I always wondered whether anyone listened to, cared about, or even heard, Barabara Tucker’s message in this song. Fitting her background in gospel, and her religious convictions, she is talking about beauty being only skin-deep, that the important thing is how you are within. But is that what anyone on the dance floors heard, or wanted to hear? Never the less, this track really takes me back.
Here we go again. Another US election. In 2008, The Real news had a series of interviews with Ralph Nader, on the eve of Obama’s election. Nader made many prophetic statements, and they remain as relevant today, at the outset of the next election, as they were then. The US public, and so the rest of us, are trapped in a vicious circle of Americans’ own choosing; and we are about to go another round.
In part 3 he foreshadows what is happening in 2012, and outlines what has happened again and again in the past:
they’re so freaked out by not having another four years of Republicans (and this happens every four years, you know, 2004, 2000, 1996) that they make no demands on the Democratic nominee. We scanned in 2004 twenty groups who supported Kerry–labor, anti-poverty, civil rights, the ACLU–you know, all these groups that, you know, came out from the consumer, environmental, agrarian reform, antiwar, none of them made a demand on John Kerry. Same this year. They’re basically, “We’re so freaked out with McCain. Don’t make any demands.” Therefore, by not pulling Obama this way, they don’t make Obama better. And, of course, he’s being pulled by the corporate interests.
Here’s another prophetic statement:
When he gets a status of president-elect, you’ve got to watch the signs: Who’s going to be his transition team? Who are going to be his appointees? And who does he invite?
The question is whether someone who does not intend to change the system…can get in! He was never to be a transformative figure, never to be a Gorbachev; but did any of his supporters expect him to be so? In part 2, Nader says, “He does not have a challenging personality.” In Part 1 he says:
If you don’t pay attention while you’re a candidate, the chances of suddenly becoming a populist, you know, Paul Wellstone or whatever are very, very slim. Second of all, he doesn’t have a transforming personality. He doesn’t like to take on power.
In Part 3 he says:
That’s the key: fire in the belly. Rosa Parks had fire in the belly. … Barack Obama does not have fire in the belly. His advisors in private used to ask him, “Show passion.” And, you know, this is in private. And he’d say, “Is that enough passion?” And they’d say, “No, it’s not enough passion.” He doesn’t have the passion, and he won too easily.
“No Drama Obama”. He could not even take on BP, you think he can take on the system? Of course, there are those who argue that this is what has to be done in order to get into the seat of power. In Part 1, Nader responds:
To me, you can’t just say this is tactical. I know that Willie Brown said the other day, when I was on a stage with him, he said he has to get elected. [But] It doesn’t work that way. [Obama] was against the embargo on Cuba. He goes to South Florida. He says he’s for the embargo. He was against offshore drilling; he says he’s now for offshore drilling. He was against snooping on Americans without a warrant, and he still voted for FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] and the Patriot Act.
JAY: So the question is: what’s the mandate?
NADER: There is no mandate. It’s a landslide without a mandate. I mean, that’s the tragedy of it.
…The two-party system is a prison, and it’s got the voters in a slavery situation. It makes the voters become masochistic voters. How many more times, decade after decade, they vote for these two parties who betrayed them and basically turned the government over to large corporations?
As someone else said about Obama’s election, the voters projected onto him whatever they wanted to. Issues and stances fail candidates, but do not elect them. Feel-good is what elects presidents. Is there any surprise that Mitt Romney holds two stances on every issue!
And what mandate? These politicians claim mandates on so few votes! Look at Stephen Harper’s election in Canada. How can he claim to have a mandate, with so few people voting, and so few of the voters voting for him?
Nader said, in one of these interviews IIRC, that all that the large youth turn-out does is to create another generation of disillusioned youths.
As I’ve said before, the American electorate have disqualified themselves for the task. And I don’t even blame gerrymandering or the media; these are systems which the citizenry voted for, either actively, or passively let stand. The end result is an electoral system, in both US and Canada, that pivots on the least sophisticated members of the electorate–what the Ontario Tories targetted as “the urban stupid”!
Nader, in Part 3:
[inaudible] give you an example [inaudible] the trade union movement is stronger in Europe, out of the rubble of World War II, okay, through their trade unions’ cooperatives, multiparty system, people in Western Europe demanded and got for all their people, by law, universal health care, decent wages, decent pensions, paid-for week vacation, paid maternity leave, paid family sick leave, decent public transit, university–free tuition. Sixty-three years later, the Republican and Democratic Parties have not delivered the most basic fundamental benefits of a productive economy.
The show Family Guy says that the undecided are the most stupid people. No wonder. I used to be surprised when poll after poll showed people still undecided about Bush! The UK newspaper asked how 40 million people can be so stupid! Jon Stewart, exasperated with the Red States, asked, “What, do we have to get these people boats?”
No wonder attack ads work. No wonder the success of the Tea Party. The whole system is rigged to sway power via a very impressionable few.
No wonder that Nader’s disillusion was followed by his book, “Only the Superrich Can Save Us”!
Really, what else do you have to lose? How many times are you going to go round this Merry-Go-Round vicious circle? Is there a lower bottom than Bush? You hit that one twice!
Loyalty works both ways. How is one to phrase the conduct of the Canadian government with respect to this child, the protection of whom is its duty! “Treason” applies in the opposite direction, but neither “betrayal” nor “dereliction of duty” seem to convey sufficient meaning. I am forced to say that, in the extent and persistence of its malice, the Conservative government has been treasonous in its conduct towards Omar Khadr. It takes an American intelligence agent to tell the “kinder, gentler nation” that it ought to be ashamed.
The undercurrent of anti-multi-culturalism, if not outright racism, which ran through the Reform party, and now perhaps through the darker outposts of Conservative support, were followed by attacks on Maher Arar. Stephen Harper’s government did not merely neglect Omar Khadr; their responses have been counter-measures! No charter flights for this boy to fly him home.
The Guardian’s Comments section is running an interesting series of interviews with people in the finance industry. This particular one is about the artificial tests in the banks’ jobs interviews. (There’s also another one about being a thankless, overworked intern.)
Look at the tests they have to undergo. They do write mathematical tests, though their jobs seem to depend mostly on relationships, networking and other such subjective, unscientific qualifications. And then there are the brain teasers, endless interviews, and just plain being a pain up your arse for no crucially good reason! Like most jobs nowadays (and indeed the past decades) they have more qualified people than they have vacancies for. So it really comes down to randomness. They may put a veneer of assessment on it, but it really is a crap shoot! It is not pivotal which one of these suckers/morons gets in, so long as the bozo appears to have run a gauntlet or completed some pointless quest.
So why are the salaries so high? The usual Market claptrap says that, if you have lots of applicants, the pay rate will go down. Not here, though, and in some other jobs I’ve noticed. The pay remains high even though they have gobs of desperate graduates and professionals debtors knocking down their doors. My only guess is that, in the case of the banksters, there are larger issues involved eg their competitors, and/or their candidates’ qualifications are so generic that they may simply move to other industries. I don’t know.
Of course, as is indicated elsewhere in that article or the series, getting the job does not mean that you will keep it! Lots of people get fired. I remember reading, years ago, someone’s account of how her firm kept on hiring people, and firing them as soon as they clued in as to what’s what. I’ve noticed an analogous pattern elsewhere. Companies want you to know some stuff–so they won’t have to train you–but not so much that you’ll discover what’s really going on!
This is an old post from the Anar Green blog which I have dug up. I don’t know if there was such an interview with Ura Sar; certainly none with Anar Sutra.
#####
Well, as no-one has interviewed me, I figured I’ll make up my own. So here goes nothing!
*****
- Hello, this is Huffington Worthington, with The Paris Review of London Supplement. We are here today with Anar Green, author of such legendary books as “A Beat, a Bong, and a Bang” and “Mescaline Catechism and Other Dreams.”
- Hello. Thank you for having me.
- Can you tell us a bit about yourself?
- No.
- OK. Why not?
- I’m a very private person.
- And yet you chose to write books–albeit ebooks!–that are sure to make you rich and famous.
- My life’s a never-ending contradiction.
- I see. How original! How and when did you get started as a writer?
- A very original question! Well, I was sitting at home, there was nothing on TV, and I figured starting a band didn’t get me laid, but writing might.
- Has it?
- You have no idea!
- How could you not get laid in a band?
- I was a drummer. Drummers don’t get laid. They get leftovers, at most!
- I see. Where do you usually find your ideas?
- Well, I live, things happen, stuff comes up.
- That explains your terse style.
- Yup.
- When did you first know you were going to be a writer?
- I never thought of myself as a writer; still don’t! To me, writing was something that dead people did: if you wanted to be a writer, you had to die, then wait two hundred years, then you get published.
- Then why did you write?
- I just had some stuff to say.
- Tell us about your books.
- Well, the first one is about a guy who’s really pissed off, but he gets laid. The second one is about a guy who’s really pissed off, and a guy who gets laid.
- Hmm, I think I see a pattern here. Who are the authors who influenced you the most?
- Everything I have ever learnt has come from The Simpsons.
- Anyone else you’d care to mention?
- Well, let’s see….No! Nothing! It’s all blank….Well, if you must ask, I’d say Willy!
- Willy? Who’s Willy?
- William Shakespeare. Oh yes, The Bard! Still as relevant today as he was…whichever century he was alive.
- More relevant than “A Beat, a Bong, and a Bang”, if I may say so.
- Yes. Because if there’s anything that the youth of today are preoccupied with, it’s the machinations of the Court of Denmark!
- That’s a rather superficial way of looking at the play.
- Thank you.
- What books are you reading now?
- I’m reading books?
- Don’t you? Typically, good writers are voracious readers.
- Oh, good writers! I don’t read books, I only write them. It’s called division of labour.
- Tell us about your next book.
- Well I was planning on developing the Seed character. Originally, she was written for a short story, but ended up in “A Beat”. I figured she’ll go around, do her het-hunting, and get laid a lot.
- So there’s a happy ending.
- Is there any other kind?
- What is your advice to young writers?
- Get into carpentry. The pay’s much better, and people actually get to enjoy your work.
From the guy who created my most favourite, most memorable house remix: Sade’s By Your Side (Ben Watt remix).
His line at the beginning of this video is another gem:
Sometimes you need to get back to the sweatbox. The low ceiling. The minimal lighting. To put you back in touch with the music and the people who dance to it.
Let’s see, before a war begins on Iran, who the culprits may be.
There are the Likudniks, of course. Is Richard Pearle still around? I vaguely recall seeing him, though I avoid MSM typically. Neo-cons are everywhere, as always; god bless them!, The Israeli think tanks, AIPAC pundits, Sheldon Adelson, Rupert Murdoch’s/Fox’s Roger Ailes. All these overlap, needless to say.
The Republican candidates, as the Koch brothers say, are mere actors. So who is really behind them?
Given a population three times that of Iraq, and the overwhelming support, easily three million may die. Whose land-forces will end up being involved? Where?
As always, The Real News’s Lia Tarachansky provides valuable insight into Israel. In the following, we see that the Israeli military and intelligence are against it. It comes down to 2-3 guys: Netanyahu, Lieberman, Ehud Barak!
Of particular interest is the analysis of Alex Fishman, the journalist with Yediot Ahronot. Though factually incorrect on the issue of Iran’s stance with respect to negotiations, he does raise a key point. He dismisses the nuclear casus belli and says that this is mere geo-politics, trying to block Iran’s moves on the chess-board of the Middle East and North Africa.
The whole issue has to do with how to get Iran out of the Middle East. Iran is not peace with the Palestinians. It’s the contrary. Iran opposed the Shalit deal, the Oslo Accords. Iran was opposed to any agreement with the Palestinians. It’s connected more to Iranian involvement in Egypt, in the Islamic groups of the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s connected to the Iranian involvement in Libya. It’s connected to the Iranian involvement in Syria, and they’re major supporters of the regime there. It’s connected to Iran’s attempt to enter Yemen, or Iran’s attempt to undermine the Iraqi leadership once the Americans leave, or their involvement in the attempted revolution in Bahrain. And it’s connected to Iran’s involvement here, too.
So this is what American men and women, and Iranian men, women and children, are going to die for.
And, afterwards, Iran will go nuclear, and its government will be strengthened.
Update, 20 Jan. 2012: Pulse Media is a good starting point for the recent Mark Perry article tying Israel to terrorism in Iran. The +972 Magazine articles pointed-to are also informative. Israel is trying to pull the US into war.
But it seems, now, that the Obama administration has concluded that Israel’s strategy is indeed one of primarily trying to raise tensions between the United States and Iran, with the intention of hoping that there will be an incident that will spark off escalated violence and ultimately a war between the United States and Iran.
to which Paul Jay responds by referring to Leon Panetta’s statement that US will defend US forces.
JAY: The last time we talked about this, not—just last week, it was after Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, and we kind of—had spoken on a television show, Face the Nation, and we parsed his speech. And one of his answers when asked what would United States do if Israel attacked Iran on its own, he was very specific, saying we would defend our forces, not we would defend Israel. And you and I talked about the implications of this.
Why is it relatively uncontroversial to negotiate with the Taliban – who harboured the terrorists who killed 3,000 US citizens on September 11, 2001, and who have terrorised millions of Afghans for decades – but the idea of talking to Iran is considered beyond the pale?
The answer should be obvious. AIPAC and its congressional cutouts go wild at the thought of negotiating with Iran (or Hamas, for that matter) but are relatively indifferent to the Taliban who, of course, are far from Israel.
So we can talk to the thugs of the Taliban to bring about some sort of settlement. But we can’t even consider talking to the government of Iran.
George Galloway, on three hot topics: Iraq, Palestine and Iran. An excellent show. A book-end on the American war in Iraq; on the historical creation of an Israeli identity, including an interview with Arthur Neslen, the author of the books “Occupied Minds: A Journey Through Israeli Psyche”, and “In Your Eyes: A Sandstorm” about Palestinian identity; and of the war-mongering US legislation against Iran (Robert Naiman’s The Cooties Doctrine).
(This is an old post which I have dug up from the old Anar Green blog.)
As I’ve said on another blog, I like video confessionals on youtube. Some get really personal. The It Gets Better videos are a prime example of this, and they are fascinating to watch. They remind me of when I used to zap into the This American Life radio show, but the immediacy of these webcam outpourings cuts far deeper.
The mighty, mighty Chris Hayes covered the end of the Iraq War in a recent episode of his Up (With Chris Hayes) show. It was the only US show not to have its head up (no pun) its ass with respect to the war on Iraq. They even talked to an actual Iraqi, in Iraq! Not to be tokenistic, but: Wow!
Note, especially, the 26th minute, when Iraqi author Zainab Salbi is speaking, and the 28th minute, with Phyllis Bennis’s historical perspective. Salbi steps out of any coconut shell the audience are accustomed to, and says:
Iraq is destroyed. Every aspect of Iraq is destroyed. And there is a lack of acknowledgement from America to say, ‘We’re sorry!’ And, you know what, from an Iraqi perspective, it doesn’t matter whether you’re Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t matter whether you are Bush or Obama. As far as Iraqis are concerned, or people outside of America, this is America!
Americans don’t know that Iraq, before the US assaults, had First World levels of education, and First World levels of healthcare. Saddam was a bastard, but he was also a nationalist.
Lest there be any illusions to the contrary: Considering how the war has been ignored in the US, their veterans are sure to populate hot-air grids, in urban centres, in the not too distant future.