Sigh. Iran.

"A global village will have its village idiots."

--Cambridge Astrophysicist Martin Rees

We have tried to pretend that the Middle East, with all its complicated problems, is just a bunch of irrational cave men, but we can't keep pretending. We keep taking Ahmadinejad so seriously. Our favorite presidential wannabe, Mitt the Twitt, said "For all of the Soviets' deep flaws, they were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime (Iran) that celebrates martyrdom."

That is complete bullshit. First of all, stop longing for the "simple" days of the Cold War. We had our head in the clouds then, and that's why we ended up with such a mess in the Middle East. Do I really need to remind everyone that Iran had a democratically elected government in 1953 that the CIA overthrew, giving full power to an evil dictator? There would never have been an Islamic Revolution if it wasn't for us playing Iran against the Soviets.

Second of all, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL MARTYRS AND NATIONAL SURVIVAL. The Japanese were happy to send a few dozen men and airplanes into oblivion, but do you think they wanted to get the bomb? Iran may support Hezbollah, but that doesn't mean they want a nuclear war. A minority of people in the country, including their president, want the complete destruction of Israel at all costs. All costs to the guerilla fighters. They don't want to lose their cushy lifestyles over it. And the rest of the country just wants to be left alone.

It is my understanding that Iran's government is made up of a Parliament, a President, a Leader, and the Guardian Council. The Parliament and President are voted on by the electorate, the Leader holds his position for life and has sway over all others (though not complete power), and the Guardian Council can veto any legislation the Parliament passes which it does not like.

Now the whole government is Islamist, there are no opposition parties, and everyone agrees that the government should at least include some aspect of the Sharia, Islamic Law. But the strange thing that has happened since the 78-79 revolution is that there has been more and more division within the one government party. There are conservatives and reformists and moderates just like our government, they just all work within the assumptions of an Islamic context.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the people voted in huge numbers for reformists, and had a more reformist-leaning president. But most of the reformist legislation was vetoed by the Guardian Council. As I know I would, most left-leaning voters got fed up and didn't vote in the 2005 elections because they felt like it wouldn't matter. And a very strong conservative who appealed to voters based on his domestic economic ideas won. And his name is Ahmadinejad. And he's a fucking loon.

When this village idiot gets up and speaks of wiping Israel off the face of the earth, we need to remember that the only people cringing more than us are the Iranians. Both conservative and reformist politicians have been outraged by his horrible PR in the world arena (sound like a familiar problem?). What we forget (and Bush probably doesn't know) is that Ahmadinejad "does not control foreign or nuclear policy, nor do his statements indicate that Iran is suddenly going to launch aggressive wars that it cannot win" (Keddie, "Modern Iran," p.338).

Iranians are not stupid. They are not going to fire off a nuclear missile because they know that their country would soon become nothing more than a smouldering pile of rubble. If they want nuclear capability, it is to make countries like the U.S. think twice about pre-emptive attacks. All this "fight Israel, the Imperialists are trying to split Muslims in half, do not fight shi'ites or sunnis, fight Israel" crap is just a sad attempt at trying to convince Muslims that the only reason they're fighting each other is because of us. Turning all that energy against Israel would create stability, benefiting Iran and the whole region. Ahmadinejad is just trying the old trick of using a common enemy (somehow it always seems to be Jews) to unite the people.

I'm not sure if they really want uranium for domestic energy or if they're building a bomb. But why do we care so much about Iran? What about all the other countries that are getting uranium or nuclear technology? Anyone remember a little country called Venezuela? HELLO?

Iranians were a huge help to us in Afghanistan. They have been dealing with Afghan refugees since the Russians invaded in 1980. They helped our armed forces know where to go and who to talk to. And the thanks they get is the "Axis of Evil" speech where they're listed next to North Korea as a huge threat. Yes they support the Palestinians. And there may be trouble with arms flowing over the border into Iraq. But the former is a serious difference in point of view that can only be helped by diplomatic means and the latter is a complicated problem with a complicated answer - also best dealt with by diplomacy.

Our figurehead makes us look like morons in the world arena. Europeans shake their heads and say "I'm sorry, you poor things" about his being our president. Why aren't we doing the same thing with Ahmadinejad? If the reformists hadn't been so pissed and not voted, he wouldn't be there. And the government has tried to rein him in in recent months, as they're horrified that he's running his mouth off in front of the world. He and Bush have a "Bring it ON" mentality. It's going to get both of them into trouble. And their parliament/congress know it.

The more we fuck with Iran, the more they'll hate us and the more they'll support idiots like Ahmadinejad in their government. If we got bombed tomorrow, Bush's approval ratings would go through the roof. Ahmadinejad will suddenly become popular over there if we attack. Iran is in no way a "friendly nation," but they are not a direct threat to us unless we make them one. We need to get off Iran, or we'll be fighting the entire Middle East.

The more we bomb people, the more they want to hurt us. Why can't we get this through BushCo's heads????

A State of Mind

I received A State of Mind for Christmas, but just watched it last night. This is an exclusive documentary about North Korea. It follows two gymnast/dancers through their training for the Mass Games, the largest coordinated spectacle in the world. It involves something like 80,000 dancers, gymnasts and children in a forty-five minute fully coordinated show with costumes and music. It is not just entertainment, it is living, breathing Communism. The self is completely a part of the group and the group does things that could never be accomplished by the self. 80,000 people become one perfect person.

While following the girls' families, we learn that they each live in a small apartment in one of many concrete block apartment buildings in a city that is considered the best in the country, despite frequent power outages and little food. There are three equal "classes": workers, farmers, and intellectuals. One girl is a worker and the other is an intellectual. You receive the job for which you are best suited; in the intellectual family one daughter was good at Tae Kwan Do so she was going into the army, one daughter was good at studying so she was going to be a scientist like her dad and one daughter was artistic so she was the dancer.

There is one tv channel, state controlled, and a radio in the kitchen that can be turned up or down but never off. The biggest holidays are The General's birthday (Kim Jong Il) and The Leader's birthday (Kim Jong Il's father, now deceased).

I had no idea how official, strong, and constant the anti-American rhetoric is. Thousands of people hold up coordinated cards (like in a football stadium) that make a huge picture of evil Americans being shot at by Koreans. When the lights go out, they swear at the evil Imperialist Pigs. The Korean War, "Forgotten" over here, is called something like the Liberation War (I need to see this again to be sure), and the devestation we brought to their country is possible again at any moment. They live in fear of an American attack. Even our own Pentagon estimates that a war in Korea would kill one million people in the first twenty-four hours.

This is 1984. There is a bad guy, a huge army, a constant threat, and a leader who will protect you in exchange for complete obedience and devotion. They call him Father.

The most difficult and intricate part of this film is realizing that these people are not stupid, nor do they want us to get rid of The General, Kim Jong Il. They are a part of a cult that funnels their abilities into doing what it wants. They believe everything the General says. But they are people, living their lives. One girl doesn't study and used to go hide instead of going to dance practice. I used to go hide during compulsory gym class. One mother yells at her daughter to eat more. The other mother coddles her daughter, is best friends with her, and lets her husband and mother-in-law be the strict ones. They have goals, they get recognition for their abilities (being in the second row for the Mass Games), they have hopes and dreams and fears. Their setting may be 1984, but they are not all Winston Smith. They are not looking for a way out.

And they practice what they preach. They see the group moving as one - be it dancers or armies marching - as the most beautiful human action. To join together and become one body, one soul, to even breathe and have their hearts beat in unison - I cannot deny the beauty of coming together as one. This is something I have seen in karate competitions more than once, and something that I know is more than just coordinated movement. It makes people be on the same brainwave. I saw a study once that measured brain activity of athletes, and when the martial artist thrusts his hand toward the board, his brain stops. There was no brain activity as the baseball player took a swing. Some call it getting in "the zone." Some call it "the flow." Some consider it a spiritual experience. I think that this group of people got into the flow together for forty-five minutes. Twice a day. For twenty days.

Is it beautiful? Is it creepy? Is it the highest a group can reach together? Or . . . the lowest?

These people live hard lives because there is such little food. But if there was enough food and electricity and water, would they be "happy"? I don't know. And I don't think it is for me to say. If Kim Jong Il doesn't attack us, I think we should just leave them alone.

I wish I could see what they would say if they really knew about the West. I'm sure they would point to our homeless, our poor and call us hypocrites for criticizing them. And our masses watch Fox News. But we do have freedom of thought, we can decide what truth is for ourselves. Is that worth the risk of homelessness? They are guaranteed housing. We take whatever jobs we can get. They take the job that best suits their abilities.

The North Korean self-image is that of "self-reliance." If they, as a country, work hard enough, they believe everything will be okay. Americans see self-reliance as a virtue, too. But we are self-reliant as individuals, and globally reliant as a country. Ultimately, I think I would kill myself if I was an "intellectual" in North Korea. But then again, I wasn't raised that way. When I look at Communism, I try to remember the negative aspects of America and the positive aspects of North Korea.

But you know what? No matter what aspects of their life are better or worse than ours, Kim Jong Il still has the power to break their hearts.* And that is just not right.

And, ultimately, you can argue back and forth forever about the ideology, but if The General can't feed his country, and they aren't allowed to figure out how to get more food on their own, there is something wrong with the country. Can it be fixed within the framework of Communism? I don't know.

*This is me only ruining the ending a little. Forgive me. See the film.

Vegetable Soup - Black American Slang

This is just under three minutes long. It was originally aired on PBS in the 70s. Other than that, it speaks for itself, so to speak.

MC HOLY SHIT

You ever hear a song, enjoy it, listen to it, and then hear it so many times you want to kill everyone responsible for writing, producing, and playing the damn thing?

Well, that song was "Download This Song" by MC Lars. And I really was ready to kill him. And then I won some cds from a radio station. Included, of course, was MC Lars' album, which I am listening to right now for the first time.

What a fucking genius. He's young. He sounds like a skinny white boy. But my god, he knows his shit. My favorite (so far) may be "Hot Topic Is Not Punk Rock," a song written in perfect punk rock style.

I quote:
"Hello Kitty ipod cases
ARE NOT PUNK ROCK
Rob Zombie lunch boxes
ARE NOT PUNK ROCK
Tupac incense burners
ARE NOT PUNK ROCK
Hot Topic
IS NOT PUNK ROCK"

And from "21 Concepts," about all his failed songs that never made it to an album:

"There was the KRS slash Nirvana debut
but the mash-up thing was so 2002
I did an anti-Bush track, and then I did five more,
but "Rock Against Bush" was so 2004"

And here's a medley from "Generic Crunk Rap":

"Phrase about my gun, rhyme about my loot,
Phrase about these haters I sometimes have to shoot
Rhyme about my clothes
Props to my hometown (Carmel Valley!)
Lyrics that say nothing - cause that's how we get down
Phrase about my clique, don't step to me punk
Gratuitous rhyme about keeping it crunk
Big ups to our genre, we do it our own way,
It's just too bad our songs don't have anything to say!

Buy cars
GET CRUNK
Escalades
GET CRUNK
Spend money
GET CRUNK
Take shots
GET CRUNK
Have sex
GET CRUNK
Spend money
GET CRUNK

Grandmaster Flash, I'm sorry but we're killing hip-hop
Run-DMC, I'm sorry but we're killing hip-hop
Chuck D, I'm sorry but we're killing hip-hop
But who can argue with the charts
When we're sitting at the top?
And we're making so much money
That we ain't about to stop!"


He ends with "I'm just playing, Lil Jon. You know I love you." a la Eminem. Fucking amazing.

One more quote because I just can't get over this guy:

"This song is futuristic, so hardcore
Hey T.S. Eliot! Please shut the door
Because modernism is so passe
The postmodern revolution is here to stay
In the house tonight because of Frank Lloyd Wright
The bass goes "boom!" like dynamite
"Yo, Wright was a Modernist!"
Yeah I know that, all right,
But you can't rhyme "Bob Venturi" with "Dynamite"

Ezra Pound can't stop me (I'm on fire tonight)
Virginia Woolf can't stop me (I'm on fire tonight)
E.E. Cummings can't stop me (I'm on fire tonight)
I've got postmodern game and it feels all right"


Now THAT, my friends, is hip-hop.

www.mclars.com

The Overwhelming Problem of Government

For the first two years of my education, I immersed myself in the social sciences, my first academic love. I took a few religion classes, some anthropology, lots of psychology and lots more psychology. But, as I've decided to move toward giving in and being a teacher like everyone else I know, and I can't teach psychology at the high school level, I realized I need to learn some history so I can teach that. And my adventures in history are making me face the one subject that makes my head blow off, my brain short-circuit and my stomach turn: government.

I have always avoided the subject because I hate things that have no correct answer. At least the social sciences provide multiple ways of looking at things, allowing one to choose the model that best suits the situation or person being studied. Therapy/pills either help or they don't. The question of right government is not quite so simple.

One of the many things that has come up in my study of government, from Hammurabi's Code three thousand years ago to Reagan's speaches about the free market, is the question of the proper governmental role in regulating business. Arch-conservatives espouse the free-market as the God-given miracle that will save the world and right all wrongs should it be given free reign. And the U.S.S.R. showed us that the opposite of this - total government control - is obviously flawed.

So where do we find the middle ground? I read one article, which I wish I could find now, written by a hard-core Republican about how the free-market would eliminate the need for minimum wage. His argument was that if one company paid poorly, the workers would go to another company, forcing the two companies to compete for higher wages. This is a nice idea until you realize that the rules of supply and demand do not apply to employment. Put a thousand workers in the community where the two companies together only offer five hundred jobs and the companies will start seeing how far they can lower wages. Business is for profit. Profit does not require morality or fair treatment of workers. It only requires that the customer be happy. As far as we are consumers, we can control certain things. But not every aspect of life is based on consumption. The idea that everything is governed by supply and demand may be capitalism's corresponding fallacy to Marxism's belief that class rules all. Both do have a lot to do with many aspects of life, but giving them too much weight is unrealistic if not dangerous.

I, for one, want the smallest government possible. Bureaucracy is a frightening thing that takes on a life of its own once created. That much most people can agree on. But at the same time, I think our society is greatly benefited by some government programs, for example, Health Inspection. This is a government body that "invades" the privacy of a private business and gives fines for doing things that it believes make people sick. This program is far from perfect, sometimes creates rules that are unnecessary, and cannot keep business from committing all violations. But I am willing to judge countries where chickens are beheaded on the floor in a puddle of festering blood as worse than countries that have health codes. The free market might make businesses that choose to be sanitary successful because their product would be improved, but it would not put out of business those who did not choose to be sanitary. On the contrary, the sanitary would raise their prices along with the quality of their goods and the unsanitary would be free to market to those who could not afford better: the poor.

So a complete free market is not the "answer" to the "government question." But we learned from FEMA that a poorly run burocracy poisons those it was meant to help and spends untold amounts of money doing it. Well-connected contracters made millions of dollars while people who lost everything had to get through tons of red tape just to get less money than they needed. And now they're being told to give it back because the bureaucracy didn't have the details worked out and classified them wrong.

And, while I lean toward wanting the smallest federal government possible, I have to reconcile this with the fact that I believe forced federal desegregation was an emensely positive force in American society. I truly believe that if the government had not forced it, it would not have happened in more than a few select places. But the way this was executed was often horrendous. For example, Boston bussing. One judge decided how it would work. Children from Southie were sent to Roxbury and vice versa. No one bothered West Roxbury. No one living on Beacon Hill had to worry about their children being sent far away. And the whole situation could have been dramatically improved if the proper form of government, the city's school board, had been working on the problem and laying plans for gradual change since Brown v. The Board of Education twenty years earlier. The concept of forced desegregation was entirely necessary but the government executed this in the worst possible manner.

So it seems to me we need to figure out what the bare minimum of government interference in private life is and make the government as efficient, useful and appropriate in decision making as possible. Which is nice and easy to say, but near impossible in practice. And the more I learn about the economy, different types of government and different views on the role of that government, the more overwhelming it is to figure out my own personal views of what is best. Add to this the need to implement these views and I wonder how anyone can make their mind up enough to get into politics at all.

Maybe I'll search the internet for some studies on rapid cycling bipolar disorder. It makes a whole lot more sense to me.