multiple trophies, he was back East doing his regular Monday night gig at Michael's."

This is a pretty good article that does a nice job making connections between the artistic impulses behind both music and film.

Click here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WHO GUITARIST CLEARED OF PEDOPHILIA ALLEGATIONS

Thank god. I really didn't want to believe it was true, anyway. I mean, Pete's no Michael Jackson: we all know that he likes "Rough Boys" but I'm pretty sure that he meant grown up guys in leather jackets at seedy pubs...

Click here.

"And the morals that they worship will be gone."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

CONFLICTING REPORTS ABOUT THE CAPTURE OF BIN LADEN

He may already be in custody but the US isn't about to admit it. Here's Houston Chronicle coverage, and here's Yahoo coverage provided by Eschaton. Here's my own take which I just wrote about on Eschaton comments: I'll paste it here.

"I think that I can offer some small bit of corroboration here. Last weekend late at night I saw a cable news channel "breaking news" spot (I forget which network) that said something to the effect that bin Laden had been cornered in Pakistan, a shootout was in progress, and more details would be forthcoming. During the voiceover, they showed video of a suburban neighborhood with soldiers running around.

At first I thought, "what the hell?" But when I heard nothing more about it, I just figured that they were rehashing the capture of that Ron Jeremy guy and that I had misunderstood.

Now I'm thinking that I heard it correctly. Perhaps a late night producer ran the story trying to get a huge scoop over rivals and his bosses then killed the story at the request of the Pentagon.

That kind of thing has happened before..."

Did anyone else see this report? Has anyone run across it on the internet?

My life is more and more like the Matrix every day.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

Monty Python alumnus Terry Jones considers the coming war.

"And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here?"

Click here. Link culled from Eschaton comments.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

RON'S SOAPBOX

I now present a rousingly riotous new rivet in the superstructure of REAL ART: permanent links! Yes, that's right. After futzing around for seemingly several hours, I have doped out enough of the screamingly simple, yet tantalizingly tedious HTML code to provide you, true believer ("true believer"? Where the hell did that come from?), peril free pathways to your pondering penman's most prized places on the World Wide Web. (What's with all the alliteration?)

(What's happening to me?)

Excelsior!

makeminemarvelmakeminemarvelmakeminemarvel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND THEN THERE WAS ONE

CBS is now reporting that there is a good chance that the UK may be dropping out of Bush's mercenary army.

Link via Eschaton.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A POINT OF LIGHT IN THE CONSERVATIVE WASTELAND

And I don't mean one of those thousand points of light. Who says Houston is all conservative? Well, I usually do, but not today:

Peace activists, newlyweds gather at Mecom Fountain. I think I'm going to try to join in this Friday.

Also

Bhopal protesters block access to Dow plant. Remember the Union Carbide distaster in Bhopal, India? No? Click here. Now, it's Dow's problem since they bought UC: welcome to Houston, Greenpeace activists! (Okay, I know that Greenpeace has actually been in Houston for years, but they haven't been so noisy, lately.)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

DUMBASS BUTTHOLE AGGIE FRAT BOY GETS HIS COMEUPPANCE

Sometimes there really is justice. And now he has to go to Blinn College. Hahaha. Click here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT MOST US CONGRESSMEN ARE EXTRAORDINARILY STUPID, BUT...

'Freedom fries' go on House restaurant menus

The French Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment, except to say that french fries actually come from Belgium.

And the 9/11 terrorists all came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but that didn't stop us from invading Afghanistan. Silly Congressmen.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES: Who Watches the Watchmen?

More cop rape, this time in Miami. The trigger-happy Philadelphia police force is also getting in on some rape, too (note how the article says that this is only the most recent accusation). Finally, while it's not exactly about cop misconduct, it is worth noting that famed Harvard Law School professor and civil rights advocate Alan Dershowitz is now also an advocate of torture. That is to say, one of the most articulate spokesmen of the last two decades against police brutality, corruption, and misconduct has gone to the other side. With civil rights friends like these, who needs enemies?

Thanks once again to J. Orlin Grabbe for the link.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A REALLY GOOD ARGUMENT FOR PACIFISM

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, I waffled for about a week on whether to support US military action in Afghanistan. Then I read this Howard Zinn essay. That's the moment when I became a pacifist.

War is immoral.

War is fought by regular people against regular people for the benefit of a wealthy elite who are barely even inconvenienced by it all. The rich get richer; the people pay the price. As long as war is waged to fatten the pockets of the wealthy (as has almost always been the case), there can be no such thing as a "just" war. All the pro-war political rhetoric is just bullshit designed to rouse the population to do what an informed, rational person would think insane: kill innocent human beings for the profit of our masters.

Still don't buy it? Read this email sent to Tom Tommorow from the proud father of a US marine who has shipped off to kill Iraqis in order to enrich the American wealthy elite. Sounds like he's proud of his son but not proud of what he's been ordered to do...

UPDATE

Unfortunately, the direct link to the above mentioned email isn't working at the moment, so if you want to read it, just go to Tom Tommorow's page and scroll down to the post for 1:28 PM, March 10.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

SPRING BREAK

If anybody's wondering, the reason I'm posting more these last few days is that I'm on spring break. In addition to health insurance, steady pay, and retirement benefits, the many days of vacation are one of the really nice aspects of being a teacher. It almost makes up for being a lacky-stooge to the authoritarian indoctrination force more commonly known as "public education." Almost.

(God, sometimes I really do feel like an indoor cossack.)

Woohoo! Party down! It's spring break!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

MORE CONSERVATIVE BULLSHIT OUT OF MY HOMETOWN

Veep Cheney's buddies at Halliburton are getting a sweetheart deal to assist in the raping of Iraq after the war. Does this sort thing even surprise anyone anymore? Not about oil, indeed...

Thanks to Tom Tomorrow for the link.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE SEARCH ENGINES ARE FINALLY NOTICING ME!

And seemingly the search topic that makes Real Art pop up on both Yahoo and Google searches is Janeane Garofalo. I think people are trying to read the transcript for her March 7th appearance on CNN's Crossfire. Of course, Eschaton has already linked to it.

Now, just to be helpful to wayward internet searchers (anybody that knows me knows how I just loooove being helpful to strangers...), I will also link to the said transcript.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TRAILER TRASH

Lack of seniority lands Texas senator a trailer-office.

I hope he has to use a porta-can, too.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

MOLLY IVINS

Molly Ivins coins a new name for the US after Bush finishes remaking it in his image: Greater Texas. Plus: funny remarks about governor Rick Perry's beautiful hair.

How I miss her columns in the Austin American-Statesman! Do they still run them? I haven't really kept track since I left Austin in 1996. I suppose I should just check the A A-S website...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PERFORMING ARTISTS CONTINUE TO GET TOUGH WITH THE MAN

Houston Symphony musicians go on strike over the amount of pay cuts they will endure. Meanwhile, the neon lights are not bright on Broadway as the musician/actor/technician strike continues.

Right on, brothers!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

MACROECONOMICS 101
Or
How Bush is destroying the United States

The Bush administration's out of control military spending coupled with its absurdly massive tax cuts is pushing the federal budget deficit to nearly $2 trillion dollars. A "budget deficit" refers to the yearly difference between money collected by the federal government and the money it spends (not to be confused with the federal debt which refers to the cumulative total of those yearly deficits plus interest).

Why is this bad? Don't lots of individuals and businesses carry debt for years and years in order to buy things they wouldn't ordinarily be able to buy and then eventually pay it off, no worse for the wear?

Yes, but individuals and business aren't as big as the federal government. That is to say, you have to readjust your thinking about the sense of economic scale when considering the federal budget. As the conservatives are continually reminding us, the government is big. Perhaps this puts it into perspective: Douglas Adams's fictional reference book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," says of the universe, "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space..." So, too, with the federal government and it's collection and spending of money. If I and millions of other individuals are in debt, the overall economy is relatively unaffected (although I could see a scenario where personal debt gets really out of hand...), and one could argue that profits gained by lenders offset the effects of personal debt at the macroeconomic level. But the movement of federal money is so vast that it can easily be viewed as a significant percentage and, therefore, a major influencer of the national economy itself.

That is to say, when federal deficits rise above a certain dollar threshold relative to the Gross Domestic Product (or simply, the economy) bad things happen.

The feds can deal with a lack of money in several ways. They can raise taxes (always unpopular and in the current political climate, not likely). They can just print new money (which causes inflation and makes the economy even worse). Or they can borrow it: this has been the standard solution for funding government operations and programs during deficits for at least a couple of decades, probably longer. But the big problem is that when the feds borrow, they borrow on the enormous scale mentioned above. This essentially squeezes the overall supply of American money. That means much less money for American businesses to stay afloat during lean times or to expand during good times, much less money to finance personal car purchases, home purchases, home improvement, and college educations. The higher the federal budget deficit, the slower the US economy moves.

Simply put, huge federal deficits are a really, really bad idea.

Couple Bush's retarded economics with the effects of war jitters on the price of oil and the overall economy itself, along with the effects of the recent wave of corporate scandals and we have a recipe for a recession the likes of which have not been seen since the 1930s. Bush is this era's Herbert Hoover as Nero: he is playing with his toy soldiers while the nation burns. In fact, he's playing with matches and gasoline as the nation burns.

All of which really burns me up.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

VANS, ABORTION CLINICS, HIT LISTS AND BEIRUT

I want to take a quick moment to make it clear that a van driving into a Planned Parenthood office must be considered to be an act of terrorism even though nobody was hurt. Abortion providers and their staffs live in a constant state of seige and fear. The longtime judicial injunction against mass Operation Rescue style protests and clinic blockades have eased the anxiety a bit but that injunction has recently been lifted by the Republican dominated Supreme Court (this by itself may have encouraged this van guy). Furthermore, during the time of the injunction, clinic bombings and murders have continued virtually unabated. I hope that everyone knows of the "hit list" on a website called the "Nuremberg Files" that compares abortion clinics to Nazi concentration camps: despite the denials of the people who run the site, the list is clearly a call to kill abortion providers; they cross off the names of doctors that have been murdered by the site's readers. Yesterday's van attack takes place within this context. The attack also invokes the ghost of the Beirut truck bomb attack that killed sixty three Americans in 1983. Clearly, Frank Lafayette Bird Jr.'s very loud unspoken message was something like, "We've got you in our sniper scope; we used blanks this time, but we can kill you and your patients any time we want. Be afraid."

Bird's "protest" was, without a doubt, designed to create fear and anxiety on the part of clinic staff and would be patients. Perhaps next time, Bird will have his van full of explosives.

These psycho-fundamentalist acts of intimidation and violence are having an effect, too (I mean, apart from the violence itself). Many doctors and nurses, fearing for their lives, are getting out of the business. The ultimate effect is that it is increasingly difficult for women to find doctors willing to perform abortions. Where politics have failed, from the point of view of pro-lifers, terrorism has succeeded.

Driving vans into abortion clinics is not a "protest;" it is terrorism, pure and simple. KHOU is wildly irresponsible in euphemizing this.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

KHOU TERRORIST AS "PROTESTER" STREAMING VIDEO

How long before we start to see "peace protester" changed to "terrorist"? It's not so strange to think. It's already been done successfully with environmental activists and anti-globalism protesters.

Anyway, the link actually comes from the KHOU story page linked below. The graphic in question on the background screen at the beginning of the segment says, "protester arrested." Then, after a quick shot of a map graphic, a full screen title graphic says, "Planned Parenthood Protest." My point here is that driving a car into a building cannot reasonably be said to be simply a protest. Not that I expect anyone to disbelieve my wild claims of conservative bias in the media.

It's just, you know, content for my website and all...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'M TOO TIRED TO THINK so here's a couple of links...

First, New York actors are going on a solidarity strike to support musicians who are being threatened by...automation?!?!? The sad reality is that actors and musicians are ultimately so much meat; when working professionally, they have almost no control over what they produce--that's why artists' unions are so overwhelmingly important: at least creative workers can collectively demand fair wages, benefits, and working conditions. Frankly, I think that performing artists should seize the means of production and run everything themselves. Jeez, such a revolution couldn't possibly in a billion years make Hollywood or Broadway any worse...

Next, and here in Houston, an anti-abortion terrorist drives a van into a Planned Parenthood office. I've been in that Planned Parenthood lobby. I've given out their business cards on the sly here and there to some of my high school students. I know that worse has happened to other abortion services in other parts of the country, but this really pisses me off and really scares me; this hits me literally where I live. Furthermore, I've noticed that the Houston Chronicle has, as of this writing, pulled the story from it's own front link page--this is really unusual because they typically keep story links up for 24 hours. So, read about it here or on Eschaton, where I got this link, because you won't find it anywhere else on the Chronicle site. Also the local news show on KHOU, the CBS affiliate, used a video graphic that referred to this anti-choice act of terrorism as an "abortion protest."

God damned mother fuckers.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

UPDATE

I'm not going to link to the KHOU page because they have an annoying registration process, but I have lifted a photo caption quote for you to read:

An abortion protester allegedly drove a van into the Planned Parenthood clinic on Fannin.

Abortion "protester?" "Protester?" "PROTESTER?!?" PROTESTERS DON'T DRIVE VANS INTO BUILDINGS!!!!!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ANOTHER UPDATE

Okay, here's a link to the KHOU story on their web site. The above mentioned photo caption is not there because it was on their main link page and now even that has been pulled...what's going on here? Brave the registration process if you dare!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

OKAY, I PROMISE THIS IS THE LAST UPDATE

I found the terrorist story on the Chronicle site, but it was buried under a secondary (metro and state) link for some reason. Some nefarious reason? You decide...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES

The Houston Chronicle just keeps sending these things my way. First, the time sheet cop scam mentioned below nets a constable conviction. Second, hard numerical data now proves what African-American Houstonians already know: the Houston Police Department engages in racial profiling.

At the rate these stories are being reported, I'm sure I'll have more soon.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES A Special All Texas Post!

Cop in Harris County rips off taxpayers in a time sheet scam.

Houston PD crime lab is in worse shape than the FBI's and the LAPD's during the O.J. investigation.

Cop rape ring in a town near San Antonio is sued.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

LINKS FOR TUESDAY

Famous professional evil clown, Bill O'Reilly is at it again and Counterpunch's Kurt Nimmo meditates on both him and the new McCarthyism. But, wait! In a strange twist of events, Fox's pixie bastard suddenly decides that his most recent round of denunciations maybe just went a wee bit too far. Eschaton provides the details.

Over at Capitol Hill Blue, lawyer and author Steven Brill gives a detailed, easy to read account of how US Attorney General and Christian fundamentalist John Ashcroft rammed the draconian Patriot Act down Congress's throat.

So you still think Cowboy Bush is trying to catch terrorists in Iraq? Or trying to disarm Saddam Hussein? Well, you're dead wrong. The coming war is quite consciously about oil and US world dominance, and the plan to do it goes back thirty years! Democracy Now fills us in by streaming audio. Still a doubter? Read this.

Finally, here's a bit of samba streaming midi in honor of Carnival.

Some of these links lifted from J. Orlin Grabbe.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE CONTEXT FOR TRULY UNDERSTANDING THE USA IN 2003 PART II

OR How To Read Between the Lines of the Corporate News, Public Education, and Politics

OR The Story So Far…

“This recommendation (the call for a constitutional convention) was cautiously worded, for Hamilton did not want to raise any unnecessary alarm. He doubtless believed that a complete revolution in the old system was desirable, but he knew that, in the existing state of popular temper, it was not expedient to announce his complete program.”

“Mr. Madison warned the convention that in framing a system which they wished to last for ages they must not lose sight of the changes which the ages would produce in the forms and distribution of property. In advocating a long term in order to give independence and firmness to the Senate, he described these impending changes: "An increase in the population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equitable distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former.”

From Charles Beard’s "Framing the Constitution."

A Quick Intro

After ruminating on my earlier plug for Howard Zinn’s “People’s History,” I thought that it might be helpful to try to write a really condensed overview of my understanding of US political history—this is the context in which almost all of my writings should be understood. By and large, I must both credit and suggest not only Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and James Loewen, who deal specifically with history, but also others that I’ve read who deal with deconstructive analysis of other topics such as Susan Faludi, Eric Schlosser, Greg Palast, and others.

Before I go any further, I must point out an assumption that I’m making here: class exists in the United States. Whether you buy this assumption or not (and you’re a fool if you don’t), one thing is undeniable. Most Americans die in approximately the same income bracket and social circumstances into which they were born. A relative few move up, even fewer move down; it is clear, however, that the percentage of Americans who actually somehow change their economic circumstances is so small as to make the observation irrelevant. There is effectively no upward mobility in the US. The “American Dream” is, quite simply, a myth that aids the powerful and oppresses the powerless.

The Overview

The really interesting thing about this so-called revisionist version of history is that it is not particularly sophisticated or difficult to understand. In fact, it makes much more sense than the officially recognized version—it is a story of people trying to do what they perceive to be in their best interests rather than the preferred mythological tales of the weird, altruistic, justice-oriented, super philosophy-heroes that founded the land of freedom against all odds. It’s not even really all that “revisionist;” most of the facts jibe with what we were all taught in high school (for the most part, anyway). The major differences are deciding which facts are the most important and determining what those facts mean.

Here it is:

In the 1780s, wealthy American merchants, bankers, and landowners managed to co-opt and then manage both the rhetoric and political energy of the young nation’s popular revolutionary fervor. In fact, the entire American revolution and establishment of national government can be seen in terms of one plutocracy that dishonestly presented itself as being “of the people” replacing another plutocracy that honestly presented itself as the elite.

All American governments, from federal down to municipal, ultimately reflected the collective will of the new wealthy establishment. By and large, therefore, the role of government in the United States came to be about protecting the property and business interests of the elite while moderating disagreements and conflict between wealthy factions. These functions were (and still are) cloaked in the language of “the people” but usually had more to do with restricting freedom and democracy to the benefit of the wealthy rather than protecting and enhancing such concepts. The founding fathers really were brilliant, just not in the way that we were taught.

“Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.” Thank you, Pete Townshend, for planting the seeds of understanding…

Charles Beard’s “Framing the Constitution” was, I think, the first time that this was understood to be true. It took nearly 125 years for the power of American national myth to be seriously questioned by a respectable scholar. Of course, by then it was too late to even matter. The rule of wealth was already strongly entrenched in the American character—to question the conventional understanding was to piss off not only the powerful, but also the oppressed who had made a strong identity investment in the national myths of democracy and justice.

Now this is not to say that there is not some truth to these powerful national myths. One must admit that the economic and social situation has greatly improved for most rank-and-file Americans since 1776. In every case of social improvement, however, the ruling elite has only cooperated such that the system would not disintegrate. That is to say, greater economic privileges, more civil rights, and fairer political representation have only been achieved by MASSIVE outpourings of popular dissent. The only time that justice is truly done in the United States is when the plutocracy feels very, very threatened—even then, the elitists are generally able to take credit for the political changes, once again wrapping themselves in the pseudo-ideology of American freedom and democracy. In the American political system of managing and directing popular dissent, defeat becomes success.

In summary, this is not the America that you thought it was. This is not a democracy; we are ruled by the wealthy, despite all appearances. This is how it has always been. This is how it is even now.

I did say that this point of view was pretty simple, didn’t I?

Some Examples

THE CIVIL WAR can be seen in terms of the worst-case scenario for the American plutocracy. The popular uprisings against slavery had come to threaten the existing order among the wealthy elite. That is to say, the elite in the north saw the writing on the wall: abolish slavery or deal with a real revolution that would be very harmful to business stability and rule of wealth. Of course, the elite in the south stood to be completely pushed out of the plutocracy if slavery were abolished, and, therefore, were utterly paranoid about the issue for decades before the Civil War. The Constitutional system was unable to work in the desired way: the resolution of conflict among elites and the management of popular dissent became mutually exclusive of one another--war eventually broke out.

SUFFRAGE is an example of the granting of rights. Simply put, the all-male elites only gave women the vote because the widespread protests of the Suffragettes were seemingly threatening the stability of the nation. Allowing women the vote didn’t really have anything to do with morality from the point of view of the ruling elite; more like “we better save our asses because this is looking a bit scary (and my wife won’t have sex with me).”

LABOR rights had to be violently fought for. Public schools don’t really stress any real understanding of the US labor movement or how very popular it once was. In fact, Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs garnered 900,000 votes for president in 1912 and later got just about the same number of votes while in prison for speaking out against WWI (and, no doubt, for also pissing off the plutocracy). Indeed, the labor movement was perceived by the ruling elite to be a HUGE threat to their system. So they allowed workers just enough rights to diffuse the movement. Otherwise, freedom and justice might break out and then where would the wealthy be?

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT is theoretically almost a combination of the politics preceding the Civil War and the politics of the Labor Movement. That is to say, regional disagreements among wealthy elites converged with massive social upheaval to create the most turbulent times the nation has seen since the 1860s. The result was that the south lost again, but the rule of wealth was preserved and numerous politicians (JFK, to name one) were able to jump on the integration bandwagon and score political points—again, defeat becomes success.

THE VIETNAM WAR is yet another example of massive public dissent forcing the elite to grant concessions to the people. The US lost the war and suffered some loss of international prestige, but the plutocracy persevered.

WATERGATE is, perhaps, one of the most cynical examples of the inner workings of the American plutocracy. Noam Chomsky has pointed out in an interview in the book “Understanding Power” that the Watergate cover up is so utterly insignificant when compared with Nixon’s numerous real crimes (the secret bombings of Cambodia, misuse of the FBI, assassinations of both Americans and foreigners, etc), that the stated reasons for his exit from office cannot possibly be true. Rather, Chomsky speculates that Nixon’s abandonment of the Breton Woods financial agreement (this was the blueprint for the post WWII international economic order) and his freezing of wages and prices (which, interestingly enough, he believed he had to do because of the economic squeeze created by the Vietnam war) greatly offended and burned many powerful economic interests. In other words, Nixon had some very real enemies, but they did not make it onto his list: from the moment that he screwed the financial interests that allowed him to stay in power, his days were numbered.

TODAY the wealthy elite is in the best shape it has been in since the days of the Robber Barons and the political corruption of the late nineteenth century. After over two decades of conservative (a.k.a. wealthy) dismantling of the US social state, after over two decades of a concerted ideological attack on working and oppressed Americans that has manifested itself in the public schools and the elite controlled news media (in fact, the management and redirection of social unrest, or the “manufacture of consent,” as Chomsky and Edward Herman call it, is now a wildly successful near-science), opposition and popular dissent are in near complete disarray. The plutocracy can do almost anything it wants and it does. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are probably the most successful example in American history of the plutocracy co-opting popular unrest and redirecting it toward their own ends. There are, of course, massive demonstrations against the Iraq war, but it remains to be seen if the elite feel threatened—so far, the plutocracy is resting easy…

A Brief Conclusion

Anyway, I hope you get the idea of where I’m coming from: the political reality in America is at the same time both far more complex and far more simple than is popularly understood. Freedom, justice, and democracy all play important roles in the US, but these concepts generally serve as a means to elitists’ ends, rather than as a national end.

Call me crazy, but I think that democracy and freedom are good ideas by themselves. That is what they taught us all in school, after all.

Isn’t it?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY FLURRY OF BUSH WAR ACTIVITY

Bush lays the rhetorical groundwork for invading Iraq even though the rogue nation may end up being in compliance with UN resolutions. Blix prepares his own criteria and time table. Russia starts to play global political hardball at the UN. Bulgaria becomes the latest country to be bribed into the US led mercenary army of nations. Canada gets nervous.

AND A WHOLE LOT MORE!

Click here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES

Just for fun, I'm going to try to link to any reports that I come across that concern police brutality and corruption in these here United States. I'm working on the theory that I ought to be able to come across more stories than I might expect if I wasn't paying attention.

It's content for my website, anyway.

My first entry comes from the city of Harry Callahan.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Refuses To Reconsider "Under God" Pledge Ban

This is starting to get interesting...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

POTENTIAL FOR FASCISM II

Norman Mailer says:

There is a subtext to what the "Bushites" are doing as they prepare for war in Iraq. My hypothesis is that President Bush and many conservatives have come to the conclusion that the only way they can save America and get it off its present down slope is to become a regime with a greater military presence and drive toward empire. My fear is that we might lose our democracy in the process.

Click here for more...

Thanks to my good friend, Kevin, for the link.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FAREWELL MR. ROGERS

This makes me sad.

Won't You Be My Neighbor?

© 1967, Fred M. Rogers

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
A beautiful day for a neighbor.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...
It's a neighborly day in this beauty wood,
A neighborly day for a beauty.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
I've always wanted to have
A neighbor just like you.
I've always wanted to live
In a neighborhood with you.
So, let's make the most of this beautiful day.
Since we're together we might as well say:
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?
Won't you please,
Won't you please?
Please won't you be my neighbor?

The truth really can't be expressed more simply than that.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE CONTEXT FOR TRULY UNDERSTANDING THE USA IN 2003

So you still haven't read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States? You really ought to do so ASAP. Otherwise, there's a really good chance that you have absolutely no understanding of what's happing these days--even if you are quite certain that you do...

In the meantime, enjoy this recent Zinn speech about the coming war against Iraq that was broadcast on Pacifica by Democracy Now just this morning.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

LET US CONTENT OURSELVES WITH SMALL VICTORIES...FOR NOW

First Surprise, surprise. Sometimes there really are free speech rights in public schools. You just gotta sue for 'em.

Second The British are now equating Bush with Hussein. Personally, I think Bush is far more dangerous. (But then, seeing as how this is the Tehran Times...well, I still think Bush is more dangerous.)

Third Pro-war hypocricy is now starting to embarass the hawks. 'Bout time.

links courtesy of J. Orlin Grabbe

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

EVERYBODY'S GOTTA READ THIS
Eschaton's Guest Blogger Mac Diva Meditates On Southern Neo-Confederates

Click here.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NOTES FROM ONE OF AMERICA'S MAJOR IDEOLOGICAL FRONTS:
Public Education, Theater, Black History Month, and Paul Robeson

This May, I will have completed five years as a public high school teacher. One extremely important observation that I made about American education during my first month of teaching is that public schools are far, far more political than I could ever have imagined--like government and the news media, public education is a major American ideological battleground. For the most part, I've kept my leftist mouth shut when talking to other teachers (I'm in a Texas conservative hell district) and have been very careful about what I say to students (but I do talk about my beliefs to my students).

Last Thursdsay, in a ritual repeated yearly, the ten or fifteen theater arts teachers of our district met to discuss the state of theater education. Typically, teachers complain that faculty and administrators don't take theater seriously as an academic subject--students are regularly pulled out of theater classes to do extra work in other more traditional, academic classes; generally, teachers in Texas are obsessed with getting their students to pass Bush's "standards" oriented tests and not many of them seem to understand how studying the theater has anything to do with that. So, many teachers in our district see theater education as useless fluff.

Many of the same theater arts teachers at these meetings who complain about not being taken seriously also usually boast of all their shows and productions that, in my humble opinion, are so much useless fluff. That is to say, it seems that most of the theater teachers in my district have a sort of 1930s Mickey Rooney, Our Gang "let's do a show" approach to theater education that does nothing but prove to their detractors that theater education is pointless. At past meetings, I have tried to point out this paradox and that maybe we ought to approach theater more intellectually--I am usually quickly dismissed as an arts "snob," a serious artiste who just doesn't understand the community: "that's not what they want around here; that's not what makes them happy."

This year, I was more assertive. Once again, I pointed out the paradox: "don't you see, you're playing to their bias." Once again, I was called a snob. For the first time, I shot back: "I'm pretty far to the left both politically and philosophically and I believe that elitism of any sort is unethical and wrong." Three teachers burst out into near hysterical guffaws of laughter; this really cracked them up. While they were still laughing, I said calmly, "I'm actually serious. I really mean it. This isn't about snobbery; snobbery is wrong."

The district fine arts coordinator also misunderstood, but in a more respectful way--he thought I was railing away about the nature and bureaucracy of public education. "No," I said, "I've been in this business long enough to understand how things work. I'm talking about what we teach in the classroom. I'm saying that theater is, in fact, a hard academic subject that is studied at many universities all the way up to the doctoral level." Finally, I think I had gotten everybody's attention.

I went on. "I think the best way to illustrate how we can do this at our level is to give you the rundown on my Black History Month unit on Paul Robeson." Very quickly (in order to amaze with a veritable deluge of information), in my old high school debating style, I then proceeded to give them the basics:

In order to contextualize my approach to theater education, I need to say, as I say at the beginning of the year to all my theater arts students, that theater is a four thousand year old tradition that comes from the culture that practically founded western civilization, the ancient Greeks. Indeed, the Greeks were among the very first in the west to formally study philosophy, math, physics, astronomy, geometry, and democracy. They made lasting contributions to architecture, sculpture, the study of history, and poetry. To the Greeks it was all the same thing: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Indeed, Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great, was a major expert on literature, poetry, theater, metaphysics (spirituality), physics (science), and philosophy; Aristotle, who has been studied throughout the ages, is still taken very seriously by scholars today. This is where I am coming from when studying and teaching the theater. Theater is, ideally, the study of everything, the study of the human condition, of human relationships both individually and collectively.

This is also the approach that one should take when studying the great actor, Paul Robeson. If we're going to talk about Robeson, then we have to hit the Harlem Renaissance. That means talking about James Baldwin's experience there as a youngster, talking about Langston Hughes, about Duke Ellington. If we're going to talk about Robeson, then we have to talk about his definitive work as "Othello" and the value of Shakespeare who, as Robeson said, "foresaw the problem of a black man living in a white society." We have to talk about his other great roles such as Brutus Jones in Eugene O'Neill's "The Emperor Jones." We have to talk about Robeson's career long tinkering with the lyrics to the song written for him to sing in "Showboat," "Ol' Man River" such that the racist song of black despair eventually became a song of black triumph and defiance. We have to talk about his pioneering civil rights activism that took place well before the modern civil rights era had begun, activism that ultimately resulted in his blacklisting during the McCarthy era. If we talk about blacklisting, we have to hit the Cold War and the great ideological divide of the twentieth century, communism versus capitalism; we also have to talk about free speech and what it means to the American political system.

This is how we should sell theater arts to administrators, faculty, and to the community, not as "let's do a show," but as one of the most important classes a child can ever take.

That sure did shut up everybody. After a brief silence, the fine arts coordinator gave the floor to another teacher with another topic. When introducing her topic she said that she was going to "rant" about something else.

"Oh you think I was ranting, do you?" I asked.

"Yes, you were ranting." she replied.

But I think I had made my point because nobody had a real response. Unfortunately, I fear that, in the end, I will simply be ignored. Theater arts in my school district will, in all probability be business as usual for the foreseeable future. But then, that's exactly what public education is supposed to be, isn't it? Business as usual: indoctrinating children into the culture of authority and obedience. True education, true thought runs counter to that agenda.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

YAY!!!!!

Atrios noticed me!!!! Alas, because Eschaton switched over to another comment system, there is now no evidence of the all-seeing eye pointing in my direction... Anyway, it was on Wednesday, 2/19/03: Atrios posted a story about a KKK terrorist being arrested in Pennsylvania with the headline "Homegrown Suicide Bomber." I then posted a little joke: "uh, Atrios, don't you mean 'homicide bomber?'" (If you don't know, ultra-conservative Fox News is the only major corporate news venue to embrace Bush's ultra-silly redefining of the term, "suicide bomber.") A few hours later on the comment posting system, the omniscient one responded by rejecting my suggestion and making a call for another term that is hip and funny, but shows respect for the intended victims: something like"klanikazi" maybe.

Okay, I know it's goofy of me to rejoice, but, hey, I'm a teacher; it's not like my life is exciting or anything...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

MY DOOMED ATTEMPT AT BEING A LETTERHACK:

Media critic and writer of "What Liberal Media?" Eric Alterman writes about how the corporate media have successfully redefined the American political spectrum such that "far, loony right-wing" now means simply "conservative," "conservative" means "moderate," and "moderate-right" now means "liberal." "Liberal," of course, now means "crazy." Ordinarily, this intense euphemizing doesn't really confuse me. Recently, however, it doomed one of my few attempted forays into the mainstream press's letter pages.

Slate's "liberal" writer Emily Yoffe recently had an anti-peace movement essay published in the Houston Chronicle. Silly me, not being a reader of Slate, not realizing that she's supposedly "liberal," I just figured that because she refers to the peace movement as being "morally bankrupt," that she was yet another one of those loud mouthed, sermonizing conservative weirdos. I mean that's how the essay reads, for Christ's sakes!!!! But, no. She was supposedly speaking as a "liberal."

This, I think, is what probably doomed my letter hack response to the essay (if it ever had a chance to be printed at all...).

Anyway, for your reading enjoyment, I now post my ill-fated letter to the editor here. For what it's worth, I think that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it's probably dog poo. Or conservative, for that matter. My letter:

I am a proud signer of the NION statement and I deeply love America.

Whenever I hear one of those venomous, condescending, war-mongering, right-wing tirades against those "America hating" progressives, something always tugs at the back of my head: "the marketplace of ideas." The great philosophers, such as Locke, Hobbes, and Mill, who heavily influenced our country's founding fathers, expressed democracy's absolute and crucial need for vigorous debate. In other words, no "marketplace of ideas" means no democracy.

When a conservative tells me that I am "morally bankrupt" for doing what I believe is my patriotic responsibility, publicly expressing my vision for our grand nation, I am both sickened and perplexed. Accusing progressives of such a thing only serves to stifle "the marketplace of ideas," without which our democracy cannot survive. If any group should be called "morally bankrupt," it is the multitude of self-important, snobbish shouters on the right; they try to destroy debate, and, therefore, destroy democracy.

From this point of view the true near-treasonous behavior is coming from the likes of Emily Yoffe, Anne Coulter, or Fox News' Bill O'Reilly who told peace activist Jeremy Glick to "Shut up! Shut up!" live on TV in the wildly popular "no spin zone."

This is basic Civics 101. Doesn't anybody else get this?

Well, I think that at least I get it...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

IS FIDEL CASTRO ACTUALLY A REALLY COOL GUY?

You decide. First, let's set the mood. Bueno. On to the story...

CounterPunch's Saul Landau interviews Cuba's Vice President, Ricardo Alarcon. The second-in-command of the nation most often victimized by the evil terrorist force that Martin Luther King, Jr. once called "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" (en otras palabras, Los Estados Unidos) relates an alternative understanding of "the war on terrorism."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FAREWELL JOHNNY PAYCHECK

His biggest hit:

TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT

(Written by David Allen Coe)

Take this job and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more.
My woman done left,
An' took all the reasons I was workin' for.
You better not to try to stand in my way,
As I'm a walkin' out the door.
Take this job and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more.

I've been workin' in this fact'ry,
For nigh on fifteen years.
All this time, I watched my woman,
Drownin' in a pool of tears.
An I've seen a lot of my good folk die,
Had a lot of bills to pay.
I'd give the shirt right off of my back,
If I had the guts to say.

Take this job and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more.
My woman done left,
An' took all the reasons I was workin' for.
You better not to try to stand in my way,
As I'm a walkin' out the door.
Take this job and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more.

Well, that foreman, he's a regular dog,
The line boss is a fool.
Got a brand new flat-top haircut;
Lord, he thinks he's cool.
One of these days, I'm gonna blow my top,
And sucker, he's gonna pay
Lord, I can't wait to see their faces,
When I get the nerve to say:

Take this job and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more.
My woman done left,
An' took all the reasons I was workin' for.
You better not to try to stand in my way,
As I'm a walkin' out the door.
Take this job and shove it,
I ain't workin' here no more.

Take this job and shove it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

IMPORTANT LINKS CULLED FROM ESCHATON OVER THE WEEKEND

What with all the cool links, essays, jokes, and the opportunity to post my own thoughts and pit them in debate against other readers, I'm rapidly becoming addicted to the Eschaton blog page. Anyway, check out these links; I find them to be rather important information.

Bush administration attempts to supress New York peace march. Click here. This is actually quite frightening. As Atrios (the mysterious identity of the Eschaton blogger) said, "If we (actually) had a liberal media this would be a huge story." Indeed. Unfortunately, terribly, terribly, terribly unfortunately, we have a ragingly, flamingly conservative media.

Rumsfeld wants to make Germany pay dearly for opposing Bush's war, the most convincing evidence yet that he's out of his mind. Click here. I don't think it's that good of an idea to piss off Germany and potentially encourage them to build up their own military at the same time...I mean, isn't there some sort of historical precedent to worry about here?

The worst, most over-the-top example of violating the seperation between church and state I've ever heard of. Click here. Sadly, I think things are headed back in this direction in countless pockets across the country, including the school district where I teach.

A simple, clear, concise explanation of why Bush's tax plans are suicide for the USA: the most convincing evidence yet that he's really stupid. Click here. There are pretty damned good reasons why the rich should be taxed at a much higher rate than the poor and the middle class.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NASA REVISITED

My old friend, Matt, who I mentioned in my earlier post about the Columbia explosion, sent me a link to another essay about the disaster. I feel like it poses something of a challenge to my mythologizing of space exploration and I need to respond. First, go read the essay here.

Now on to my response.

My first observation is that Joe Keohane's writing is all over the place and I am having difficulty figuring out what the main thrust of her essay is. It's probably either because she is an undergraduate (a junior at Georgetown) and hasn't quite perfected her writing skills OR because Georgetown is a much better school than the university I attended (U of Texas at Austin) and I'm not quite up to the task of following along. It's most likely a combination of both. Anyway, I'll assume that her overall point is somehow dealing with the essay's title, "Are We Really United in Mourning?" and her closing paragraph which seems to advocate some normal human sympathy for the dead astronauts along with suggesting an overall demystification of space exploration.

Keohane's essay brought to mind a couple of thoughts.

First, when UT film graduate Robert Rodriguez's Spanish language film, "El Mariachi," became a surprise success, seemingly half of Austin was abuzz about how cool it was that this guy could temporarily sell his body to Pharmaco (they test drugs on students and the homeless and pay them for it), raise a paltry $7k, and make one of the best films of the early 90's (anybody that had gone through UT's RTF production track knew that his formal education probably had nothing to do with it). I heard about a friend of a friend who was skeptical: it struck him as impossible that such a good film could be made so cheaply and suggested some sort of hype-oriented conspiracy theory.

Second, here is a bit of dialogue from an episode of the Simpsons:

Sullen Teen at Lolapalooza: Are you being sarcastic?

Another Sullen Teen at Lolapalooza: I don't even know anymore...

I feel like, given the circumstances described by Chomsky in my post below, American culture now vacillates between two extremes: people either zealously believe in some sort of set, dogmatic ideology, philosophy, or religion, or people zealously believe in nothing at all. I'm sure that Keohane has a great deal of intellectual substance (I really did enjoy reading her essay; it forced me to think a great deal), but I'm very tempted to describe her as Shakespeare's Benedick once addressed his wit-rival and lover, Beatrice: "Lady Disdain."

It's not that I disagree with most of the points she made. I don't think it's so bad that she felt no sadness about the Columbia; as the Butthole Surfers have shown, "Strangers Die Every Day." I didn't read Herbert's essay in the NYT, but I'm sure it was typically pundit-pompous and absurd. I agree that Columbia does not equal the terrorist attacks of September 11th. I agree that there are major hazards when people are idealized. I agree that the loss of the Columbia was "sad not senseless."

It's just that I got such a strong feeling of bias against mythology, against inspirational stories, against the concept of belief itself from her essay.

In another essay, "The Narrative Construction of Reality," psychologist Jerome Bruner has shown how human beings literally understand their lives and the world in terms of stories (I would have provided a link to the essay if I could but it doesn't seem to be readily available via Google search). Clearly, such a notion provides endless opportunities for evil manipulation of the masses--indeed, the philosophies of Goebbels now reign free in both American politics and American advertising/P.R. But does this mean that we must suck the wind out of ALL national myths? Must progressives believe that there is not one great thing about our culture?

I'm not sure that Keohane was advocating such a position, but I certainly feel that her essay clearly drifts toward that point of view.

My response to Keohane's essay, in short, is that Americans should, indeed, be wary of how the corporate media and politicians (and rock stars, for that matter) make myths for general consumption. After all, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the stars and stripes clearly meant war and revenge, not freedom and democracy. But we should not be so skeptical that we become totally without hopes or dreams.

Like it or not, our lives can only be understood in terms of stories and myths. The challenge is to understand exactly what those stories and myths mean, and then to discredit those which deceive, and to glorify those which enlighten.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE CORPORATE MEDIA SAYS...

I just noticed that CNN's Headline News is covering yesterday's mass peace demonstrations in such a way as to make them appear to be supporting Saddam Hussein. "Peace Protests Please Iraq" is the video text headline accompanying alternating video footage of the marches and rallies and of happy Iraqi citizens and leaders; the anchor's voice talks about how pleased Iraq is about worldwide resistance to Bush's war mongering. The overall effect is something like, "if you oppose the war, then you must be supporting the Evil Doers."

Look out, peaceniks, the spin is on...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE PEACE MOVEMENT'S TET OFFENSIVE

...in 1968 the General launched a major surprise offensive against American and South Vietnamese forces on the eve of the lunar New Year celebrations. Province capitals throughout the country were seized, garrisons simultaneously attacked and, perhaps most shockingly, in Saigon the U.S. Embassy was invaded. The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Giap's strategy toppled the American commander in chief. It turned the tide of the war...

John Colvin author of "Giap Volcano Under Snow"

I was sick all day yesterday and missed the local protest but I did try to keep abreast of what was going on while at home. TV news wasn't much help (so typical), but the internet was buzzing. In fact, last night while reading news coverage at the Houston Chronicle's website, I clicked through a series of numerous photos of the numerous demonstrations around the world. The global scale of the protests totally amazed me, real jaw-dropping stuff. MILLIONS joined in the collective "fuck you" to the Bush junta. Could this have an effect similar to the Tet Offensive?

God, I hope so.

Congratulations to the peace movement on a job well done! Hooray!

(I am NOT being sarcastic; I really mean it.)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

POTENTIAL FOR FASCISM

Noam Chomsky says:

In the 1970's it was another upsurge of foundations trying to take over the educational institutions...the effect has been to pretty much demolish civil society, to turn people into what is the ideal...a completely fragmented, atomized society where everyone is totally alone doing nothing but trying to pursue created wants...go to work, get lower and lower wages for more and more hours and less and less benefits and security in a flexible labor market: that's the kind of utopia they're looking for and it's not very far from there... the country is (now) like a devastated peasant society. You really have to go back to Europe and the black death in the fourteenth century to find anything similar: people are scared, angry, hostile, hate everything, don't know what they hate, don't have anybody else to talk to, just angry, desperate. There are cults all over the place at a scale that is unknown in any other society...the level of religious fundamentalism alone is probably the highest in the world...higher than Iran...not (just) the right; the left is the same...it's just a dissolved society...the portent is ominous...the kind of a situation that, indeed, is reminiscent of Germany in the late 30's...or Iran in the late 70's.

Chomsky said this during a lecture on class war in 1996, five years before the September 11th terrorist attacks. As far as I can tell, things have only gotten worse. Listen to streaming audio of the entire lecture here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

Guess who's also opposed to the impending war with Iraq? Read this:

The simple fact of the matter is, Bush is being sent a strong delusion, so that he can spiral America further down his path of perversion, drawing ever closer to her destruction. The area that is today Iraq was once known as Babylon. Anyone with half a brain and an ability to read the Bible knows that Babylon is the spiritual enemy of God's people, and the center of all that is evil, the Type used in the Bible to represent the final judgment of God against all that have rejected Him. Why would Bush, if not to position himself this way, want anything to do with running Babylon? Only the purely evil would partake on such a folly, and that gives us further proof of God's hatred for this evil nation.

That's right, it's everybody's favorite, crazy gay-basher, Fred Phelps of GodHatesFags.com. Read the rest of his psycho rhetoric on the Iraq war here.

Hee, hee. I'm a bedfellow with Fred Phelps. I hope he's gentle; it will be my first time.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

MORE ON THE O'REILLY/GLICK EXCHANGE

Read the NION press release here. I would also like to point out that I have signed the Not In Our Name statement, as well.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FREE THOUGHT IN THE CLASSROOM

At the fantastic Eschaton blog site, one can post comments on each of Atrios's blog posts. Last weekend, I got myself caught up in a bit of a debate about issues surrounding the racist comments by and subsequent firing of Missouri middle school teacher Jendra Loeffelman. Read about it here (they may move the story into their archives soon; if that's the case, there should be a link in the right margin). If you've been reading Real Art for a while, then you probably realize what some of my views on race and racism in the US are: we live in a very racist country but propaganda tends to make most whites not realize it. Anyway, because I am a teacher myself, I am a bit worried about the outright firing of an educator for expressing a controversial opinion, despite the fact that her opinion is abhorrent to me--to quote Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Such a point of view is absolutely crucial in the classroom: without it, critical thought is impossible.

Anyway, lots of liberals still tend toward the decidedly uncritical "politically correct" point of view. This was the point of conflict for the debate on Eschaton. I'm going to post my comments only; you ought to get the gist of what it is that I am responding to from context.

the Eschaton debate (Ron's statements)

my first comment:

I, too, am a high school teacher and I find that I've got to agree with Elias for the most part. The everyday reality of public education is that it is ultimately impossible to keep a "fair and balanced" kind of ideological neutrality on political and cultural issues. As Elias pointed out, students and teachers talk; this seems impossible to avoid, even if I wanted to. Avoidance of hot topic issues is a statement in and of itself: no, can't talk about sex; no, can't talk about dirty words; nope, not religion; drugs, just say no; shut up: do as I say!

Kids are smarter than that contrary to popular opinion.

Another problem is that teachers' spoutings of conventional political wisdoms, no matter how stupid, are often tolerated or encouraged. For instance, the school where I work in Texas has a government/economics teacher who openly wore an "impeach Clinton" button during the weeks of the impeachment and trial process; nobody seemed to be bothered by this.

Given this pathetic reality, there's no way I'm going to keep my mouth shut when teenagers ask me about condoms, for instance--Texas is, by law, an abstinence-only sex ed state. Personally, I do try to tell my students that I'm one of those "crazy liberals" and to take everything I say with a grain of salt. I've also, at the beginning of every school year, taken to reading University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen's teaching philosophy (posted on his homepage) to my classes to cover my tail; it's a good essay on critical thought, objectivity, and the classroom.

Actually, one could argue that, in many ways, the main thrust of public education is ENTIRELY ideological in nature.

School heirarchies are based on a 19th century Prussian military model (this is no joke; check it out!); that is, discipline and order almost always prevail, while the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and civic responsibility take only a secondary role. In the most important ways, American public education is about indoctrinating children into the culture of authority and obedience. School is an ideological institution to begin with but nobody wants to admit this.

The real point to consider given the unreliability of "objectivity" is the ideology being taught, or what some have called the "unofficial curriculum." I bet that Loeffelman was not the only faculty member with such views; these views are understood by students whether openly spoken or not.

my second comment:

Dominion said, "a feature of Houston High Schools..." I teach in a community right outside of Houston and my experience is a bit different from Dominion's.

Dominion said, "'free speech' rights are curtailed all the time...that is exactly as it should be." This is just not true. The part of the Houston metro area where I work is arguably far more fundamentalist than Houston in general. Here, the reality is that teachers have all kinds of free speech rights as long as they parrot the prevailing community values. That is, teachers openly bash evolution, even biology teachers. Teachers openly advocate drilling for oil in the arctic. Teachers openly profess their Christian beliefs and speckle their talk with religious innuendo. "Student sponsored prayer" is actually just a facade for school sponsored prayer. The list goes on and on.

Given this circumstance and my own progressivism, I must be very careful about how I speak. But I do speak because teenagers are very concerned with precisely those issues that Dominion says we should not talk about. I must speak because nobody else at my school seems to lean leftward--my school's students are being deprived of alternatives to their community's extremely narrow point of view.

Granted, it would be suicide to push, say, the validity of evolution but it's pretty safe to say something like, "evolution is biology's organizing principle; you don't understand modern biology if you don't understand evolution--you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it." Or, "feminists believe that no woman can truly be socially equal to men unless she can choose the circumstances under which she has a child; pro-lifers, however, define a fetus to be a person and therefore abortion is murder--from that point of view, America is drowning in blood." I've got to kiss a few rings, but just getting the liberal view into consideration at all is subversive given the community.

I think Elias defends Loeffelman for the same reason that I do: stifling classroom discussion from the left also means stifling classroom discussion from the right. I totally disagree with Loeffelman's comments and I also believe that she should have taken the opportunity to have a larger, more wide-ranging classroom discussion (this was her true misdeed). But teachers must be allowed to state their opinions and challenge students' notions. This is how to teach "critical thinking." Refraining from controversy makes apathetic students who make C's into apathetic adults who do not vote.

Don't get me wrong, I do not hold up Loeffelman to be a paragon of critical thought. However, the ideas at stake here are hopelessly interwoven with the controversy her comments created. Is she being fired for stating her taboo opinion or for not allowing for dissenting points of view (or telling students about them if no one knows how to or that they should dissent)?

If she can be fired, maybe I can be fired for talking about condoms in my abstinence-only, high-teen-pregnancy-rate school. This is what's on the line. The real problem is that schools in general almost never allow for a diversity of opinion. Change that and things should be better: athiest teachers, Christian teachers, feminist teachers, neo-liberal teachers, etc. Everybody gets numerous points of view.

And finally, Dominion said, "It is not, never, ever the teachers job to supplant the morals that I teach my kids at home." Get over it. School is already and always has been an ideological institution of control and discipline; this is the main lesson that ALL children graduate with: follow orders when you are a subservient; give orders when you are a superior--you are on your own. Do you really want that taught to your children? Well, it is. Given that reality, I, for one, will continue to talk with my students about morals, culture, ethics, politics, sex, drugs, rock and roll and dirty words.

my third post:

Actually, I don't equate the value of left and right opinion at all. (I'm pretty far left and my personal view is that conservatism is quite evil.) Rather, I believe that conservatism as a philosophy has become so overwhelmingly dominant in the public discourse that the United States effectively no longer has a "marketplace of ideas" (if we ever truly had one at all...). No "marketplace of ideas" equals no democracy. This is a factual reality. Obviously, it's much worse in Houston.

My point is that if students don't get multiple views all the way across the political spectrum, they never learn how to think. Unfortunately, this is the situation the country is in: people don't think and this really frightening civic problem can be blamed squarely on the schools (and the corporate media, I suppose, as well). Public education is far more about "do it because I told you to or else" than about debate and thought; questioning authority is seen as the worst thing a student can do, worse, even, than fighting. Even the major teachers' unions (unions are supposed to be liberal, right?) want more classroom discipline. The entire educational system is in on the racket. There is seemingly no hope for the situation changing.

Furthermore, in order to understand the importance of liberal philosophies, students must understand conservative philosophies. I might even venture to say that most adult conservatives don't fully understand their own points of view, ditto for liberals. That's why there is effectively no real debate in this country at the political level: political beliefs are, for most people, simply strong, emotionally image-laden slogans. Rarely do I ever encounter a true clash of ideas in the public realm.

I stand for real debate because I believe that on a fair playing field, liberal views will win. But the public is unaccustomed to true debate, to a true clash of ideas, and is, therefore, wary of that which truly enables democracy.

Just because I think that conservative views should be heard does not mean that I equate right and left thinking. In fact, I always tell my students what my opinion is on almost any subject and that I believe I'm right--I also admit that there are lots of other seemingly intelligent people who disagree with me. But my point gets across and recognizing that there are other points of view besides my own makes me all the more credible.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

GREAT GAME!

Play Gulf War 2 online.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FUN, FRIGHTENING LINKS FOR THE WEEKEND:

Patriot Act II: "You are a rebel traitor and a spy!"

Bill Moyers exposes the latest Darth Vader empowerment bill.

Love George W. Bush!

He's so dreamy...

Hate George W. Bush!

Let's impeach the fucker.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

CONSERVATIVES ADMIT IT! THEY KNOW THERE'S NO "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS"

Check it out here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TOM TOMORROW SEZ:

And a more-important-than-usual Unscientific Poll Watch: some jackasses are trying to rev up the good old days of McCarthyism and blacklists. Go here, right now, and vote in favor of actor David Clennon's right to speak his damn mind. (It's one vote per logged IP, and you have to give an email address. I know that sort of thing is likely to bother some of you, but there's always Hotmail. I think this one matters. Given the cowardice of the networks, this guy's career might well be on the line here.)

Afterthought from a reader: "Please suggest that readers not only vote, but that they add posts to their own blogs to get their readers to vote. Right now it's 2:1 for firing him. Gotta do all we can. First amendment and all that..."

Consider yourselves asked.

This is your mission should you decide to accept it...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

update to the update:

I just watched O'Reilly answering viewer email on last night's exchange with Glick. He was utterly unashamed and unapologetic, proud, even. This is "fair and balanced" in 2003, a real "no spin zone." Heh. Heh.



PSYCHO O'REILLY UPDATE

I found a link to some streaming audio of the fiery exchange. This is VERY enjoyable.

Thanks to the Hamster for the link.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

EVERYBODY'S GOTTA HEAR THIS

Thank you, thank you, thank you Tom Tomorrow for getting this transcript! These days there's nothing much more pleasing to me than a conservative asshole being made to look like an asshole. In this case, it's Smarmy Bunghole B-team starting tight end Bill O'Reilly:

Bully Bill

I caught a bit of the O'Reilly Factor during dinner last night, during which Bill berated Jeremy Glick, a signatory of the Not in Our Name ad whose father died in the 9/11 attacks. I couldn't find a transcript on the Fox site, but happily, one came in over the transom (probably pulled off Lexis, so no link available).

This is how Bill O'Reilly behaves when faced with genuine disagreement:


O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.


The last few seconds of that exchange were really something to watch. I don't think I've ever seen a shouting head actually tell his guest to "Shut up! Shut up!" or to tell his producer to "cut his mic."

Thanks again to Tom Tomorrow and his ever wise pen!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TO GO BOLDLY

Here is an excerpt from the introduction to Susan Faludi’s seminal work (at least, I hope it will be ten years from now) on the social construction of American masculinity, “Stiffed” (so I guess that “seminal” is the right word one way or the other); it is a sort of composite account of a father and his son in the late 1950s sharing an important bonding-moment of reverence, astonishment, and awe while watching an early American satellite fly overhead:

The father touches the boy’s shoulder and directs his vision to a faraway glimmer. The boy looks up, knowing that his father is pointing out more than just an object; it is a beacon of pride and secret knowledge, a paternal gift rocketing him into a future his father had helped him to launch. At first, all he sees is the blanket of stars spreading out cold and vast between the trees. But then, there it is at last, a pinpoint of light crawling across the firmament, infinitesimally tiny, impossibly bright.

She really nailed it for me. That is, when I read this passage for the first time, I thought, “that’s me and Dad,” even though my moment was in the early 1970s instead of the 50s, and we were most likely watching TV rather than looking at the sky, coverage of Skylab or of a later moonshot or some such.

NASA, for at least two generations of Americans, probably three or four, has been symbolic of everything about our country that is good. It has meant and, for many, still means knowledge, science, bravery, exploration in an old world sense, international cooperation and friendly competition, racial harmony, hope. NASA means working toward the uplifting future offered by Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek.

I am very cynical, disillusioned about much that was taught to me about America when I was a boy. But space exploration, in principle, remains unsullied to me. NASA, while certainly imperfect, still makes my heart swell with humanistic pride. I know how silly it sounds, but I still believe it with every ounce of my being: man’s destiny is in space; man’s destiny is to understand the universe.

I know that there are reasonable criticisms of NASA. Project Censored has shown how every shuttle launch is an environmental disaster. Singer/poet Gil Scott-Heron best articulates another major criticism, that space money should be better used, in his poem “Whitey on the Moon." Also, the military brass and other hawks hungrily eye space technology and the strategic advantages of space flight (a tension that has existed since NASA’s early days).

These problems, however, can and hopefully will be solved. Space exploration as a concept is not a problem in and of itself. Scientists and engineers can overcome the ecological issues. There is plenty of money in America for the sick, hungry, and homeless: take it from the military, not from NASA. And speaking of the military, they will use ANY suitable technology to make killing more efficient—war is the evil, not space.

When I woke up last Saturday and heard the awful news, all I could think of was what happened seventeen years ago. I was a senior in high school and I had to cut class to watch news coverage of the Challenger disaster. The cluttered and cramped audio-visual storage room of our school’s library had a television showing the explosion again and again and again. There were seven or eight of us watching, a crowd in the small room. I was stunned, unable to know what to think or feel, much like I had been five years earlier when I had heard about John Lennon’s murder.

But my close friend, Matt, standing beside me, understood immediately. He cried. He knew.

This is how I have always remembered the loss of the Challenger. This memory, not the loss of the Columbia itself, is what made me cry last Saturday. It is truly sad to lose such brave, hard-working, brilliant individuals. Their deaths, however, are charged with symbolic importance that exceeds the value of any individual American life. When our astronauts die in the line of duty, optimism and hope, as aspects of national identity, are dealt a savage, brutal blow.

So the real question here is not, “does this mean that we should abandon space exploration?” Rather, the question should be, “when are we going to get really, really serious about traveling to the stars?” I am happy to note that most polls are indicating that the national will is to continue exploring space.

But I say it’s time to expand, not simply continue, mankind’s greatest quest.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Fucking shit. Not again.