Convulsions of Freedom

Reporting with a blindfold

2009-11-04T00:51:00.000-08:00

There is no doubt that the global economy has rocked the news world and obviously that will have an effect on the ability of journalists to write stories but this is just ridiculous.

First of all, can someone explain what the difference is between a car bomb in Iraq that is blamed on "insurgents" and one that is "an attack that had all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda’s regional arm." Is their some kind of standards organization that monitors all this?

I dread to think of how Worth came up with this all the way from Beirut. Even within Yemen reporting is almost impossible because of the US-backed regime and the "constraints" it places on journalists there. Of course this is not necessary given the "hallmark" aspects of NYT reporting:

Use names that Americans recognize in the first and last paragraphs.
Avoid explaining the context of a conflict and bashing US aligned factions.

Thankfully it was a short article.

Oh denial...

2009-04-01T11:22:00.000-07:00

They have been using the same bloody picture of this monkey for 15 years now. The reason may be that, when I met him at least, his face looked like he had been covered in Vaseline.. he was so shiny (not good for pictures im sure). Moreover, what he seems to forget is that his people are no longer the rough and tumble desert nomads of the past but a bunch of overweight slovenliness desert rats that no longer have the ability to go through a metal detector due to their circumference.

Israeli notion of Justice

2009-02-27T10:10:00.000-08:00

Its hardly any wonder that the state of Israel has little notion of what justice is. For one, they don't have a constitution, meaning that there is no covenant between the people of Israel/Palestine and it's government. Whats more important however is that, since there is no constitution, the basis of any legal decision is founded upon"the interpretation of the jurisdictional system." In other words, the whimsical dictates of whichever judge happens to be interpreting whichever law is in front of him/her on that particular day. Not that other nations function much differently; in the US, Russia or Eygpt the judge is more or less the supreme decider of what any law really means and expends punishment accordingly. Nonetheless, the lack of a constitution provides no avenue for recourse or grievance since there are no inherent rights granted to persons living under "Israeli Law". The reason being that, in essence, the people of the land (Jew and Arab) never agreed to formalize their relationship with their government and hence there is no legal pretext under which the "state" can legitimately hold people to "the law."

Israel however is not alone when it comes to being without a constitution. The most notable of which is the UK (dubiously the country that previously controlled what is now known as Israel and Palestine). The absence of this pretext also removes the possibility of holding the state of Israel to it's own standard- a written constitution. Thus allowing the Israelis (and the English in times past) to interpret the laws that they themselves drew up and impose that interpretation on the people they conquered and expelled. An historical occurrence that goes unquestioned inside of the worlds power circles, and more or less passed over with regards to mainstream academic discourse and narrative.

What is more disturbing however is the extent to which the "international community" will go to preserve the immunity of the Jewish state despite their own notions of the rule of law. Case in point. Spain's own Foreign Minister has the chutzpa to promise another country to amend his own laws to suit the purposes of another country!! It pains me to think that all the anti-Semites of this world are pointing fingers at all of us saying "I told you so!"; and It pains me even more that, in this case, I will not to have any argument to make against them.

Selective reasoning at its worst

2009-02-27T02:53:00.000-08:00

Look at this idiot pontificate

Despite the fact that the conflict in Sri Lanka was not created by dumping a bunch of people from eastern Europe on the island and then claiming ancestral rights to it, he then goes on to compare the majority Sinhalese to the Jews living in Israel. Someone give this man a calculator (or has this type of mathematics become too painful for Israelis to do). It is just not the case that the Jewish population of Palestine outnumbers that of the Palestinians; not today and not in 1948. If you count all the displaced Palestinians who DO have a right to be counted (2/3 of Jordan included) then the Jews become a minority.

In essence these arguments are frivilous. Today and throughout history numbers only matter to the simple minded and those who were there "first". In some cases it is more obvious than others; the case of the Native Americans for instance. In others it is not so; case in point.

Either way, Freund comes off like a ranting idiot who had an idea while masturbating and trying to make sure his 4th grader glasses dont fall off his face.

Whats more, to add insult to injury and as my friend MG points out "When there are so many Israeli lobbyists in Washington which so heavily influence the country's politics, then as a result, anything the Jewish state should be scrutinized much more severely." Hear, hear!

Im sure all that just slipped Michael's and the editor's at Jpost minds when they decided to fire this one off. Soon we will see Freundbquoted the NYT as a "Middle East Expert" I bet my life on it.

A conversation with LDB

2009-01-14T00:53:00.000-08:00

Below is a conversation I had with my good friend LDB in response to this

6:19 PM LDB:
I must say

The coverage of this conflict in America

is far better than the Lebanon war coverage

at least nuances seem to be slowly permeating the american mainstream

6:20 PM its still lightyears from balanced coverage, or any type of understanding

but the vocabulary is starting to change

6:21 PM "Mainstream American politicians are famously reluctant to utter the words "suffering" and "Palestinian" in the same sentence. By breaking from that tradition, Clinton appeared to send a signal to Israel that that it would not have a free hand to operate in the Middle East."

7:22 PM me:
garbage... making the Palestinian issue a humanitarian one as opposed to a political one allows the US government to adopt humanitarian initiatives that further prolong the process as opposed to the much needed political solutions that would require Israel to make significant concessions

7:26 PM LDB:
i don't know that the two don't go hand in hand

7:27 PM I think those two are far from mutually exclusive, even if some people would like them to be.

7:29 PM Ive seen much more American coverage that deals with the daily oppression of Palestinians during "peacetimes" than I ever have; understanding that the gazans don't even posses a quasi-state at this point is crucial to devising political solutions for the region

7:30 PM look at the coverage

7:31 PM the Americans only recently were reminded that their own army can do wrong things, now, by extension, their being reminded that foreign countries supported by the same country are fallible as well

7:32 PM Like it or not, Condi and Gates, have since 2006 had a much more sober approach to foreign policy

the bush snr. realists took over in the bush administration

and this represents a different approach to Israel as well

7:34 PM i think their is a general disenchantment with US middle eastern policy, especially among democratic voters, and that's bleeding into media and politics

23 minutes

7:57 PM me: hear hear...just wait till there is another attack in the US then they'll be all worried about it again...

idiots

7:59 PM i never understand Americans... why they just don't get it

Denial without an inkling of recovery

2008-12-01T23:20:00.000-08:00

The strangest thing about the state of the global economy today may seem to be the squiggly lines diving to the bottom of line charts across the world, but to any person who holds government accountable for the actions of their markets (especially when they are the ones who supposedly regulate them) it is evident that the main concern of governments is to avoid dealing with the repercussions of their actions (or more accurately lack thereof) through the use of whatever monetary and fiscal power tools they have at their disposal .

For people who have a memory that spans longer than the last economic expansion they will remember the length and breath of the last recession as well as the previous economic crises subsequent to the great depression. What was a fear then has become a striking reality now. Wether we like it or not our global economy has become so interdependent that it resembles a jenga tower where there are no blocks left to remove.

So rather than attempt to restructure the world economy so that the next 'genius' investment banker's instrument doesn't break the back of the world financial camel, the heads of central banks the world over (with only a few exceptions) are pushing for increased integration of financial markets and less impediments related to the cost of credit (lower base interest rates). Moreover, when a $700 billion bail-out is proposed all the politicos begin to scream socialism. Yet when the same central bank pumps in $800 billion that came from thin air or taxpayer's pockets, no one really voices any criticism.

Like a child who is not willing to take his hand out of the cookie jar, the central banks of the world are not willing let go of the unsustainable financial system that they have come up with. The initial calls for increased global regulation have fallen on deaf ears. The world is now flush with opportunity for anyone to acquire credit at extremely low cost and there is no consideration for the inflationary effects of injecting cash left-right-and-center.

So why isn't this all working out? Because the highest priority of govenments the world over is is that money is made by those that have it continues to be made by them. Considerations regarding redistribution of wealth, monopolization, and punishment for organizations that brought down the world economy don't even register on the radar of the worlds central banks or in the halls of government.

Whatever doubt remained that we live in a fully integrated and interdependent global economy has now been completely discredited. But inherent to the nature of the economic beast that we have created is the calamity that occurs in every national economy when everything goes belly-up. We see that now as poor and developing countries suffer even more from the crisis and emerging markets are not longer seen as the invincible economic behemoths that they once were (GCC is the best example).

What we should be learning at this point is that no company is worth saving if they are not efficient or willing to embrace the social responsiblity that goes hand-in-hand with being one of the Jenga blocks that is holding up the global economy. Until this is realized first by the people of this world and subsequently by governments we can only expect that the next financial crisis will have even worse consequences than the one we are currently in. In the end, unknowingly it is the people of the world who will suffer (not the investment houses) because they didnt take action against their governments unwillingness to rein in the corporate criminals of the world.

The nerve of some people

2008-11-15T09:38:00.000-08:00

The fact that GWB, AKA "that idiot", can convene a meeting of the 20 most powerful nations on the back of a global financial crisis and blurt out statements regarding the need for MORE liberalization as opposed to protectionism, is a sure sign that the world has not learned a thing from the global financial crisis.

Transitional Indications

2008-11-09T12:31:00.000-08:00

Since Nov 4th the world has started the ball rolling towards the end of the administrative transitional period that has embodied the political question marks dominating world politics. The election of Barak Obama leaves many blanks in the US foreign policy's line of rhetoric that the world has grown accustomed to during the Bush era. However as the eyes of the world are focused on Barak Obama's every move the time for photo ops and sweeping statements never been more opportune

A stunning move by Ismail Haniyeh was made on Saturday when he eluded to a Palestinian state that "will not be created at this time except in the territories of 1967." The move is one of desperation from Hamas and a sign that things are moving in circles inaccessible to the news junkie like myself. However, this semi-capitulation by Hamas needs to be taken with a grain of salt, there has been a refusal to recognize the state of Israel and issues of illegal settlements, Jerusalem, and the right of return have yet to be addressed. Without these key elements in place there can be no viable solution to the Palestinian problem. Nevertheless, this is a greatly significant move by Hamas that indicates that if (and that's a big if) the Israeli government-to-be is ready for peace they may just have the window of opportunity to pursue it.

This decision is also a bold move by Hamas to place the ball in Fatah's court- at least for the time being. In the eyes of many Palestinians yearning for a sense of normalcy and concrete results from their leaders, a concession of this magnitude allows Fatah less of the privilages associated with being the "moderates" in the Palestinian power struggle .

Also, the long lost Secretary General of the UN has finally surfaced with more unless language we have grown to expect from the UN posing the increasingly redundant statement,"The Quartet called for the continuing of the peace process in the framework of Annapolis." The language reaffirms the notion that we wont see anything changing anytime soon. Even the more interesting statements coming out of the meeting emmenate from the most viable Israeli candidate for PM are along the lines of, "We recognize the need to establish a Palestinian state, provided that it will not be a terror state." So to give credit where credit is due the opposing forces have now managed to recognize each other... after 60 years its about time for some kind of change in the status-quo.

Speaking of change. The new president-elect has a new debacle on his hands as he now has to deliver on many of the promises he made during his election campaign including dismantling Guantanamo Bay. This issue is proving to be a cumbersome one as the pundits are already sifting through the options and assessing the wiggle room Obama has in this regard. Indeed the Gitmo issue may well be Obama's truest test of legitimacy in the eyes of Americans who have recently shown an inkling of rationale by electing him in the first place. The real 'change' that America needs to see is not one where the mistakes of the past are repositioned and rephrased in order to save face with war-mongers and fanatics; it is the reimplementation of the constitution and the application of its principles to US citizens and non-citizens alike. The consideration of "national security courts" is about the most inadequate manner in which to address the most blatant human rights violation by the Bush administration and would cement the notion that change only textual.

What the US needs is not another form of legislative subversion but a revisiting of old principles. If Khalid (Sheikh-although i would not grace him with such a title) Mohamed truly is responsible for 9/11 then there should be ample intelligence to support his detention along with all the other Gitmo detainees. To even consider that different rules apply is a barefaced acknowledgement that the new administration cannot afford to start out with in terms of international legitemacy. It will mean nothing less than acquiescence to the principles of the Bush administration typified by the perpetual muddling of legislative and constitutional rights. The only way to restore confidence in the US legislature is to make sure that the same rules apply to everyone.

Unfortunately the signs are not so promising. Without getting into details one needs only read the heading of Obama's new transition office's website: "Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today." It seems that after 8 years of the most disastrous US presidency the world has ever known Americans will have to settle with "just a little better."

Father of Rhambo

2008-11-06T12:21:00.000-08:00

In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

We cannot judge men by the opinions of their fathers. We can only judge their relationship to their fathers to gauge the degree to which the ideologies that one grows up around will influence their opinions:

At some point in your life, you're always fortunate enough to have mentors who mean a lot to you professionally, academically or personally. My father and mother will be that for me personally.

-Rahm Emanuel.

The Eventuality of Hope

2008-10-31T12:48:00.000-07:00

For the past eight years, the reins of power have been in the hands of a failed businessman and recovering alcoholic; so it’s little wonder that the future of the global political and economic landscape looks about as promising as the stock of Lehman Brothers. Indeed, the world before the Bush administration seems more like an historical apparition than a geopolitical reality. Both Bush terms will undoubtedly be remembered for their string of key non-performance indicators rather than their haphazard successes in terms of foreign, domestic and economic policy.

Eight years ago, the world’s balance sheet represented a geopolitical standing that was remarkably more valuable that the one we live in today. To begin with, about 600,000 Iraqis and thousands of Afghani civilians would still have their lives; the world’s financial system looked substantially more promising then it does today (even when we take the bursting of the dotcom bubble into account); the principles of human rights and the legitimacy of the UN did not constitute a bad joke; habeas corpus was still valued as a principle of developed nations, food was more affordable, privacy was a valid concern and the practice of torture was deemed archaic.

On practically every front, the policies and knock-on effects of both Bush administrations have left the world, as well as the next American president, with a lot of cleaning up to do. Denial and fear can only go so far until reality sets in and the facts have to be faced up to. The next American president will not have the political agency to use the terms “weapons of mass destruction” or “terrorism” to the same effect as his predecessor; nor will he be able to throw money and resources at any problem, sudden or expected, simply because that money no longer exists. The next president of the United States will have to deal with the eventual reality of geopolitics brought about by the failure to address the fundamental problems facing the world which have been exacerbated by the current administration.

American presidents typically prefer to focus on the peripheral elements- rather than the root causes- of conflict and disparity in the world. The best case in point is the Middle East, where president after president have been loath to deal with the Palestinian/Israeli crisis since its inception in 1948. In general, American presidents prefer to focus on the issues in the region that emanate from the crisis-- that the United States plays a principal role in constructing in the first place. Iraq is the premier example of such an occurrence. From Afghanistan to Lebanon, the degree and methods of circumlocution with regards to US policy in the Middle East serve the same purpose -- to avoid addressing the core imbalances in the region that directly result from the unbalanced military, economic, and political support for the state of Israel.

Both US presidential candidates agree that US support towards Israel must continue to maintain a preferential status with respect to other countries in the region. Despite the fact that Israel continues to subvert international law, UN resolutions, and the Geneva conventions by continuing the expansion of illegal settlements, the construction of its separation “barrier”, and refusing to acknowledge the rights of refugees displaced by its creation.These historical facts have been conveniently ignored or played down by every US president since Israel’s inception under the pretense that America’s interests are duly preserved through its unwavering support for its long time ally in the Middle East -- again a notion based predominately on fear and denial in US public discourse.

Nevertheless, the reality of the Middle Eastern situation is coming to light as the US’s geopolitical dominance begins to dwindle. To begin with, the US is on the back foot in Iraq as the occupation has become increasingly less popular at home as well as in Iraq itself. Afghanistan is becoming more problematic due to the fact that the forces in place are not equipped or numerous enough to complete their mission. The Afghani conflict has begun to spill over into Pakistan, where it has begun to take on new dimensions that are international in scope as well as internally threatening to the US’s long time ally. The US is already “actively considering” talks with the Taliban, a notion that would have been unheard of subsequent to the scramble to annihilate those responsible for 9/11.

On the military front, Iran and their regional allies have been increasing their military capabilities with the military and political aide of a resurgent Russia keen to act as a counterbalance to the US, not just in the Middle East but in the oil rich Caucuses, as many Georgian civilians will attest to. Another playing card the Iranians are holding is their influence over the Iraqi Shite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Iranians have in recent months “pacified” the cleric invoking a wink and a nudge from the US. Sadr’s armies have the proven capacity to turn Iraq back into a bloody mess at the drop of the hat, an action that would almost surely be taken in the event of a US/Israeli attack on Iran.

Economically the recent global financial crisis has compelled the US to cut back its spending on adventures and rethink its budget deficit. Most of this debt is held by China who cannot be counted on to play the carriage to the US foreign policy horse. Moreover, the silent dragon is growing at a rate of 9% while the US enters a recession. More importantly, the US will not be able to rely on its speculative and overblown financial sector to garner revenue, as confidence from traditional investors will surely wane because of the recent financial crisis. Those traditional investors (predominately Europeans) who suffered greatly because of their confidence in the strength of the US markets, will not be as keen to reinvest in US financial institutions barring some kind of grandiose global regulatory environment that does not seem likely to emerge. The Arabs on the other hand, may be more willing to do so in order to amass political clout through economic influence over the US’s already venerable financial institutions.

Internally the Middle East is beginning to transform itself from a region that merely follows the rules, into one that voices its opinion and makes its own decisions. The oil rich nations of the Gulf have managed to weather the recent global financial crisis relatively well. Even before the latest round of the crisis began with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Gulf’s Sovereign Wealth Funds were purchasing large chunks of western financial institutions in a continuing effort to further diversify their economies so as not to be as dependent on petrodollars. Although these countries continue to tow the American line when it comes to general foreign policy matters, their support is based solely on the profitability of doing so and the congruence of the US’s policies with their own regional interests. As American demand for oil and gas begins to curb on the back of recessionary pressure, and emerging economies such as India and China require greater volumes of fuel to keep their economies growing, the impetus for towing that line is becoming less of an imperative.

The non-oil rich states of the region are also beginning to step out on their own and initiate political processes that serve their own particular interests, even if those interests come at the expense of others in the region. Syria has recently reopened its diplomatic channels with Israel through Turkey despite the fact that this could turn attention and momentum away from the Palestinian issue, similar to the effects the Camp David Accord had on the Palestinian question. Moreover, President Assad seems keen on pursuing the path to normalization of relations with Europe in return for engaging in indirect peace talks with the Israelis with or without an American stamp of approval. By cautiously opening its doors to the west and Israel alike the Syrians are reviving an age old game of playing both sides against the middle to assess what is on the political table. This approach has been the mainstay of Syrian politics in the past and is nothing new to the political discourse of the nation. It does however provide a somewhat interesting and timely opportunity for the new American president to push for a new peace accord with Israel’s northern neighbors, if not the region as a whole.

Considering the circumstances, one can expect that the Oval Office the next president sits in will surely be stacked with more piles of paper than his anachronistic predecessor. The eventualities of the Middle East have caught up with the US’s disregard for realities on the ground. The opportunity to begin to address the core issues of the region has now presented itself once again. The sequences of elections due to take place in Israel, Palestine, Iraq at the beginning of 2009 offer a window of opportunity for a new administration to dictate the course of the respective campaigns and resulting administration of the region. In essence, the time for denial has come to an end on all fronts. What remains to be seen is whether the next administration has the wiliness to acknowledge the indubitable causes of conflict in the Middle East and deal with the situation accordingly, or whether the perpetual denial of facts on the ground will continue to dictate the US’s policy and canker its stance in the region and the rest of the world.

Doth my eyes deceive me?

2008-10-06T02:14:00.000-07:00

Fukuyama is having an identity crisis?

Promoting democracy—through diplomacy, aid to civil society groups, free media and the like—has never been controversial. The problem now is that by using democracy to justify the Iraq War, the Bush administration suggested to many that "democracy" was a code word for military intervention and regime change. (The chaos that ensued in Iraq didn't exactly help democracy's image either.) The Middle East in particular is a minefield for any U.S. administration, since America supports nondemocratic allies like the Saudis, and refuses to work with groups like Hamas and Hizbullah that came to power through elections. We don't have much credibility when we champion a "freedom agenda."

Jordan's Stock Brokerage Scam

2008-10-01T12:11:00.000-07:00

This is not being reported on by anyone.

[...]

The previous Cabinet did not feel like supporting the comptroller, so he was forced to register them after they obtained a court order and, thus, they went on to operate unregulated. The incident may have cost the comptroller his job as he was removed several months later; strangely the removal happened weeks after his department was awarded the King Abdullah II Award for Excellence in the Public Sector, which brings to focus the issue of meritocracy in Jordan!

[...]

Spread the word.

How low can you go?

2008-09-27T02:41:00.000-07:00

With the subtlety of a prehistoric gorilla, John McCain manages to:

Misrepresent the meaning of the Holocaust: The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Not the nuclear annihilation and fallout that would occur if Israel was hit by a nuclear bomb. Funnily (not really) enough, a strategy only employed by the United States in the past. One would think that would make the difference clear to someone who was alive back then.
Proposes the subversion of the UN: "Forming a league of democracies" in order to impose sanctions on the Iranians without going through the UNSC thus subverting the only widely agreed upon process available to mankind that maintains a modicum of global stability.
Blames the Iranians for security failures in Iraq: Despite the fact that recent security "gains" have been widely attributed to the fact that Iran has been able to pacify Muqtada al Sadr's army and stem sectarian conflict in Iraq. A fact that the US has been loathe to admit.

Then its Oooobama's turn. Russia is not a democracy? Russia is a lot of things, and not all of them are democratic in nature, but placing it in the same box as China is akin to likening a banana to a penis. Thankfully, we can rely on the American people and their media to have the aptitude and to sift through this blatant obfuscation of the facts. Right?

Ahmedinejadian Oxymorons

2008-09-26T04:17:00.001-07:00

At some point you start to wonder if Ahmadenejad is just trying to upset people when he speaks. Short of being the student in math class who couldn’t memorize his multiplication tables I cannot understand how this man calculates what he says on an international stage.

Case in point:

Ahmadenejad constantly blames Western powers for carving Israel into the heart of the Middle East to and making it pay for Europe’s crimes against the Jews. One has to acknowledge the relevance of this argument to the past 60 years of conflict in the region. Its not at all in all a bad argument since it was not the Arabs who committed the Holocaust yet they are the ones who have had to bear the consequences of a militant Jewish state.

Yet when it comes to the issue of the Holocaust itself, the man incessantly claims that the magnitude and manner in which the Jews of Europe where massacred is overblown and inaccurate.

Short of schizophrenia i cannot imagine a condition that would justify this blatantly obvious contradiction.

Since the Middle East is paying for the "Crimes of Europe" (i am guessing he means the pervasive antisemitism throughout the continent prior to WW2) then why not magnify the crimes of Europe in order to make your point stronger instead of attempting to belittle them?!?! If the man was anything other than a reactionary he would use the Holocaust to his advantage instead of making himself look insensitive and bigoted.

I cannot come up with a straight answer to this question....anyone?

Osama Obama and yo Mama

2008-09-21T12:24:00.000-07:00

18 percent of Pakistanis identified Osama Bin Laden as "that upstart Senator, that fresh-faced african-american presidential hopeful from Illinois." A whooping 23 percent thought Osama to be a "christian."

Source: LDB

Sidelines and Neverending Concern

2008-08-27T09:10:00.000-07:00

I remember a day when a hijacking used to be a big deal. I recall the incessant reporting on every intricate detail that occurred from the siege of the airplane, to the exchange between the "terror expert" and the highjackers, and especially the never-ending testimony of family members about how much Jack loves his family and how much they hope he is ok.

And this would have been the case again if the passengers on the flight from Nyala to Khartoum were anything close to "white". Instead what happens is that the story went from headline news to a sliver of text on the marquee quicker than I have ever seen in the past. This while the Chinese premiere finally comments on the Georgian conflict saying that China is "concerned" about the situation. Well I know I am sleeping so much better tonight...

Maybe its true. Maybe it is isn't.

2008-08-21T12:54:00.000-07:00

When asked what they thought nuance was, 35% percent of Americans thought it was the name of "a post-war French president"

Hadini!!

2008-08-20T03:19:00.000-07:00

On any given day or night in Lebanon and one may experience an all too common phenomena that predominately affects the male population of the country. The "Hadini" phenomena, which has become a staple of Lebanese conflict, mainly affects males who posses low self esteem and lack sexual activity. The phenomena, often stimulated by imbibing alcohol, commonly occurs when remarks are made relating to a particular male's mother or girlfriend; or in the case of an accidental bodily contact. A common and immediate result of the phenomena is typified by the shouting of obscenities between two or more bodies of excess testosterone followed an intentional physical push exerted upon the chest of one body enacted by the other.

Here one can typically expect outside parties to become involved who initially appear to hold back one or more of the instigators. This is an essential element of the phenomena as it is at this point one of the instigators, now realizing that they have been overcome with fear and hoping not to make this obvious to their surrounding environment, will cry out "Hadini" (hold me back). This exclamation is intended to imply that if this is not done then there will be dire consequences for the other party. At this stage many things can happen as it is common for outside parties to take sides in the conflict and they themselves begin to yell out "Hadini" thus further stimulating the prevalent idiocy in the area where the phenomena is taking place.

The end result of the phenomena is usually one of the instigating parties’ departure and an incessant conversation on both sides of how they would and could have inflicted much harm upon the other party but in the end decided not to for various irrelevant reasons.

The phenomenon now seems to be spreading south to Israel and has infected many of the Knesset members and the Prime Minister himself. The evidence of this can be seen when one considers the recent threats from Hezbollah "suggesting" they have the capability to shoot down Israeli fighter jets; and the Israelis saying that they will "not practice restraint this time" if they are attacked again. Say it with me: Hadini!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dont let the Bear out of the Cave!

2008-08-18T02:56:00.000-07:00

There’s nothing like a new war to remind us all of how ruthless and bloodthirsty politicians can be- and not just American ones. The Russians have been all too eager to remind us how they too can play war games, when and if they choose to, and with no more than spiteful grimace reserved for anyone who voices any kind of objection.

The question on the tip of Machiavellian tongues everywhere is: Why not?

With the precedent for military action devoid of any legal basis already set by the Iraq war, and a world growing less and less enchanted by the superpower structure assumed by the United States- the old bear picked a good time to come roaring out of his cave.

The emergence of a new Russia, independent of the US and Europe, has been in the works for quite some time. Since Russia paid off its debts to the Paris Group of creditors (almost exactly two years ago) and now enjoys a constant influx of revenue from its sales of oil and gas; the new empire has gained the financial blubber to "throw its weight around" again. The latest example of this being the Georgian episode that is significant, not so much because of the war itself (which was over in a matter of days), but because it signifies the emergence of a new Russia that has the political muscle to attack the close allies of the United States knowing that there will be no direct military retaliation for doing so. Russia, in invading another "sovereign" country’s territory, and subjecting thousands of civilians to the horrors of war, has in effect said to the world that it is not only the US that can take on the role of judge and jury.

Yet no matter how much the international community would like to see a more distributed balance of power, a militaristic Russia will hardly prove a respite from the war mongering status quo the world has been subject to.

The “matter-of-factly” tone of international opinion (media and international bodies) regarding the Georgian conflict is indicative of a more deeply rooted acceptance of the manner in which political power can be played out in a post-Iraq war world. This non-action on the part of international opinion may be the result of cold war paradigm nostalgia, but the players are hardly the same people they where back then.

Despite hacking away at democratic principles whenever it suits their need, the Russian leadership now enjoys widespread public support never truly achieved by the Soviet Union. This combination of internal and military power creates a powder keg akin to the kind enjoyed by the Third Reich before WW2. The United Sates, on the other hand, has become the leading proponent in circumventing any kind of international consensus and has managed to land itself in a state of constant and perpetual “War on Terror”- in which everything is acceptable as long as it can be acquiesced with “protecting national security”.

Eventually the people who lose out in this new paradigm are the ones in the middle-the Georgias and the Iraqs of this world. A world without consequences for unilateral military action and a resurgent Russian/US staring match basically leaves the rest of us staring down the end of two barrels instead of one.

When bad taste and assumption meet.

2008-08-17T10:16:00.001-07:00

News update:

For those of you who dont know the woman in the picture above- she is Hanna Arendt. She is now turning over in her grave with more vigor than 14 year old boy with his hands in his pants as this "nice Jewish magazine" uses her picture to advertise their magazine in the Israeli press.

Who won?!

2008-06-03T10:33:00.000-07:00

As the democratic primary season comes to a close the winner has become evident: its the media. Just as Hillary refuses to accept the obvious so too does the American public refuse to accept the obvious fact that the media are the main instigators of disinformation and spin on the collective US conscienceless.

The most recent testaments of this speak for themselves; from the recent military "analysts" scandal (uncovered by the NYT of all institutions) to former White House Press Secretary McCellan's admission of the blatant lies perpetuated by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. There is hardly room for an objection to the idea that the media has been less and less willing to play its role in a modern industrialized society.

When criticisms are levied, as was the case during the onset of the McClellan debacle, the new media mantra becomes "its not our job" to question the government or its representatives. The most disturbing part of all this is that American public so overwhelmed by their capitalist experiment have not the time nor the will to delve through the "news" stories to comprehend the issues that affect their lives.

Eventual separation from reality is the consequence of what has been happening in the US since media conglomerates and their complementary industries (advertising and the like) have been allowed to own the conduits of information throughout American society. The resulting chasm between reality and national consciousness has resulted in events such as 9/11, an overstretched and misplaced military, and $120/gas tank. The inability of most US citizens to make these connections has inevitably placed the American at the top of the global ignorance list.

Tonight we will hopefully see a step in a new direction. We can only wait and see if the future will bring substantive change or just more poptartdom. We are waiting America...

Hoopla!!!

2008-04-29T13:44:00.001-07:00

Imagine the following scenario: When it became evident that Hillary Clinton would not be able to overcome Obama in pledged delegates (around Mid-March) she conceded the nomination to Obama. The obvious result of this being the entire apparatus of the Democratic Party (Clintons included) mounting a charge against McCain. The amount of criticism and focus directed at levied McCain and his politics would have almost certainly greatly hindered, halted, or reversed the momentum McCain has acquired since becoming the Republican candidate.

The notion is not too hard to conceive. If the current efforts of the Democratic Party where being expended in order to undermine McCain’s candidacy the effect would almost certainly be detrimental to his chances of adorning the White House with his ancient presence. However, besides curtailing McCain’s hopes of becoming the new commander-and-chief, the scenario would have other important effects on matters seemingly more important than presidential politics.

The resulting de-facto Obama presidency would have an almost immediate effect on media discourse coupled with an eventual focus on Obama’s first term in office. Consequently, the media’s attention would center on actual policy questions related to Obama’s upcoming presidency and possibly even facilitate a conduit for substantive change. Another, seemingly more pertinent effect, would be the adverse affect on news ratings due to the public’s disengagement with politics in lieu of a landslide victory.

Returning to the present, we find that the opposite scenario is currently taking place. Even without an archetypal general election the media is already boasting record numbers when airing debates between democratic candidates. A more favorable scenario for procuring ratings could have hardly been conceived by even the most top-notch media producer. The make-up of the democratic race, with its pledged and super delegates, the conundrum of primaries and caucuses, as well as the added element of Florida and Michigan creates endless fodder for the media to graze upon; while creating the impression of practicing objective analysis in the interest of informing the public.

If we follow the timeline of events, the last time that Republicans had to weather any kind of storm coming from the democrats was during the first debates; when there was no clear front runner other than Hillary and the democrats where presenting themselves as a unified front against the Republicans.

As the candidates began to drop out, the rhetoric began to change from dealing with policy to dealing with the other candidate’s weaknesses; employing smear tactics that subsequently egged the media onto paparazzi-like journalism. One could argue that such practice characteristic of any campaign, and they would be right. However, it is insufficient to justify the extent to which these tactics have become the focus of interest as they ultimately damage either candidate’s chances of winning a general election.

While the candidates for the democratic nomination began to dwindle, Obama began to amass widespread support especially amongst new voters. The media immediately came along for the ride, acknowledging his right to contest the “old democratic guard” of the Clintonites (and to some extent John Edwards). The trend has continued up until it became clear that he would win the delegate count, at which point the focus of the media began to shift to the “gotcha debate” encompassing everything from Reverend Wright to his supposed elitism.

Now that Hillary’s justifications for staying in the race have been realized through her win in Pennsylvania the media has decided to completely “jump ship” and begin throwing their collective weight behind Clinton (whether through supporting her or attacking Obama) in order to provide her with the rationale to continue to prolong the race for the nomination.

The obvious effect of all this is that the media are neither republicans nor democrats; they are loyal only to the story and how long they can keep the suspense alive and the public involved. The shift away from policy and towards metrics now becomes a palpable testament to the media’s desperation in keeping the ball rolling in the contest. Since the pledged delegates argument has been concluded, the focus now turns to the popular vote and the blue state/red state argument that Obama cannot win the general election without being able to win over conservative voters.

The media are now selling the notion that ability to change the rules as you go along becomes an acceptable practice. Such a notion is passes as legit on the playground and now apparently in a presidential election as well.

Instead of dismissing this notion as a ridiculous ploy from the Clinton campaign to stay in the race, the media is cultivating the notion that these aspects now need to be considered in choosing a Democratic candidate. Perhaps even more troubling is the silence of leading democrats and super delegates who are not making concrete commitments to ending the impasse or following up on claiming to do so. Consequently, this has resulted in party’s public support becoming increasingly polarized and entrenched in either of the two candidates campaigns; leaving little room for widespread support of an eventual nominee.

The democrats now seem to have crated a hole that only they could have crawled into. The absence of political decisiveness and the complacency of democratic figureheads with the media’s subjectivity, has led the party to a state almost inconceivable 14 months ago. The only remaining questions to be posed are “How could you be so imprudent?” or “How much did you get paid to be so imprudent?”

Embarrassing? Yes. Irrelevant? Mostly. Scripted? Definitely. Opportune? Hopefully.

2008-04-17T06:44:00.001-07:00

Hope, a pillar of both the Obama and Hillary campaigns, is all we can look to after yesterday’s lackluster performance by ABC’s “senior” politicos. As I watched the mediators fumble their way through their scripted questions I began to feel like I was back in the playground listening to 3rd graders joust and parry with their newly acquired vocabulary of four letter words.

The candidates didn’t fare much better than the mediators. Hillary was her usual botoxed, pre-menstrual self, happy to go along with the rhetoric until it was her turn in the lime light. Obama (after unsuccessfully trying to move the debate in the direction of policy and bearing the brunt of most of the attacks) seemed like a man tired of his wife reminding him that he cheated on her in college.

As we all witnessed yesterday, when reality bites it takes a piece of flesh with it. The US media has never been regarded as the objective “night in shining armor” of the media world; but it has thus far succeeded in portraying a semblance of credibility. Hopefully, the events of last night will divert media away from paparazzi journalism and towards real policy coverage. Perhaps using the army of researchers employed to dig up every detail of candidates’ lives could be put to better use at the National Enquirer, they seem to have the required smear training for the job.

Ring Around the Rosy

2008-04-09T10:44:00.000-07:00

More of the same from the seasoned general as he now calls for a suspension of troop drawdowns in Iraq to make way for an assessment period. The reason: jeopardizing recent security gains. The explanation is rather hard to stomach for anyone with a modicum of intelligence or any analytical ability. Not only is the reasoning convoluted, in a broader context, the general’s request is equally if not more disturbing.

Considering the figures that highlight the correlation between troop levels and relative security one can conclude, as war supporters have been all eager to remind us, that “the surge is working”. Selective analysis and memory is the forte of any agenda setting machine; moreover any project manager will attest that pouring resources and money into an initiative will yield some sort of result. Nonetheless when evaluating any project there are 3 factors that define the “success”: Time, Cost, and Quality.

In terms of project success, the results speak for themselves. Quality of life has been rather unaffected and remains dismal for ordinary Iraqis. Unemployment hovers at around the same rate of 25-40% over the past 4 years, electricity is intermittent and has seen no concrete improvement over the past 2 years, and the consumer price index is continuing to rise steadily as it has for the past 3 years. The cost of the war, approximately $720,000,000/day, is continual and overburdening to the American economy and people. In terms of a timeline, the honorable general puts it best: "We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”

These results are hardly a signs analogous with the “approaching normalcy ” Senator McCain proudly propounds, rather they are proof that the situation requires an enormous amount of effort and resources in order to create a situation where there is slightly less chance of dying in a Baghdad pet market. Such results hardly seem worth the exertion.

Nevertheless, the Republican administration and its lapdogs seem as unperturbed as they are about the state of the deteriorating US economy. Obviously there is some kind of reasoning or information that we are not privy to that dictates that we must “stay the course” in Iraq.

The first and most obvious answer on the lips of any war supporter is US security. Which for those of us whose memory span is longer than 5 years, was the reason this war was proposed in the first place? 5 years after the Iraq war began, the US has managed to turn a country that had no WMDs and consequently posed no immediate or foreseeable threat, into a cesspool of militias, weapons, and “terrorists”. Iran feels increasingly threatened by US troops on both its borders prompting it to take a more hard-line attitude against the US. Russia, initially irked by the war in Iraq, is entering into a new type of cold war with the US, facilitating the Iranian nuclear program, forming a military alliance with China, opposing NATO initiatives to build a missile “defense” system in eastern Europe, and supplying weapons to Syria and Venezuela. Not to mention the sprouting Russian economy founded on the expansion of it's energy sector. The Russians now continually use their new found industrial success as a political bargaining chip; treatening to "turn off the gas" whenever needed and all the while becoming increasingly bloshy with their legislation and politics. Underpinning all of this is the continuing Palestinian question (or more accurately exclamation point!) that has rarely seen worse days; a resurgence of Taliban and Al Qaeda sympathizers in Afghanistan; the deteriorating situation in Lebanon; the emerging Chinese economic and military powerhouse; increasing non-alignment emanating from South America; not to mention the troubles of the African continent.

It seems now all too clear that the manner in which the Iraq war was conducted alongside US hawkish foreign policy could only have had this effect. Despite the better reasoning of many in the “intelligence” community, the UN, and a sizable portion of the rest of the world, the administration heard no voice but the one in its head. This was not the decisive war of limited duration that we where promised.

At this point the only two conclusions can be drawn, either the majority of the American people are apathetic and dull-witted enough to be taken by a completely incompetent administration, or there was a deliberate intention to deceive the American people into committing themselves to a prolonged conflict in Iraq that would produce an open ended debacle with no concrete performance indicators to signify completion. I find it hard to believe the former in light of so many accomplishments and the sincerity prevalent in American society, so I will concern myself with the latter.

In essence what the world has been forced to deal with is not so much a war but a project of grandiose proportions; a project that has abstract goals (winning the “war on terror”) and specific beneficiaries (energy and defense industries). The project is economic in nature, being that it necessitates a state of perpetual activity in the form of consumption (expending military resources) and investment (monetary cost of the war). The fundamentals of economic theory stipulate that any economy undergoes a sinusoidal effect as the economy goes from boom to recession and back again. It is also widely accepted that any economy can be stimulated through investment, spending, consumption, or an increase in exports over imports (none of which the current administration has achieved in the US economy by the way) which in turn will have the effect of increasing inflation and the consumer price index thus prompting a repeat of the cycle. This cycle is one and the same with the continual ebb and flow of the US troop deployments in Iraq and predicates that only long term involvement can produce the desired result of growth rather than contraction.

In this context there are no circumstances where a continued military presence in Iraq would produce anything but prolonging the status quo or worse. Talk of surges, drawdowns, and assessment periods are nothing more than minuscule details of project phases. Furthermore, the continued initiative is crippling the American economy, overstretching the US military and producing very little in terms of tangible results to warrant the effort.

Democratic damage control is hardly the answer in Iraq. A concerned senator Obama recently suggested that the scope and goals of the project be re-defined. The needed foresight is a welcome sign of competence that we see very little of on Capitol Hill; however it is not in keeping with the party line to display a far-reaching sense of logic. The senator latter poses the hypothetical question of whether a “messy, sloppy status quo” without “huge outbreaks of violence” kept in place by 30,000 American troops could be defined as "success". This statement is an obvious circumlocution of the fundamental issues concerning Iraq and the wider Middle East. What the senator cannot (or pretends not to) seem to grasp is that a reversal of policy to addressing the real issues of the region is the only answer for a sustainable Iraq and the wider region; not redefining the scope of an already failed project. Accordingly, the only result that we can expect is the a perpetual game of foreign policy Ring around the Rosy where the only result can be... that we all fall down.

Facebook Suicide

2008-03-27T07:28:00.000-07:00

My recent decision to rejoin real world interactions prompted me to leave Facebook forever. However, I could not do it wihout one final hurra! Below, for your viewing pleasure, is the letter I wrote to all of my "freinds" on Facebook...

I started this journey into the depths of “social networking” out of some professional necessity mixed with a dash of experimentation. This journey has now thankfully come to an end. I am bidding you all a happy farewell and hope that you may take something away from this email other than the normal eccentricity that you are all accustomed to coming from me.

The main reason I am doing this is that I can no longer maintain a relationship with human beings I regard as my “friends” thorough updating my News Feed and searching through peoples pictures to bear witness to their social excursions. I no longer feel the need to find out how many of my friends changed their profile picture, write on your Super Wall; invite you to play Texas Hold’em; poke or be poked; find out what sexual position or vegetable I am; or if we are alike in terms of misadventures in sex. I am under no illusion that telling you how many villages ive driven thorough on my Facebook map; giving you a nonsensical nickname; sending you a drink/kiss/hug/kick/slap/lick/fortune cookie will make us better friends. Nor do I believe that joining groups and causes will further any initiatives on this planet or any other for that matter.

I realize that I may fall out of touch with many of you because I have chosen to leave this virtual network; but I am confident that those of you who truly are concerned or even curious to know what I am doing can send an email or an IM. I am privileged enough to know who my friends are… they make an effort to stay in touch that goes beyond a comment on a picture or “Facebooking me”.

Hopefully I have awakened some dormant logic that resides in some crevasse of your minds and encouraged you to consider what I have just said. The utter absurdity of pretending you are friends with most of the people in your friend list or constructing ideas and relationships with or about people through poking and walls feels like an insult to the people I truly consider to be my “friends”. Are you really comfortable with the fact that today or 10 years down the line, while you are pursuing your career, public office, filing for a credit card, or trying to get a job; a company, with which you have no personal connections, will have records of all your messages, photos, inclinations, friends, partners, sexual orientation, credit cards, as well as all the groups/causes you support(ed) for as long as you wish to continue your virtual expedition? Are you happy with the exuberant amounts of spam in your inbox and the access that advertisers and media conglomerates have to your personal and behavioral habits? If so by all means social network away.

For the record: My status is available. My profile is open to interpretation. I have over 1000 friends and 4000 pictures added by me and others. My interests vary. My sex is male (the last time I checked). My hometown is earth, and I have seen too many movies and read too many books to pick my favorites. My email addresses are: xxxxxxx@gmail.com or xxxxxxx@hotmail.com. Perhaps I have not been able to encourage you all to spark a brain plug. If that is the case, please have a look at the links below.

This is Facebook suicide.

http://www.scmagazineus.com/Facebook-privacy-flap-should-spark-concern-for-business/article/108327/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338578,00.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MxxqcH_Mkc (this one is MySpace but same difference)

http://www.scmagazineus.com/Sophos-40-percent-of-Facebook-users-easily-give-up-personal-information/article/35315/

http://www.facebook.com/business/?socialads

Cake anyone?

2008-03-05T11:11:00.000-08:00

Catching the Obamatrain in the United States these days is easier than buying a hot dog; as certain as “death and taxes”. Finding an article about Obama plastered onto every street corner in America is about as surprising as coca cola. Arguments on the right (and by his only real Democratic Party opponent) have attributed this “cult of the personality” to his political shadiness aimed at rendering the American public- as Obama himself sarcastically claims- “delusional”.

Indeed Osama’s policies, both foreign and domestic, resonate with many of the principles of the left in America. His attitudes regarding the war in Iraq; engaging the Axes of Evil; and universal health care, are a far more accurate reading of the America's standing and perception throughout the world. On the world stage Obama may be Americas only redeeming political option, but he is also their poster boy.

The man is a marketable asset to the publication and news industries that gross around $105 billion a year (2006) (which according to recent figures, equals just over 8.5 weeks US expenditure in Iraq) intriguing if not dominating the public eye.

One could argue that such phenomena ought to be viewed in a positive light. It invokes political debate and even disseminates necessary public information about potential presidential candidates. Moreover, the Obama campaign team must be credited for their realistic approach to media campaigning. No other candidate can boast the type of exposure that Obama has achieved and manufactured. Nevertheless, the devil (non-religious) is always in the details.

You need look no further than this week’s issue of the reputable US Weekly magazine to realize the extent to which the media infuses American’s views of their public figures. Alongside Jennifer, Brad, and Angelina (in America celebrities are known to the public on a first name basis) you can find a full 4 page article detailing whether he thinks he is a “cool dad”, admitting he looks good in “boxers or briefs”, and of course… kissing babies.

Appealing to “ordinary Joe” aside, Obama is as keen to prostitute himself as a Hollywood bimbo is to display her newly botoxed lips and forehead to the American public. Despite the fact that Obama has become the media’s new boy toy, he continually pronounces that he will tackle the special interests in Washington. Which special interest groups this promise encompasses is obviously not the issue.The American media machine, facilitated by the FCC’s media consolidation policies, and plagued by subjectivity, bias, and disinformation never enters into Obama’s equation of the special interest groups he claims he will confront in the interest of the public. This despite the fact that the media industry in the United States is composed of a handful of consolidated corporations that have managed to almost completely monopolize public information and programming; as a direct result of the FCC's deregulation policies across the media spectrum. Moreover the same media infrastructure that Obama seems to have no problem using to further his presidential ambitions, has been documented as having one of the most intricate and effective special interest lobbying infrastructure coupled with think-tanks and law firms. To even approach the subject is as to commit political suicide as it would no doubt produce a tenacious reaction from the media conglomerates seeking to protect themselves from public scrutiny.

The trend resonates with other criticism of Obama voiced by Hillary (who is more so the democrat’s corporate candidate than Obama ever was) and the right that attribute his rhetoric concerning special interest groups to pure naivety.

To his credit Obama has in the past spearheaded initiatives to tackle media consolidation, but now that he is in the running for the “top-spot” these calls have been pushed into the background if not completely muted. The same pattern can be seen in his policy relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict i.e. the shift from compassion for the Palestinian cause to resolute support for Israeli policy.

The ability of the media to employ its resources in order to assure the American public that “that was as big as the afro ever got” (US weekly again) rather than seek concrete solutions to “hard” issues like FCC deregulation policies and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - which now threatens to inflame the entire region (in addition to Iraq) - is hardly a coincidence. Selective campaigning is as much a staple of US media channels as cornflakes are to an American breakfast. Obama and his campaign team are no exception. They understand that if they are to win this election race they cannot get “bogged down” in a debate about the core (difficult) issues. In terms of running a practical campaign, it is a strategically sound methodology to tackle the effects rather than the root causes of issues facing the United States and the world, and this is exactly what the Obama team (as well as all other mainstream candidates) has reserved itself to doing.

This being said, nearly 8 years of the Bush administration’s symptomatic remedies to global and domestic issues have brought about the need to address many of the policy issues that have been sidelined since 2000 (obviously this policy has been constant but has intensified to new levels under the Bush administration). Issues concerning health care and free trade have come to the forefront of political debate much to the distress of corporate interests. This election, far more than any other in the past, has forced candidates to address issues they would rather shy away from or face political suicide. However, the disaster of 9/11 and the Bush era do not seem to have been sufficient in forcing political discourse to center around the root causes rather than the fringe issues.

Change you can Xerox is not necessarily an unpleasant concept. In fact if that change is a substantial change that will have far reaching and positive effects on longstanding and elusive issues then by all means Xerox away! However if that change is one aimed at spreading vanilla icing, sprinkles, and a shinny red cherry on top of a poisonous cake then (to quite an illogical proverb) you can have your cake and eat it too.Obama’s policy flip-flopping on the Middle East conflict could be ascribed to mere pandering; this does however not exonerate him from failing to address the key obstacle in bringing peace to the Middle East. What's more his blatant complacency with the nature of the media that he once battled against, is nothing short of selling out.

Cake anyone?

The victory of plastic and fiberglass

2008-02-05T20:18:00.000-08:00

"The polls open at 12." said L. in the most expectant yet apologetic manner. The first words I heard as I arose from my slumber with my eyes slowly opening to reveal the armrest of the couch I had chosen for the night. I had made the 2 hour trip from New York City that night upstate to a small town named Nowhere, USA in which resides a small Methodist church being the only locale I am permitted to practice my democratic duties.

The night before I had debated my ideologies with L. I stated that my conscience was not satisfied voting for pandering politicians and directional stereotypes labeled by left and right. By the end of the night I had reserved myself (rather unwillingly) to vote for bad rather than worse. For the first time ever I accepted that my only significance in the democratic process was a number on either side of a board of a small church in Nowhere USA.

Having come to this realization I was content to curl up onto the couch of my choice and await the reoccurring sound of my mobile phone telling me that a new day had arrived.

Admittedly, the initial plan was not well thought out. I had spent the best of 2 hours scrounging around looking for the only piece of processed wood with serrated edges that would allow me to identify myself to the gatekeepers of democracy. Not withstanding many phone calls to the polling stations who had confirmed that they would be open for "business" at 9am I managed to fall asleep awaiting my inevitable fate.

Having previously relayed to my superiors in corporate circles that I would not be able to fulfill my obligations to their collective efforts, citing a law that allowed me a minuscule 2 hours on a Tuesday to make myself absent from the confines of my desk and Liquid Crystal Display, I could not afford to linger in Nowhere USA until the eventual opening of the polls.

Defeated yet somewhat relieved I boarded a train bound for the city in accordance with my previous agreements. As I boarded the train I was blinded by blue and white paraphernalia. Felling as if I had entered a barracks of soldiers I could not initially grasp why such an occurrence had befallen me.

Thankfully my memory is not perforated enough to forget the past few sunrises had brought about the victory of men dressed in plastic and fiberglass over other men dressed in plastic and fiberglass. The vast majority of the passengers were jubilantly on their way to join the victory marches.

As reality struck me with the thick end of its club I felt a sudden urge to regurgitate the “everything” bagel I had recently ingested. The realization that the person situated in the vicinity of no less than 1 meter from me was more interested in practicing the vibrations of their vocal chords in order to contribute to the collective euphoria of gargantuan figures parading in the streets; rather than contribute their albeit petite yet recognizable voice in the future of their existence was too much for my intestinal tract to fathom.

After some time I recovered from my initial repulsion of reality and allowed myself to enter a state of slumber with the eventual knowledge of my corporate destiny.

Later that day I felt the need for nutrition. My legitimate excuse to leave the incarceration of my desk I wandered into the street to find a jubilant horde of blue and white eager to greet me and enthusiastically and enunciate their support for their respective colors and collective sense of achievement. Once again my intestines began to turn.

I sit now in front of my own portable mélange of transistors witnessing the death of reason on the front page of the New York Times telling me that the empress of continual regression is alive and kicking. When I came here I knew something was wrong. Now I know what it is.

Paul & Heath

2008-01-24T20:18:00.000-08:00

It’s hard not to notice the level of indifference prevalent in modern American society. Most would argue that it is that very indifference that has branded the United States and it citizens, with the stigma of indifference and apathy regarded as sheer ignorance by most of the outside world.

This projection of this apathetic ignorance is exemplified by the front pages and evening broadcasts of headline news across the country. Indeed the recent death of Heath Ledger has dominated much of the airwaves and black & white print coming into the public spectrum and pushed all other stories aside. Regardless of whether or not this young mans death warrants the exuberant amount of coverage and resources being spent to identify every intricate fact about his life (obviously the answer is not), the question remains: “Is this the real news?”

While the American public and media hanker over the circumstances of Mr. Ledger’s passing another man rises from the dead without a word of mention from the major news stations of America (CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX).

Once again Mr. Paul Wolfowitz has entered the fray. After an embarrassing departure from the World Bank the old neo-con war horse is back in his flaunting his shining armor ready to lead the way to another political debacle. After having not been able to maintain the top post in one of the most corrupt and loathsome institutions in the world (due to a corruption scandal no less), he has now been granted a keycard to the whitest house on the block… the White House.

Mr. Wolfowitz is to head the new US advisory panel on arms control and disarmament as well as the International Security Advisory Board whose task it is to give the state department advice on arms control, disarmament and global security. All of this on the back of President Bush’s recent visit to the Middle East were deals were closed with Israel and the house of Saud for the sale of $50 billion dollars in arms.

All this seems to be in keeping with the Bush administration’s track record of choosing the worst possible candidate for a particular post (e.g. John Bolton). Paul Wolfowitz is about the least likely human being on earth to fulfill the aims of the institution he now heads which states in its charter that it's purpose is to "advise with and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on United States arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament policies and activities". Appropriately, Mr. Wolfowitz's political resume is chock-full war mongering and corruption charges. Most notably his ties to the foundations of neo-conservatism in Washington who mislead the Regan administration into believing the Soviets were spearheading an interconnected world-wide terrorist network whose main aim was the destruction of the United States (sound familiar?).

Is the irony of this lost on everyone but me? This is not merely an abuse of power it is a direct insult to the intelligence of Americans and for that matter the entire world! Shhh!! They’re talking about Heath!

Digital Insanity

2008-01-13T16:37:00.000-08:00

At first glance one would find it bizarre that the internet is not more regulated or managed by the US government. It is would be an obvious and logical step in the same direction of mass indoctrination that grips American thought and society. The internet being the most recent communication medium, that is now widely accessible to most if not all Americans, in one form or another creates a massive source of information that is opposed to the mainstream media regurgitation that television embodies.

In the sprit of the Patriot Act, at face value, such unmonitored and accessible information seems immediately contrary to the principles of control and societal confinement that should be permissible in an American post 9/11 existence. How can the same institutions that brought us the Iraq war, and as some would argue 9/11 itself, be so passive in the face of such a powerful medium of expression? It just seems like bad business.

However the truth of the matter couldn’t be further from the previous notion. If one seeks to control the thought processes of a particular population does that not entail the becoming more and more in touch with the thoughts that are prevalent in the society in question? Obviously the answer is yes.

In fact the Internet itself was created by the same organization that advocates violence and destruction in order for it to exist... the US Military. Every keystroke made on any computer anywhere in the world can and is in practice being retrieved and logged with the utmost ease.

As the pen becomes an archaic instrument replaced the 1s and 0s associated with every keystroke, so too does the privacy of our ideas and the documentation of our correspondence and thoughts.

However this is merely the beginning. As “social utilities” like Facebook and MySpace become more and more popular as a means of expression and information exchange, so to does every instance of human life and thought become translated into a series of 1s and 0s able to be calculated and analyzed in order to predict human behavior, fashionable trends, as well as perceive and anticipate popular movements and opinions regarding contentious issues.

As the information age moves into its golden age so does the complacency of the masses. Convenience trumps suspicion of authority and its figure heads. The illusion of the free exchange of information has lead to overshadow the concept of population monitoring. Unlike other forms of media such as TV or radio any form of communication relayed over the internet-whether it is an email, a chat, or a facebook action- is automatically stored in a data warehouse accessible by anyone who has the will or power to do so (which incidently requires less govenment due process accorded to the individual in question than a search warrant).

The internet, for all the advantages that it offers to modern life, is slowly leading us into a police state that monitors our most intimate interactions and affiliations while singing the tune of globalization loud enough to drown out realistic reservations about were all this information about ourselves resides. Evidently, there is only one answer: In each and every human being’s personal record.

Take your lead from the king

2007-12-28T10:58:00.000-08:00

I can barely conceive a situation worse than that in which mimicking George W and his cronies is considered intelligent policy. That being said i don’t expect too much from the Pakistani government but playing the same tune as the political laughing stock of the entire world is just bad politics. I thank the BBC for bringing to light this latest episode of political buffoonery:

Citing what it said was an intercepted phone call; the interior ministry said the killing had been ordered by "Al-Qaeda leader" Baitullah Mehsud.

Later in the same article a further explanation:

Pakistani intelligence services intercepted a call from him in which he allegedly congratulated another militant after Ms Bhutto's death, interior ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema told reporters.

And finally the cherry on top:

According to the ministry, the primary cause of Ms Bhutto's death appears to have been a knock on her head as she tried to duck her attacker, and not bullets or shrapnel.

I can seldom remember less blatant and obvious attempt to divert attention from the obvious.

Nobody had more to gain from this assassination than Musharaf's "government". She was the only threat to Musharaf's absolute power (in terms of realpolitic).

Another somewhat far-fetched (yet always plausible) explination would be blaming the US to say that they are applying even more pressure on Musharaf after. Highly unlikely, seeing that the US encouraged Bhutto to return to Pakistan for exactly that reason. Nevertheless, as we have learned countless times over and over, we can’t put anything past this administration.

I myself congratulated a Pakistani friend of mine for having one less corrupt politician to vote for. I suppose that is proof that I am responsible, at least in the mind of the Ministry of Interior in Karachi.

Regardless of who killed this example of everything that is vile and opportunistic about politicians, I think we should all congratulate each other for having one less putrid soul playing politics and filling their bank account in the process.

I do have to say that I am somewhat remorseful for the approximately 31 other people who died in the process. However, if you are going to rally in support of such a repulsive person you don’t have much foresight, or intellect for that matter. Next time pick your "leaders" a little better.

Time to pay the piper.

2007-12-02T19:56:00.000-08:00

Well I feel somewhat inclined to say something even though being “Lebanese” never meant anything to me that was related to the form of government being "practiced" (cause it does seem like they are doing more practicing than actual governing). I never agreed to this kind of representation or for that matter felt represented by the notion of a confessional government imposed upon me as a citizen.

The current political disaster resembles a broken record attempting to play the tune of a functional entity. The constant recurring political blunders and the pseudo-leaders responsible for them have allowed themselves to create a situation that is, at the very least, essentially embarrassing to the nation (or whatever is left of it) not to mention economic hardships and the looming specter of a prolonged and violent civil conflict. At every turn on the road to political irrelevance the parties involved have failed to provide the population with anything more than childish bickering.

What perplexes me is the amount of patience the population has granted their so called leaders. The widespread acceptance of certain political players as forever present and unwritten agreements as to how the nation is governed never made the transition to any kind of functional exercise of government. Even simple public services like road works translate into a running cliché of municipal theft and corruption in the country.

Opportunely (I know it’s a strange word but wait), this patience is beginning to thin as it becomes less profitable to support the local tribal chieftain. The economic crisis fueled by political tensions of the past year and a half subsequent to the ’06 war (and because of the war depending on who you are speaking to) have understandably taken there toll on the residents of Lebanon. The trickle down effects of corruption are becoming scarcely sufficient to facilitate people’s unquestionable loyalty to tribal entities that allow the saga of political puppetry to perpetuate.

If anything the current political vacuum is about the most representative government Lebanon has ever had (including the romantic period of Khouri and Cheab). Indeed no representation must be more representative than misrepresentation. The political impasse has produced a blatant reality that the current structure of Lebanese politics is not only dysfunctional, but utterly misrepresentative and unfit to carryout the basic functions of government, let alone exist in its constitutional framework.

It is this indisputable disgrace that has provided Lebanon perhaps its last opportunity to progress as a society or deteriorate into armed conflict once again. If (and at this point it is still a big if) the Lebanese can talk of amending their constitution so nonchalantly they can certainly consider doing away with their unwritten national covenant that has provided the atmosphere for the current and historically ineffective governments to produce nothing of value for their citizens. Perhaps the alternative of agreeing that a prolongation of confessional politics is no longer pertinent enough to warrant a leaderless nation; a volatile constitution, an insignificant Taif accord, an economic breakdown; a brain drain, a refugee crisis, and ceaseless political bombings and assassinations versus a political system that does not discriminate between Lebanese citizens on the grounds of their beliefs, and only on their ability to perform their tasks as public figures.

Is it not the role of government to perform that which is in the interests of the nation? The interests of Lebanon have evolved (for use of a better word) into a public interest to live with some kind of mental and economic security as opposed to constant uncertainty. It does seem now that traditional loyalties to church or mosque are lower on the list as a result of pure human nature. The realization that representation in government must be the representation of interests that serve the entire population, as opposed to a portion of it, will ultimately pay off for the entire population is overly optimistic for almost any society, let alone a confessionalist one. However, the realization that allowing the current framework of government to dictate representatives of the people is not practical or desired from a purely analytical perspective is not too far of a stretch of the imagination.

It is possible that I am underestimating the vigor with which the Lebanese can support their pseudo-leaders. I have never been a member of any organization that participates in confessional politics so I cannot pretend to understand the intensity of association with such an entity. The combination of social belonging with a religious undertone is indeed a powerful motivation to contend with. Fortunately, I can to some extent comprehend the “justifications” for such associations in the context Lebanese social society. However these excuses for a need for belonging are trumped by the need to live in a functional society without the constant fear of war, social rivalry, and economic impotence.

I can think of no better opportunity than the one at hand. If a consensus is reached and a national “unity” government is formed it will merely be a protracted extension of the already ineffectual governmental system ruling the country (well not really ruling because that would imply the non-interference of foreign elements other than those of typical to the interconnectivity of nations, but that is another story). The end result will be another political stalemate and the subsequent effects. The price of real government must be paid by all the Lebanese who have condoned and participated in confessional politics. It’s time to pay the piper.

Where the hell is Annapolis?

2007-11-21T22:12:00.000-08:00

You must forgive me if this post is not as coherent as the previous posts. At this point in time I am not "legally" able to operate a motorized vehicle let alone do a spell check. However, there are a few things that I would like to say to myself before I forget them (which if you didn’t notice is the running theme of this blog). Firstly, I would like to remind myself that I know were Annapolis is. The only reason I know this is because I know the area out of sheer circumstance of birth (meaning I grew up in the area). Annapolis is a city in the United States of America with a population of 36,408 (July 2006 est.). Its one of those places that are a capital of somewhere you always get wrong, it’s an "administrative city" (one of those you know).

Personally I truly believe that it is a wonderful location for the next episode of the Middle East Peace Saga. If I was a film director (or the current US administration) I would promote my location manager for such a locale. What better place to exemplify the spirit of an Israeli-Palestinian (I don’t like to hyphenate but this is for your comprehensive pleasure) "conference".

Somewhere that is as insignificant as Annapolis (at this point in the historical progression of the issue) is a perfect setting for something as insignificant as a Middle East peace conference. Annapolis expresses all that is relevant about any attempt to reach some agreement to agree upon a principle to agree upon. The political parties who represent each population are so disenfranchised from the will of their people that they cannot hold a representative government for long enough to make any concrete commitments (please let me know if you understand that).

When in the state of mind that I am now I like to remind the people that are closest to me that "denial is the first step to recovery". I would like to think that this could sum up the present situation... fortunately I am not as naive to believe that my attitude towards reconciliation is experienced by others. Is a political calendar fixture more important than actual relevant activity of office? It certainly seems so.

Appearances must me kept up. Invitations must be extended with RSVP phone numbers attached. Such political etiquette is essential to uphold and bolster the ongoing "roadmap" to peace that comes after the peace "process".

Said process is now at a point were invited parties have the option to decline for personal reasons (Egypt & Sauuuudi Arabia).

Can we please have everybody gather around?! Gather around now everybody! Picture Time! That’s great. Say Cheese!

How many 9/11s?

2007-11-17T17:28:00.000-08:00

Can we all please stop using 9/11 as a measuring stick whenever an earthquake or an epidemic kills more than 3000 people. If Such a concept held any substance the people who apply it (mostly the "liberal" media) would realize that numerically 9/11 was not so appalling. If you posses any intelect or observation skills you realize tht 9/11 is significant because of its context rather than the number of people who died.

One word to doubt

2007-10-30T20:21:00.001-07:00

Baghdad March 2004

New York September 2001

There are a few things that everyone can agree upon. As a species, and as a social construct, humanity is founded upon that which we as individuals believe to be true and unarguable (or so we like to believe). From birth we are aware (albeit confused) of our existence. Being and existence are indisputable (I will not attempt to explain or verify why or what the purpose of such existence is. I will leave that to the philosophers) as they cannot be denied in the scope of any argument. From existence comes the concept of that which exists (I know I am beginning to sound like a philosopher. I will be over soon don’t worry) the sun rising/setting, food for nourishment, and the rest of it.

One thing I think we can all agree upon is communication. Communication exists through any medium that more than one entity can understand. Communication necessitates a transmitter; at least one receiver (can be reflexive, schizophrenia, talking to yourself and so on), and the medium of such transmission. The preferred medium of such communication among humans is language (spoken and otherwise). Hence, we can deduce that language is indisputable as is life and death.

Language itself is composed of elements of transmission. A wink, a word, a nudge, a fist to the mouth; are all expressions of communication whether spoken or acted out. The language of speech in particular is composed of words. Words have meanings that are defined by there interpretations. This is where the issue becomes problematic. The concepts of interpretation and perception are now at play. In fact (now im starting to sound like a linguist in know) there are two paths we can pursue at this point, these being the descriptive and perceptive paths of defining words.

The descriptive path seems to be the safer option (and it is), as we do not pass judgment upon issues allow ourselves to be affected by the tendencies of the perceptive attitude that imposes personal or collective feelings upon words. The descriptive method is established and inextricably bound to the notion of that which is indisputable. The mere existence of spoken language that cannot be denied lends legitimacy to the descriptive method and how it is applied to defining words. However, the double edged sword is now promptly driven into the bowels of this legitimacy by the (also) indisputability of change.

Change is in essence, even more indisputable than life or death, that are both inherently founded upon the concept of change. Accordingly, the perceptive method is now invoked in order to give justice to the indisputability of change. Perception however is rooted in the environment in which that perception takes place and thus lends itself to emotion, circumstance, and more often than not to strategy. The manipulation of perception is the main instrument of collective government and social constructs.

The subsequent conclusion here is now the disputability of words and their corresponding meanings. As a result words must now be perceived as what they are i.e. a fluid and changeable element of communication that humans allocated to a certain contexts in order to invoke a desired meaning that in itself is skewed by the limitlessness of perception and the confinements of description.

When we apply words to social occurrences we must accept that the words themselves are open to interpretation and manipulation, as is their very nature. Moreover we cannot as realists (not in the technical sense, haven’t you been reading) accept that any person or entity have precedence or a de-facto monopoly upon words and their meanings if we are ,at best, to claim that we are seeking to understand the reality of our situation based on that which we accept as indisputable.

Words themselves become the extensions of indisputable elements of existence (existence itself being one of these elements). Words must be acknowledged as such in order to accept that the concept that a word invokes is not set in its definition. Consequently, words are only attempts to describe and perceive the disputable and at best attempt to bring the disputable closer to the indisputable or vice-versa. Such a phenomena, is at its core an attempt to perceive reality as accurately as possible and to act according to that reality (granted that it is a perceived reality).

If we accept that we endeavourer to wrestle the disputable from the indisputable, and vice-versa, through the use of words that are themselves disputable, then we are free to postulate and proclaim as much as we feel necessary, while holding the ultimate aim of understanding our situation and existence and doing so without fear of damaging or destroying ourselves or our societies.

Our social constructs cannot be exempt from this presumption. Our governments, laws, beliefs, and institutions are all based upon concepts brought into being by the use of words. As an extension of such, the actions of specific collectives (states, groups, militaries, etc.) must act accordingly if we as contributing members of these collectives are to proclaim that the actions that these collectives engage in are have the underlying and all-encompassing aim of the furtherance of human society.

Indeed in the particular case of government and more specifically democratic government, the main claim to legitimacy of such a system is the furtherance of a particular human collective under the notion that the will of the people be played out by elected officials. The policies of such governments are in theory based upon occurrences in said society and how best to react to such occurrences. When said reaction’s result is violent action carried out upon other humans it begs justification. The reasons for this I admit are debatable but the reason this justification becomes necessary is rooted in concern or doubt (the disputable if you’ve been listening well).

The progression of the proclaimed reasons for taking such action has morphed to varying degrees from wars based on which words held justifiable (theological wars, idealistic wars, etc) to words justifiable in their singularity. It is no longer necessary to justify violence thorough actually attempting to string together a series of words to attempt to meet this consequence. Single words are now sufficient to enact ruthless deadly violence. We now, at this point in human evolution, are appeased by the utterance of a single word to shed any concerns that were previously present.

Reveling ourselves of the burden of thought, we accept the word as uniform and clear enough to go forward.

The prime and relevant example of such occurrence is the word terrorism. To many, defending themselves against this singular word is justification of indisputable legitimacy and the application of violent action against such elements without regard for the actual causes of such occurrences. Not only is the defense against terrorism a justification for violent action, it has become a justification for all out war. The result of which has come to pass as, justifiable violent action inflicted upon that which can be identified as a terrorist entity.

The resulting reality begs its own injustice and inaccuracy when it seeks to justify the violence that it embodies. The “defense” against terrorism becomes its foe in every descriptive sense of the word, and leaves only a perceptive notion of terrorism to be applied to occurrences thorough the medium of mainstream media that in itself falls far short of any objective accountability, or lack of strategic political interference.

An obvious dilemma is raised at this point. The use of one word becomes intrinsically indisputable in the public arena. A word comes to denote that which it is perceived to be by persons and institutions whose aim is not the accurate representation of the word nor the defense against (at minimum) the harm to people and property that the world implies (in its descriptive sense).

As is frequently the case, the barrier to the comprehensive acceptance that the perceptive influence of a word (notion) is great enough to warrant the penetration of the descriptive is again embedded in doubt. Extended this doubt creates an outright objection and lends its justification to that which we deem to be indisputable.

In the case of terrorism, the meaning of the word has neither undergone a complete transmutation nor has it retained its previously accepted descriptive meaning. Indeed, if one had not been conscience over the past 20 years terrorism would seem to represent now only a political tool of strategy and subversion that conceals unavowed motives for acts which in themselves invoke feelings of terror and reactionary measures of the like. Yet, terrorism (thanks to the ingenuity of political analysts and strategists who are often one and the same) has managed to retain some if not most of its potency as a feeling of overwhelming fear rather than being identified as a political instrument.

The indecision of mankind to attribute terrorism to the realms of political terminology or retain and uphold terrorism as an act that invokes a feeling of terror, has spawned a condition that allows any and every willing patron of either to (mis)construe the word to fuel their own agenda.

Quintessentially, terrorism is wrought with unimportance whilst maintaining a level of significance that has affected almost every intricate working of modern life. Our (relative) unwillingness to address this “meaninglessness” while allowing it to justify immeasurable application of pain to entire societies (and modern society as a whole for that matter) is a shortcoming we cannot allow to continue if we aspire to any form of furtherance of mankind.

It is not sufficient to say that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. There is a fundamental dilemma in terrorism that stems bar beyond even the use of words. It reaches into the very heart of what we deem to be acceptable application of force in return for a perceived (usually accurate in observance but rarely accurate in a retaliatory sense) harm inflicted upon persons or property. Doubt remains our greatest weapon against the consequences of complacency.

What is it?

2007-10-11T22:08:00.000-07:00

The following question is ment to test your ability to perceive images and their corresponding meanings. If you feel dumbfounded or purturbed by the question do not despair. Many public figures around the world have experienced difficulties and most were unable to answer.

Please choose the answer that best describes the pictures below:

a.Collateral Damage

b.Genocide

c.Spreading Democracy

d.Holocaust

e.None of the above

An Episode of Gargantuan Absurdity

2007-10-09T08:32:00.000-07:00

Let’s start at the very beginning shall we. American Football (as I will call it for the remainder of this article to accurately represent what the institution is) is a “sport” invented by Americans that takes many of its essential elements from the English game of Rugby. In the spirit of the new world the concept of American football strives to “improve” upon the ways of the old world. In essence this “improving” translates into the economization of past elements of the pre-new world ways and practices, namely, in this case, of sport. In essence both Rugby and American Football have many common aspects. The scoring methods, field size, contact nature, are all quite similar. The difference is reflected in two key elements that are intertwined in most if not all athletic activity. These two elements are time and continuity.

Time and its resulting effect on continuity, is an essential element of any sport or athletic activity. In fact many sports are based on the time it takes to achieve a certain athletic task. So let us look at American Football again with this in mind. In theory, a match is supposed to last one hour and is separated into four quarters of 15 minutes each. One would think that one hour of exertion with three small breaks would constitute a level of athletic effort that should be respected by any person that admires athletic ability. So would I…

However, upon further inspection, we she that something is not quite right with this picture. In addition to the three stoppages, you have something called a timeout which any player on the field of play can signal to a referee emulating the capital letter “T” with both hands. Each team has the discretion of using three timeouts per half, which makes a total of twelve per game. In case the player and coaches deem this to be insufficient time to deliberate strategy the teams are obliged to stop play two minutes before the end of the second and forth quarters. Wait there is more. There are also official “TV Timeouts” (I am not making this up that is the official term) every time possession changes and every time the score changes. Moreover, after the second quarter has been played the half-time break duration depends on what kind of entertainment is in store for the spectators and can last as long as deemed necessary to excite the public to a fitting amount.

Hitherto (for use of a better word), this phenomenon does not cease to occur. When the ball is in play and has gone out of bounds the clock is stopped, when the referees need to measure the distance covered to an exact amount (that they estimate in the first place) the clock is stopped, and every time the ball is in play and a man is stopped (knee touches the ground) the teams have 40 seconds to “huddle” together to discus there next collective effort with the help of state-of-the-art communications devices that allow certain players to receive messages from off the field of play.

As a result of these delay tactics, stamina and prolonged athletic ability are, to a great degree, no longer significantly required. As a further result, men of monstrous proportions (in excess of 220kg, that’s over 500 pounds for the rest of you) can exert themselves for short bursts of time without fear of exhaustion due to actual athletic activity. It would be rather bold and untrue however to say that none of the men who play this game have any athletic ability. There are several players who must run at lightning speeds directly into the vicinity of these monstrosities who’s main aim in life is to damage these men as much as physically possible.

In the beginning this became somewhat of a problem. So in order to remedy this, an original and practical solution was conjured up over time. The culmination of this conjuring being the suiting of every participant in semi-synthetic equipment, on each and every part of the body, thus minimizing the impact of coming into contact with charging gargantuan figures. The product of this is twenty two men of unnaturally mammoth proportions made even larger by equipping themselves with fiberglass and plastics from head to toe who are being watched intensively by several other smaller men wearing cartoon-like prison uniforms with throwing yellow napkins around and making several elaborate hand gestures to thousands of people in a gigantic bowl.

All of this, if scrutinized using any means of rational thinking would be deemed pseudo-suicidal insanity. However as with any psychological defect there comes a pill. This pill comes in the form of little green pieces of paper with elaborate drawings of dead men on one side and symbols of ritualistic organizations on the other, complemented by holographic images and its own special unique number. So much so that this institution can boast being the most lucrative sporting industry in the world.

Now if you had an inkling of hope that matters don’t get worse they are about to. In addition to expensive stadium seats and overpriced penis-like (hot dog) shoveling accompanied by low quality fermented hops of spectators at the grounds, America has developed an intricate ritual played out on each Sunday of each week (and once on Monday if you want to be picky about the issue). A herd of likely overweight males gather together and imbibe fermented beverages whilst listening to old men comment about the game using yellow markers projected over still shoots and broadcasted to an entire nation of American viewers sporting the paraphernalia of there preferred gargantuan tribe.

I feel like this is becoming like a movie that never ends so ill wrap it up as nice and sweet as possible. American Football embodies all that is disgusting about American “culture”. If I were so inclined, I could go on about the numerous gambling disasters that have come about as a result; or more indirectly the specter of becoming a professional of this “sport” that appeals to the lowest income levels in America; or the athletes who get away with murder because of their skill at this game and it’s not only American football that follows the drumbeat of “the economization of sport”. Baseball which comes from cricket (an equally deplorable sport for different reasons) was also created using the same mindset as American football. To add insult to injury, the sporting industry passes up the opportunity to express American “patriotism” at every chance that is made possible, in front of large audiences, and attempts to persuade the (mostly drunken) audience that it is in their best interests to wage a second holocaust on the rest of the worlds’ population in order to preserve the right to play with a ball between commercial breaks. The singing of “God Bless America” on every possible occasion is becoming rather redundant. Indeed a friend of mine, who was offended as I was, put it best “I hate this song. First of all it supposes that God exists and secondly that he loves America.” (thank you LDB). Slowly but surely, I am coming to think that the reason people call America the land of opportunity is that any crackpot can come up with a ridiculous idea and people will buy it. All I can say at this point, with the utmost certainty, is that American sports make me embarrassed to be an American.

Loud noises are supposed to make you WAKE UP!

2007-09-20T09:41:00.000-07:00

Alright. Usually, I would not even bat an eye at another Lebanese politician being blown to smithereens (on the contrary usually I smile). I have gotten past the point of feeling sorry for people who die just because they die. Such is a ludicrous concept that society rams into our heads the day we comprehend death. And why not? The easiest thing in the world is to impose moral arguments on the basis of fear. What do you think America is founded on? Freedom? Simpler still is to impose moral arguments through the fear of death, since death and birth are the only thing we can be sure of (this includes god(s) for all you mono/poly/bi/tri/theists). Are you still with me? Let’s move on then.

Antoine Ghanim, who personally I don’t know, and upon the utterance of his name only a tiny bell in the back of my head rang ever so softly, was killed in an explosion in Beirut yesterday. Member of Parliament, the phalange party, and presidential hopeful. Good riddance! Am I being insensitive to the dead? I think not.

This man was (and will forever be remembered as):

1- A member of the Lebanese Parliament: Translation- Someone who curried favor with a party that came to power after contributing to the atrocities of the Lebanese civil war while receiving funds from foreign powers to play out common interests in world politics and eventually deemed legitimate by a piece of paper called the Taif drawn up out of a desperate situation under the watchful eye of tribal sand-monkeys (Saudis) that no longer (or ever did for that matter) have the best interests of Lebanon in mind.
2- A member of the Phalange Party: Translation- A party responsible for countless murders and brutal acts. A party that allied themselves with a brutal and unaccountable terrorist state = Israel, and managed to slaughter a couple thousand women and children just over 25 years ago today in a period of a few days (Sabra & Shatila if you forgot or never knew in the first place).
3- Presidential hopeful: Translation- Someone who continues to support the notion of the Taif as it plummets Lebanon further into chaos every second, and runs for the ultimate prize awarded as a result of it.

The problem here should be obvious by now. This outdated piece of paper, the Taif, needs to be burned and forgotten. Not held above every Lebanese politician’s (i.e. warlord’s) head as some carte blanche to hold power or run for elections.

I know what you are thinking and what you want to say to me. I have heard it before, from my grandmother, my mother, my uncle, the dikenieh owner on my street, and now from you.

“It won’t work, this is what Lebanon was built on, and you can’t change it”.

Listen you apologist for the status quo (that means you too grandma). First of all, it can work. A system were people who run the county are elected based on their policies for tackling issues is not a pipe dream, it’s a logical evolution of politics from voting for petty loyalties to murders and their respective sons and brothers (tribal loyalties). Secondly, Lebanon was built on land, and if you want to be more romantic about the issue, it was built on the tolerance and understanding of its people toward each other (small violins playing). Finally, you can change it, Lebanon is change. Yesterday Antoine Ghanim was alive. Today he is dead. Things change. Sorry grandma.

Freedom to Consume?!

2007-09-19T10:52:00.001-07:00

Alcohol is and remains the main catalyst of strange and remarkable occurrences across the world. Throughout history it has been imbibed and consumed with much vigor by kings, queens, peasants, dictators, and “democratic” leaders galore. It has and remains the cause and effect of many a quarrel, affair, death, life, family feud, and surprising morning in most of our lives. One would think that having all of this history (and the theory of evolution being true) we would have adapted to its effects and consequences by now. Evidently, this is not the case.

The land of the Free, as it so graciously calls itself, is a testament to the conclusion above. Not only is alcohol not understood in America, it is demonized almost to a satanic extent, even in comparison to many countries with Islamic populations. In Lebanon, I have bought fifteen bottles of different liquors at the supermarket, not the liquor store, at age of fourteen, in the middle of the day (on Sunday before noon if you like). In the United Arab Emirates around the same age I could buy pure Russian vodka for less than $10 a bottle anytime from 8am to 1am.

The reality is that America’s extremist culture applies itself to alcohol consumption, sale, and distribution with the vigor of a 13 year old with their hand down their pants. The reasons for this obviously being money and the unfounded fear of the population driven by the government and the media machine (I know it sound cliché but it’s true).

Let’s start at the beginning. When you are a child and your mother tells you that you can’t do something till you are older doesn’t that make you want to do it more? This concept I think we can all agree on. Fortunately, most of the world agrees and believes you should expose children to alcohol at an early age to familiarize them with it as you would with any other of life’s eventual situations. Consequently, this is usually why the first drink you consume is typically the one your family members gives you at some random party (usually a holiday) when you are about five. At which point, the wide-eyed eager look on your face quickly turns to disgust as you instinctively discharge whatever fermented beverage has been shoved into your esophagus onto your family member’s shirt much to the amusement of all the guests. Looking like a fool, your miniscule underdeveloped brain quickly realizes that alcohol is not such a big deal, a realization many adult Americans still have not come to.

At some point as you are growing up you experiment with alcohol and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards). By the time you are at the age to goto college you know how much makes you tipsy, how much makes you drunk, and how much makes you a blubbering idiot. Throughout this time, almost everyone you know has allowed you to pursue your curiosity so you may, as most people do, realize the laxness of the issue.

However, if you grow up in America your family will most likely to tell you to follow “the rules”, no matter how ridiculous they may be, never to question that authority since it comes from “the law”. Which obviously leads you to the conclusion in your adolescent mind that there is something other people don’t want you to know/have. So you are continuously on the war path of acquiring alcohol through a maze of federal and state regulations, making the experience seem more forbidden and “naughty” than it really is, and providing you with a false sense of achievement that is not accurate as you have not achieved anything other than feeling a bit incoherent and loosing some of your inhibitions. This prompts you to believe you can achieve other previously seeming overwhelming feats like drunk driving and controlling your emotions. If you had any previous experience with alcohol, by the time you are held accountable for your actions you would know what you were and were not capable of.

As far as drunk driving is concerned, I admit that driving a car is tempting to any drunken person for the sensation that it provides and somewhat to the fact that you are breaking the rules. However, overtime you come to realize that overcompensating for your miniature appendage through drunk driving makes no sense. In America you have little choice really. In a country that claims to be the most developed in the world, the public transport system outside (or inside in some cases) major population centers is ridiculously inefficient or non-existent past a certain hour of the night. Thus, forcing you into making a choice you shouldn’t have to make; drive drunk and risk arrest, fines, and death; sleep in your car which is also illegal and potentially deadly; or wander the streets until you sober up, also illegal (public intoxication). Basically meaning, if you want to drink you are only legally allowed to get drunk between four walls and you are imprisoned within them until you are sober.

All of this as a direct result of the fact that the auto/fuel industries lobby congress not to improve public transport in order to keep the cars on the road and the gasoline in the cars. As far as sleeping in your car and public intoxication being illegal, I attribute it to “the rules” that you are not supposed to question.

Ohh there’s more believe it or not. There is a law that was passed in 1984, The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, that enforces a minimum age of 21 on drinking in the US, and the Federal Aid Highway act that denies states that do not enforce the minimum drinking age 10% of their federal highway appointment. Meaning, any reasonable attempt to de-demonize and educate through experience young people about alcohol is punished by the US government. Want more? Fine. Drinking in public = illegal. Ohh no little Johnny is going to see the homeless drunk guy and become an alcoholic. More? Carrying alcohol in public that’s not covered = illegal. A bottle of Vodka costs $30!! The land of the free imposes the veiling of alcoholic beverages… can you say Taliban? And the list goes on…

Listen Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD as they appropriately call themselves), if you want to be helpful stand outside the bar and drive me home. Somebody needs to point out to America (that’s me by the way); again, that dealing with a situation through fear and extremism is exactly what their supposed “war on terror” is all about. Perhaps it would be wiser to smoke out, in the words of a very underdeveloped US president, extremism in America before you ride out to the rest of your world on your high horse preaching knowledge and freedom. You know a good way to start? Have a drink.

Ohh Maddy! Where art thou Maddy?!

2007-09-14T10:53:00.000-07:00

Yet another distraction from anything worthy of making the news, little Madeleine McCann continues to occupy our hearts and headlines.

In the true spirit of the English language I would like to say "Bugger Off Maddy!" I think we can all agree that your death, disappearance, or prolonged game of hide and seek matters very little if at all in the grand, minute, or mediocre scheme of things. The consequences that would result in you being dead, alive, killed by your parents and their mates, having overdosed on sedatives, or just having run into speeding traffic on a whim, are insignificant at best to my ,or the rest of the worlds, existence.

If your mother and father are too stingy (a common English trait) to hire a babysitter, but have enough money to have a holiday home, rent a car, and go out for a night on the town, leaving you to be kidnapped and then deemed too unimportant to demand a ransom for then boo hoo! Furthermore, if you were too annoying and bratty to endure (another common English trait Ref: The diary of Kate McCann courtesy of the Polícia Judiciária ) and as a result your parents decided to be done with you then double boo hoo!

If you were born to people who were not doctors, and who did not come from the land of the lost Empire then I would never have had to endure hearing about your "disappearance".

I have a great idea! How about we chronicle the disappearance of all the children in Sub-Saharan Africa, or better yet just those in the UK, who aren't white and blond with little brown eyes, and follow every non-existent endeavor local authorities make to return them to their families? Wouldn't that be a better use of all our time?

Bend over and take it fundamentally!

2007-09-14T08:26:00.000-07:00

You can say what you like about Pakistan, and in all likelihood you would probably be right.

Yet, when it comes to choosing who will run their country these people aren't very creative.

Let’s run through the candidates of power:

Musharraf: A small tubby general who, most likely, possesses the brownest nose constantly logged in between the ass cheeks of George W. Bush. This man has succeeded in doing pretty much nothing during his tenure and has become the new de-facto dictator who clutches to the support of the worlds greatest democracy. All of this after he “promised” democratic elections, that he would not partake in, would transpire six months after he “assumed” power.

Nawaz Sharif & Benazir Bhutto: As corrupt and politically useless in achieving anything for the people of Pakistan as each other, these two monkeys have each been exiled for different and similar reasons. Now, they want in again in order to transfer the balance of power between themselves for no other reason than to rape and pillage the Pakistani economy. Which in their defense they are pretty good at as the record shows.

Various other Zealots: Then there are plenty of Imams and other nut-bags adorning excessively long beards of different colors, who claim to completely comprehend the most ambiguous text ever written, the Koran, and want to apply Sharia law in order to uphold the moral fabric of society, on their own terms of course.

So once again the country where supposedly Mr. Bin Ladin the worlds “greatest” threat to world peace makes his humble abode in the Tora Bora, not to mention a great ally in the war on terror (ahhhh!) the democratic republic of Pakistan ruled by military dictatorship, is choosing between who rules now, who ruled before, and who ruled before that.

What’s even more extraordinary, is the throngs of people in the streets of Islamabad/good, Karachi (sounds like an appendage), and Lahore (self explanatory), carrying posters of their respective corrupt political idols through the streets. Maybe these people deserve their leaders. Good luck you waky-pakys.

Sparking a brain plug in the wrong direction.

2007-09-13T16:10:00.000-07:00

Flight delayed after she feared 7 were terrorists.

Well, well, well... This woman is a stain on the shirt of humanity. What angers me more than anything else is the fact that she thinks that a mere apology will do. Ms. Robbins claims she was “protecting my tiny little family” by racially profiling (to use an overly American propaganda term) seven men because they "looked so mean" and were "clunking around" in the bathroom. Moreover, she make the logical connection to 9/11 stating “all I could think of was 9/11.” while she thought to herself “It was very frightening, like something out of a movie.”

This woman is either incredibly stupid or incredibly stupid. Maybe we should add " mean clunking whilst invoking movie like behaviour" to the ever growing list of things you are not allowed to say or do on an airplane.

In the spirit of excessive American suing, i propose this woman should be sued to the amount of all time lost by the people on that airplane and should be lampooned constantly on many late night talk shows. However, obviously that would be distasteful wouldn't it. Can you say convulsion?

Welcome to the Land of the Free

2007-09-13T15:24:00.000-07:00

“How you doing today?” said the man in the uniform at JFK. “Im doin alright” I said in the most nasal American accent I could muster while I stared at the different cameras and yellow lines that are meant for my security. I didn’t really have any reason to be anxious or afraid. After all, if there is one person I know who can be trusted to bash religious justifications for the proper method to wipe your ass, let alone blow up yourself and others into miniature portions, it’s me. But that’s not the point.

Having lived the past 13 years of my life living and traveling around the Middle East, my US passport is riddled with Arabic- stamps, visas, and pen-corrections. Considering myself to hold a certain level of competency, I expected that this may be an issue. Having much time to spare between planes, airports, and an unremarkable selection of in-flight “entertainment”, and bad Greek beer I had managed to recall the different times and relative dates of my life up to that point. Just in case I had to recite it for someone looking out for the security of the Homeland.

I wont go into too much detail, it is most likely that I need not describe how long I defecated in my diapers or suckled on my mothers breasts, but rather only provide enough information to shed light on my perspective of things.

My family, being of Lebanese origin, gave birth to a little baby boy (being me) in the summer of ’82 just outside of Washington D.C., right around the same time Israeli “Defense” Forces were supposedly liberating my country of origin from occupation by occupying it. A year later, my parents, both still students at the time, decided it was in my best interest to be taken care of by my grandmothers living in Lebanon during a civil war. I spent the next year of my life with two old ladies who believe that constantly bending over in a particular direction will grant them access to eternal happiness.

A year later I returned to America clapping and laughing incessantly whenever someone switched on a light. I was not used to the concept of electricity. However, this changed rather quickly. By the time I was 12 I talked through my nose, recited the pledge of allegiance every morning before class, collected baseball cards, and truly believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt that, America was the greatest country in the world and I was an American.

After 20 years in America, my father having lost his job and forced to transfer the mortgage, moved me and my family to the oil rich country ruled by the House of Saud, and shortly afterwards to the capital of soullessness and shopping malls, the Emirates.

Six years later, I left the Emirates. I returned to America to find things pretty much the way I left them. I had been accepted to a top university in the DC area, but not being a resident of the state I was born in and lived the majority of my life in, I was not considered qualified to be aided by my government. It was at that point I began to understand what America was and that I would never be an American.

So there I was, standing in front of this man who would be the first to judge me in my new America. He took my passport, looked through the different pages without flinching, looked up at me, smiled, stamped my passport, handed me back my passport and said “Have a good day.”

Truthfully, I was disappointed. Beside the fact that I had spent many hours trying to remember my family history and considering if I love America, I expected a little more from the Department of Homeland Security. I was looking forward to many hours of interesting conversation about my terrorist tendencies. How does a potential terrorist threat like me slip through the fingers of the most technologically advanced security apparatus in the world? Surely, someone having not been in America since before September 11th and having lived and visited many Arab countries stock full of terrorist sympathizers would pose a potential treat. Frankly, it didn’t make any sense to me. I knew that I was not a “terrorist” but how could Homeland Security know that unless they had been tracking my movements and affiliations for the past seven years of my life using the same intelligence infrastructure that had been tracking Mr. Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction? Somewhere along the line something went wrong in America and I was just beginning to find out what it was.

[SLH1]Quotations?