Olbermann on Prop. 8

All Humans are Equal but some Humans are more Equal than Others

Living in the Conservative Heartland of California is just a pain in the ass. There are no benefits except that it may keep you politically grounded, but if being grounded means listening to bigots talk all day then count me out. Southern California and especially Orange County has an ugly history of hate and intolerance. Look at our most recent historical developments: a wave of anti-immigrant, anti-mexican sentiment, and unrepentant zeal for an un-constitutional discriminatory bill that will treat people differently under the law. It makes me cringe, it makes sweat gather in my balled up fists.
I was reading The Economist a few days ago they had an article touching on the situation in California:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12522924

Many feelings ran through me during the read. Marve Perkins one of the speakers at the anti-gay rally in Los Angeles was said to conjure the apparition of Martin Luther King Jr. in one of his firery speeches. Why though? What did MLK have to say about discrimination in the 60's? Maybe the answers lie in Minnesota's public radio website:

' "I get livid when I hear about 'same sex marriage goes against the will of God,'" says Matthea Little Smith. "Well, black folks were chattel too, OK?"

Smith is an African American and a lesbian. She is also the daughter of Minnesota civil rights pioneer Matthew Little. Smith has six children and five grandchildren. She came out 20 years ago, after she and her husband divorced.

Smith supports gay marriage, even though she doesn't want to get married -- again. But she says gay marriage or civil unions are necessary for those same-sex couples who share property and children. Smith believes King would support that.

"Now's the time to make justice a reality to all of God's children," Smith says. "Now that's what Martin Luther King said. He didn't say, 'All of God's children who are not gay.' "

Well I guess that didn't make his stances more coherent. Corretta Scott King (widow of MLK) has stood up for the rights of Gays and Lesbians and has been open about her opposition to discriminatory bills. What puzzles me more about the speaker however is not that is evoking King....but that he is a black mormon. Mormonism has been an openly racist organization until the 1970's (now it's just a covertly racist one) Mormons didn't allow blacks to get obtain the priesthood in their church, and in their basic theological account of races it is the dark-skinned who have been cursed and marked for their sins, and the white (light-skinned) who are worthy of leadership and wealth. This is a clear demonstration of how the proponents of Prop. 8 have a lack of historical understanding. Perhaps Mr. perkins just forgot about the "curse of ham."

Mormons have had a huge hand in the funding and passing of Prop. 8. My Atheism has been dormant in political discussion for quite sometime (since it is usually always irrelevant) but the current constellation of events tempts me to bring it out. And I know I am not alone. This is why I am writing this blog. To address the same animosity building up in the left in regards towards religious folks. I've been seeing anti-christian posts, and anti-mormon posts, including ones that call for the church to no longer be tax exempt since it lobbied so heavily. (To refer to Section 501(c)(3) of US code title 26: , no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation)

This is just pointless banter, and as much as I would love to see the Mormon Church go down this is a distraction. A self-righteous self-assuring game that many who are "liberal" or radical do as a substituion for actual organizing. We need to organize around the principles of equality for all people. The Gay and Lesbian community don't care if the Mormon Church gets taxed or not. A Church paying taxes will not revoke Prop. 8 pressure from below will. Tens of thousands are taking to the streets in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. They are calling for equality, they are calling for justice, and they are calling for fair treatment and protection of all citizens. We've got to make this thing blow up like the French Revolution!

On a light not I would like to quote The Economist:

"Mr Perkins informed the crowd that gay marriage and tolerant school lessons are little more than “a recruiting process for homosexual behaviour”. Anybody who doubted the connection should take a look at Europe, where homosexuality is apparently rampant."

Was this in Hadith?

“Justice is balance.” began Ra’s al Ghul, standing above the nearly crushed-to-death Bruce Wayne. “You burned my house and left me for dead. Consider us even.” Though we all thirst for the justice Ra’s and the League of Shadows promises, the more clever among us understand the deeply reactionary politics that underlie them. You can label him a fascist, or enlightened despot, take your pick. I actually agree with most of his tenants, just not his methodology and political epistemology. Despite my minute disagreement(s), I subscribe to his definition of justice. If you agree with the sentiment of balance equated with justice, then perhaps you will understand my confusion in when it comes to Kurt Westergaard.

Kurt Westergaard is the infamous Danish cartoonist who not only drew criticism for his illustration of the Prophet Mohammad, but assassination attempts. It is well known that nearly every right-wing party or organization in Europe has lauded and laughed at the cartoon depicting Mohammed with a lit bomb in his turban. Perhaps this is to the artist’s dismay. It can also be assumed that racist organizations have supported the cartoon and its re-prints. There is no question that the Western media has played this up as “irrational Islam” against “modest, objective free speech.” No mainstream media outlet has broken off from this sentiment, not even the liberal ones-which should be to no surprise of any cynic, critic, or left-opponent of the “War on Terror.”

On the other side of this, liberal, and radical critics have not viewed this as a simple matter of free speech versus rabid, radical Islamism. They see it as another way the uncritical media has supplanted right-wing and even racist rhetoric attacking Islam. When you see dubious anchors on CNN and FOX criticizing the reaction of Danish Imams, and Iranians Clerics you can only shake your head at the bigoted comments. When you see the same credulous news people talk about the virtues of liberty of freedom of speech, you can only cringe at their insincerity, because we are all aware of how much they have had a hand in suppressing/skewing information. The left could never side with such charlatans. However the basis of the left’s criticism is not so much empirical as it is ideological-an assurance and buffer against potentially pro-war commentary.

Any leftist, progressive or authentic humanitarian should disagree with the simple-minded, Anglo-centric analysis made by numerous pundits. But I argue that what has been put in its place is equally as useless, and in fact supplants something just as ill tempered. So says the Socialist worker in an article titled “Why Muslims are right to be Angry”:

THE PUBLICATION of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was a calculated racist provocation in a country where Muslim immigrants are increasingly under attack. The outrage expressed in demonstrations across the Muslim world is entirely justified.

Let us examine what is justified in this statement. Yes it is true that Muslims have been increasingly attacked culturally and socially all over the world over the years. There is no question regarding that. However was this really a calculated propaganda spree? I tend this disagree. And though you may ask yourself, “Why does it matter whether it was calculated or incidental racism?” I’ll explain later why. The Socialist Worker article goes on with a sweeping account of all the ills suffered by the global Muslim community, which there are many far too gruesome for me to even pretend that I can imagine. It discusses the rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Western Europe, and the empty apologies of Danish politicians and publishers, as well as the racist laws being put in place by equally racist groups such as the People’s Party of Denmark.

It’s been two years since the series of pictures were published in the blank Jyllands-Posten and still over two years later there are political aftershocks. Let us look at the current situation. Kurt Westergaard is being summoned by the Jordanian government to be tried for “blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed” and “sowing religious and sectarian discord.” Since when does the Jordanian dictatorship have jurisdiction over Denmark’s media and distribution? Since when does the Hashemite Jordanian monarchy give a damn about its impoverished people and their beliefs? More importantly why does a cartoonist have to explain his actions to another country? I can understand a civil explanation being asked of, but not one that has the weight of court systems, and the repercussions of jail time. Westergaard has done some incidental explaining though. When an obviously racist, culturalist, propaganda movie called Fitna came into production Westergaard reacted swiftly,

I complained publicly that he had abused my cartoon in his film. So we agreed that he pay me a kind of compensation, and he has removed the cartoon from the movie. I have no problems with him, but I don’t share his view.

When talking about sowing the seeds of discord maybe certain individuals should explain the burning of Dutch flags in Jordan. Did Westergaard burn Jordanian flags, did he criticize the faith of Jordanians? His illustration criticized those nihilistic individuals who have usurped Islam and its messages for the use of political terrorism.

Which he explained, was his original intentions. He has stated numerous times that he respects Islam. Kurt Westergaard most likely does not agree with me and my views regarding Hezbollah being a legitimate liberation army, or perhaps even worse he does not have empathy for the Palestinian struggle(s) and Hamas. But the actions taken against him are inexcusable and worst of all are politically fueling/inviting more Western oppression. (And yes I know economics are the driving forces of U.S.-Middle East military strategies but these actions fuel the rhetoric that legitimizes it.)

"We are so unhappy about the cartoon being reprinted," said Imam Mostafa Chendid, head of the Islamic Faith Community. "[But] no blood was ever shed in Denmark because of this, and no blood will be shed. We are trying to calm people down, but let's see what happens. Let's open a dialogue." The Islamic Faith Community had led the protests in Copenhagen in 2006

What Imam Mostafa Chendid is suggesting is the only rational reaction to Westergaard’s action. Why isn’t the majority of the left advocating a dialogue between the angry clerics and the perpetrators of blasphemies? I do not know the answer.

In February of this year Westergaard age 73 and his wife became homeless. This was due to the fact that the security forces watching over him considered him too much of a "risk." They were considered a security “risk.” If an Islamist leader or Muslim cleric advocates violence in self-defense against imperialism, or racist apartheids than we should enthusiastically support them. But when the charlatans (many if not all of the Ayatollahs in Iran are) are advocating the death of a cartoonist I think that’s when you need to stop listening. I think there should be a much more critical look at the overall Islamist scene when talking about the “Muslim” reaction to cultural phenomena. Many Islamist movements are totally reactionary, and the worst are completely counter-revolutionary i.e. Wahabbis, Taliban, al Queda, al Sadr. Organic struggle must be viewed as distinct from this other rubbish, and justified actions must be distinguished from unjustified reactions. Just because Muslims and Arabs have millions of political reasons to be infuriated does not justify what has happened or can happen to a petty cartoonist.

There is unbalance here due not to concrete realities but to idealized situations. There have been too many over-politicized and inflated reactions to a politically moderate cartoon. Westergaard seems sincere when he explains his intentions of depicting Islam as being usurped by a minority while the majority suffers. His life is being threatened on a near daily basis yet he refuses to apologize, why? I can only conclude that he believes in what he is saying. The left should not applaud all actions taken up by all Islamist movements, and should not always support all the actions of all Islamist groups. But it seems that I’m being a nit-picking critic, and I should be less sectarian. But can we not ask the same of our comrades in the Middle East? Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah the leader of Hezbollah urged his community and other countries to protest but immediately withdrew his enthusiasm when things became violent. He quickly called them off when the situation turned ugly with burning of the Dutch embassy. Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of the Shia in Lebanon followed suit with a fatwa banning attacks against private property and Western embassies. Even Nasrallah knows it’s a little too early to suppress counter-revolutionaries; we’re not quite at that stage yet.

(POST DISCALIMER: I do not claim to be an Islamist Movement scholar, nor do I pretend to fully understand all Islamist politics and history. I have a fractured understanding of the Middle East at best, my only excuse is that for the past 60 years the Middle East has become the most complicated political environment in modern history, and I am trying my best. Therefore I welcome anyone to enlighten me on the subject at any level. However I am firm in my stance in regards to Westergaard and his “detractors.”)

Backward is the new Forward

Haven't you heard? Backward is the new Forward. I don't mean it as a simple dualism, a contention between opposites. I mean it literally, in terms of linear direction. Conservatives are always calling for a simpler time, (the outright racist, brutally oppressive good ol’ days) Vegans are calling for the abolishment of civilization, (to a time when we killed each other for food and ate raw meat) and so on and so fourth. Progress according to these folk is a path walked backwards. It seems that the elite, trendy, en vogue, and all around arrogant assholes of high school and college have followed suit in regards to this logic, taking huge leaps backwards in the social caste system, while dressing it up as some cutting edge, hip bullshit.

Let's break away for a moment and put on some mini-skirts, three shades of eye shadow, boil some cough-syrup, and listen to music that has 155 BPM. Yes, I know what I'm describing does sound a lot like a typical broadcast of C-SPAN, but in fact I was trying to describe a rave. What the fuck is up with raves, and more importantly when the fuck did they become cool? It is a mystery that has eluded me for days. Don't you recall a time when listening to Trance was a mark of indescribable loserdom? Even that kid who wore math equation shirts knew to stay away from that shit. Obnoxiously flared pant legs, K-Swiss shoes, a metal link necklace, and the worst haircut you can possibly imagine. The same kids who watched Gundam Wing, Dragonball Z, Cowboy Beebop, and instead of watching porn involving three dimensional people they fucking watched Hentai. (By the way there is nothing wrong with watching anime, as long as there is a good story line, you have girlfriend, and you don't dress like the characters in real life.)

Back then Ja Rule was more widely accepted, and I tremble to think what would happen if history repeats itself in that regard. Ja Rule > Raves. Think about it. If I were a rave I'd be embarrassed. So my question is this: When did the attractive, elite, trendy, hipster and wealthy kids decide to go to raves? Why did this happen? When did this happen? This isn't based on some personal beef I have with either the trend-setters, or the pimple-faced ravers of old, it's rooted in complete confusion. Did alcohol not do it for them after a while? We all know they have had access to pot, cocaine, and the like, even E. There have always been clubs to go to even if you were under 21. So why was the transition necessary? Why did they adopt the customs of their social opposites/enemies? It goes against the very nature of the social hierarchy, I cannot even cite another time in history this has happened. Did the Egyptians start adopting the customs of their slaves after a couple of years? Did Queen Victoria Empress of India start to heed Prince Siddartha’s writings? Perhaps the Egyptians and Victoria’s predecessors eventually did. But it had to be over a great length of time. These Broseph Stalins, and their female counter-parts took no longer than 5 years to fully monopolize this former dork activity. No assimilation, no gentle subjugation, no soothing rhetoric, just utter piracy.

See it happened so quick that when confronted with it on myspace (thousands of images, of tweaked out girls scantily dressed, along with dim-witted sweaty smiling boys, under beating the pulsating neon lights ) I didn’t even question it! I was like oh, whatever that’s been going on for a while. . .wait what the balls, that’s Alice Deejay and Ferry Costen, when did this happen? My only coherent answer would refer to Amilcar Cabral’s theory of “class suicide.” Actually I’m just kidding that makes no sense at all. Perhaps it was boredom born out of immense abundance, maybe it was a conspiracy designed by house music producers looking to expand their market. Maybe there is some secret agreement between former Ranma ½ viewers, and guys who wear Affliction shirts, I just don’t know!

Whatever the source of this transition is, it is a dangerous force with numerous terrible implications. This is tampering with the very nature of things, the fabric of the universe. What if the elite group of kids move on to something else heralded by outcasts as sacred? What if they start to read comics? What if they start participating in study groups? What if they start watching Akira and liking it? The nerd underclass will be forced to rebel, and then things will get really ugly. I don’t really have a strong feeling of empathy in either party’s case. Nerds for the most part fucking suck and are usually extremely conservative, and the same can be said of the jocks who beat their ass in high school. Don’t get me wrong there are some really awesome nerds, but they usually are associated with the punk scene. Like Marx said in the manifesto,

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

I’m voting for the second option.

I'm a bit more sever than I used to be.

I've started a blog. I don't know if that's obvious yet.
I've decided to add my two cents on movies, books, music...and occasionally politics.
Hopefully it'll replace jacking off as your favorite past time.