Ricky is So Fine

I do not think politicians should debate in political forums like we saw on Saturday evening with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.Rick Warren's questions seemed like "soft ball" questions with a conservative agenda. When I heard Warren ask questions born from a core belief such as “when do you believe life begins?” or “How do you define marriage?” or “Does evil exist?” I found myself cringing from my seat and I was not even in Warren’s mega church. I do not think the questions were unimportant, but I do believe they followed a strong conservative party ethos.It would be interesting to see if, statistically, the questions were designed to favor a candidate like John McCain and the Christian value vote.

McCain is said to have sounded "better" and more confident than Obama. Obama is said to have sounded long winded. The questions did not lend themselves to short, straight ahead answers. McCain stated at one point that "our country was founded on Christian principles." This is true for the white Christians who landed here. But what about the Native Americanswho first inhabited the land and were destroyed in the name of Christianity. Does McCain’s answer define the beginning of our country while ignoring those who inhabited the land before us? This is a fact. General Pratt, the Secretary of the Interior in the 1860s, led a campaign to "kill the savage and save the man." To convert the Native American into a more western, Christian way of life. How does this bode with McCain's simple and straight ahead answer.

Rick Warren is the leader of the Evangelical movement and Evangelicals are frontrunners in promoting core values against abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage, to influence their voting cohort. It is said that Rick Warren’s “purpose driven church” has a network of more than 130,000 plus pastors. I know the Evangelicals are a powerful and large group, but when did America allow Christianity to become a political tool? I think the forum for candidates needs to be free from any bias that might infect the debate.Christianity is one such bias that is not needed in any political debate. What if the same questions were asked of a Jewish, Muslim, or god forbid, agnostic candidate.

Arm Box

Sometimes I want to rip my arms off. I'm serious. If some guy in a cloak came to me in the middle of the night and offered to take my arms off, I would probably let him. I usually like my arms, but at night, sometimes, I want to be armless and round...like a marble.

Most days my arms are cool. They are mine and I've had them for 30 years. They usually do what I say. My arms are awesome actually. They get me things like coffee, twinkies, pieces of paper, etc, and they work pretty well. But sometimes around the 2am hour when I am trying to sleep they just get in the way. It's like I am noticing my arms for the first time. And at this point they aren't friendly anymore. The arms who used to get me stuff. They are all over the place and it is like sleeping with two logs attached to my shoulders. Evil twin logs who want nothing more than to ruin my life. I want to rip them off and stuff them under the bed. Or at least be able to detach them and put them in a box or something…for the morning. And my wife never seems to have this problem. It's always just me, the cat, and like 2 or 3am on the O' clock.

So the other night I was trying to sleep on my side but my one arm was not working with me. It was so irritating. I ended up getting out of bed and eating cereal. At this point I found I just have to wait out the arms. If I don't then I end up crying out of frustration. Fucking arms.

And I try to sleep in the most ridiculous positions: I put both arms above my head. Doesn't work. I try stuffing one arm under a pillow. Doesn't work. I try to put both arms in front. Doesn't work. Next move: exit bed, eat cereal, cry, and think about ripping my arms off. To sleep a delicious slumber as a stump.

Fucking arms.
Arms are stupid. Even the name "Arm" is dumb.

I wish I had detacheable arms and could put them in a box under the bed.

SOTU 2007

I am a little late getting this out, but nobody reads this anyway.
I have spoken to several about last week's SOTU and this is my favorite line:

"Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen."

I find this to be genius rhetoric and brilliant speech writing. To measure a war's success by things that have not happened. Imagine that! The possibilities are endless.

Now we wait and wait to see if 25,000 more troops will be sent in an effort to clear, hold, and re-build Baghdad. This is the administration's last attempt to stop civil war and sectarian violence. The Iraq Study Group declared that as Baghdad falls, so falls Iraq. If the troop surge is approved, all focus will be on the capital city and this last rush of military force. If the troops surge is denied, the war's calamity and failure will be pinned on the Democratic congress who veto it. The responsibility will shift in the coming months. It has already happened. The Bush Administration has created a smokey rhetoric which has put all responsibility on the Iraq people and "military" to take control of the situation that we have started; To take responsibility to show us that they are deserving of our presence.

Iran is also moving in on Baghdad, against warnings from Washington. The NY Times (Jan. 28) describes the efforts: "The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called 'the security fight.' In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

'We have experience of reconstruction after war,' Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. 'We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.' This does not sit well with the Bush Administration.

Needless to say, this is not going to get any better anytime soon.
I think it's just getting started.

Rock the Casbah

Spent the snowy day watching the Criterion Collection's edition of Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers. The film has been described as the most important political movie of our time; Criterion calls it One of the most influential political films in history, and as I watched it (over coffee on Sunday morning) I was taken back by how relevant the film is to us, in 2007. And how yes! This film is quite possibly the most urgent thing I have seen in a long, long time. I guess Resistance is the same no matter what time or place. And Imperial Power will always be a Vampire...

The film is about the Algerian Revolution Movement which led to the end of 130 years of French occupation. The Struggle culminated in bombs, violence, and a justified rebellion against all things French. The Revolution's flag was later adopted for the Algerian Flag.

Criterion has created a 3 DVD set, which, among other things, includes Edward Said narrating a 37 minute documentary on the film and the situation in Algiers. Said, at one point asks, "can an Imperial power ever be defeated?" And I think that is an appropriate question considering today's struggle in Iraq. The situation in Algiers was much different than what we face with our colonization of Iraq, but the struggle and chaos of French force fighting non-linear, guerilla tactics of the Algerians is impossible to ignore. In the end the Algerian people organized, went on strike, and defeated the French Army through their conviction of resistance.


Pontecorvo eventually made commercials, and that is wierd considering how important this film is/was. The critics on the additional Discs are almost angry with Pontecorvo's lack of work after The Battle of Algiers. Doesn't matter. The film exists, and it presents a very relevant story of a collective and social movement against a Colonial force unwanted and over fed on itself and its power.