Screaming Radio

When did the left become so loud?

I have been listening to liberal radio for a long time, and have had a few people I liked a lot, and some not so much.

For a long time my faves were:

• Stephanie Miller
• Rachel Maddow
• Thom Hartman

• Randi Rhodes
• Ed Shultz

Things have changed.

First...

Stephanie Miller and her mooks (Jim Ward and Chris Lavoi) are wonderful, great fun and irreverent, and have some perspectives I wouldn't necessarily pick up on. Also, hey, they DON'T SCREAM at callers or at me. They and coffee in the morning get me going.

Rachel Maddow is simply stunning in every way. Intelligent, biting, funny, insightful, and she doesn't back down. She *also* DOESN'T SCREAM.

Thom Hartman has a wealth of knowledge, acknowledges people's points, interviews both right and left people, and seems to respect others. I infer this because he DOESN'T SCREAM either.

The last two?

Ed Shultz: I used to like his approach because I felt he was balanced, would listen to people, would give credit when others had a point even if he didn't agree. I agreed with much of what he had to say.

However, sometime in the last few months he seems to have gone off some personal, internal deep end and now thinks it's acceptable to SCREAM at his callers and belittle them and shout his own opinion over theirs.
Lost me as a listener.

Randi Rhodes: Took me a while to warm up to her. Originally I thought she was overbearing and rude. Then, she either calmed down or I learned to appreciate her - and I still think she's incredibly smart and has a lot of good things to say, and some great insights. When she was in New York with Air America she was pretty aggressive and loud with callers, and belittled them, and I didn't like it then and had stopped listening. After a short time on some Florida network and then on into a new venue, she calmed down and I listened a lot.

However somehow again lately she has begun belittling callers again, and has started REALLY yelling. Often she doesn't seem to get the nuances of what people are trying to say, which surprises me; she used to be better at seeing between the lines and behind the words. Case in point: this morning, talking with a poli-sci professor (so presumably he knows more than she does about his particular area of focus/interest) she yelled at him about why he was wrong about the news. He was trying to make the point that we turn on the TV to look for those people and venues (that we interpret as news) that will reinforce out own perception of the way the world works. She locked onto the fact that people don't understand what "news" is, and totally missed his point. His answer there, had she not yelled at him, might have been 'you're right, but that's not my point... let's say people think they're turning on the news... regardless of whether that's true, that's another subject. They think it's news, and they turn on that which reinforces their already held beliefs.' She would, likely, AGREE with that, but never got there because she SCREAMED over him.

When a person loses enough track of his/her own (un)importance or (lack of) wealth of knowledge about a subject enough to not acknowledge that someone else actually might know more than he or she does, and then SCREAMS over that person... sorry, Lost me as a listener.

Mike Meloy is as obnoxious as Glenn Back.
And Rush is unspeakably... well, words fail me.

That's all I have to say about screaming radio.

Interrogations - Coco Fusco and a call to arms

A Field Guide for Female Interrogators

Coco Fusco

A review, sort of:

Coco Fusco’s A Field Guide was oddly powerful. Short, only 142 pages long, with large type, it took me less than an hour to read. Yet, I wouldn’t call it an easy book. It hits home in a number of ways – asking, in essence, that we confront our understandings of, and admit our biases and stereotypes about, women, war, torture, and fear to name just a few of the things she covers.

I found myself taking notes on almost every page. Not just about my project on the Hercules Teams in NYC but about the importance of thinking about how our accepted cultural norms are embedded so deeply that even those of us who consider ourselves feminists, even those of us who (think we) oppose(d) the War on Terror and all it entails, and even those of us who were horrified and sickened by the (fraction of the total number of) abuses revealed in Iraq, are in many ways complicit with the very actions we (conceptually) abhor.

Fusco starts with her own reactions to the photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and follows those reactions through to a rather despairing conclusion: that at least in the military, feminism seems to have devolved into a simple equation: equality = act just like a man. And that includes perpetrating violence in a number of arenas – particularly in interrogation rooms.

In order to understand interrogation techniques so she can hope to understand why women seem to be participating without qualm, Fusco and a group of women academics attend an interrogation school. While she learns a lot, she doesn’t seem to learn quite what she’d hoped to; she was looking for the why, and she got the how. Still, she successfully gives us a sense of the setting, and the possibility for understanding how sexuality and vulnerability come into play in the wielding of power.

Fusco’s continued use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ to refer to women bothered me at first. In essence this phrasing pulls all women into her point of view, and assumes that our perceptions and reactions will be the same as hers – because we are women. Cultural theorists and feminists have spent a great many years taking this notion apart. “Women” is not ‘a group’ defined by any characteristics that cross all the boundaries, and cannot be understood as such. Eventually I realized that Fusco does this on purpose. ‘We’ are indeed who she speaks for – maybe women, maybe Americans, maybe Westerners, maybe the readers of her book. Whoever ‘we’ are, she is part of us.

This is based on the same argument as her exploration of the source of our shock when we find out that women have participated voluntarily in strategic aggression: power plays with fellow soldiers, and harsh and violent interrogation techniques. Her argument is that our shock at finding out that women participated in the abuses in Abu Graib, and that female soldiers in fact (appear to) use their femininity as power, is unfounded because it is based on American society’s belief in a false collective female ethical or moral high ground based on our history as oppressed victims. In other words: we believe women wouldn’t really participate in torture because they / we are somehow not wired that way; they / we are ethically / morally unable to use power in that manner.

I felt the same resistance to her use of the initials US (without the periods, as in U.S.) to refer to the United States). The United States became US became us, became me. Her use of language made me part of the problem.

And yet, that indeed is her entire point. I am complicit. Her book is a call to arms, really, and a challenge. Do ‘we’ sit back and continue to rationalize this War on Terror and the abuses it is perpetrating on hundreds of thousands of people away by ignoring it, by assuming that our protests of its inception were enough, by feeling horrified? Or do we step up?

At least, that’s what I took from it. And my answer is that I step up.

Obama Reads??

I received an email the other day about Obama's reading habits. As it turns out, at least with this one book, his reading habits are exactly mine: The Post American World by Fareed Zakaria.

Zakaria, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born in India to Muslim parents, and attended a private school in India through Grade 12 that is one of the best in Mumbai. He has been called a conservative, a centrist, and a liberal, and is know for actually paying attention to what’s going on in the world and thinking through issues. He does not identify himself based on party lines or issues, but on logic.

He has a BA from Yale where he was president of the Yale Political Union, and a PhD from Harvard where he directed a research project on American foreign policy. He is currently editor of Newsweek International, has written for the NY Times, Wall Street Journal and others, and hosts CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS.

So he’s kinda smart, and has a lot of insight into the world, and his books are well-received by the international political and foreign affairs communities.

The fact that our president is reading his book heartens me. Unlike Bush, who didn’t crack a book and as a result had no clue about anything other than… well, had no clue, Obama actually thinks, and wants to be well-informed, and takes others’ opinions and ideas, and consults experts. Zakaria is one such expert.

But do you know what was appended to this photo? This text:

“The name of the book Obama is reading is called The Post-American World, written by a fellow muslim. Post-America – The world After America ??? Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal to expose Obama's radical ideas and intent for this country!”

So the issues here are legion but I’ll focus only on three.

First, Post American does NOT mean after America, and anyone who reads and believes THAT simply does not understand post-anything in cultural terms. Those people are going to be starting from a foundation that is false; they will therefore come to false conclusions.

Second, this book will not have been read by most people who will be horrified by the photo, and who will believe the implied message in the accompanying text. See above paragraph for false assumptions and false conclusions.

And third, reading a book does not intent prove. Reading Alice in Wonderland does not prove the reader will go eat mushrooms. Reading the Bible does not prove the reader will not commit adultery, steal money from his constituents, or get divorced. Reading Bukowski does not mean one is an alcoholic. And reading a book written by a Muslim does not a Muslim make. (And even if it DID, that is another entire issue for another post - Muslim does not equal bad, evil, wrong, monster, and those who would believe THAT are a whole other problem inherent in this post-9/11 world... and that isn't even addressing the fact that that belief about Muslims has existed for centuries. Again, another post.)

I am incensed and stymied by the masses of America. Are they (yes, ‘they’ – I refuse to be lumped in with them) REALLY this stupid? Are the masses of people really this uneducated, really this gullible, and really this ready to believe the worst of President Obama? Can this implied threat truly be credible to anyone?

I can only shake my head and forge on, and hope that, possibly, the next generation won’t be afraid of becoming educated, and won’t spend their lives wallowing in ignorance and fear.

I Don't Want Equal Rights

I am a woman who has benefited immeasurably in my life from the actions and bravery of women before me who fought oppression, who stood up for themselves and declared their rights and abilities to do whatever the hell they chose to do. I have studied the lives of Gertrude Bell, Alexandra David-Neel, Harriet Tubman, Margaret Sanger, Arundhati Roy…. and women pirates for that matter. I get that women have had to fight damn hard for their rightful place as equal in all things.

As a result of those women’s actions (and hundreds more women through the ages), I have never felt constrained by the ‘limits’ of being female; it never occurred to me to question whether I could do something. I ran a printing press for years, long before many women were in that field. I traveled alone for most of my life – across the country and across the world. I worked as a horseback guide into the wilderness areas of the Sangre de Cristo mountains, and was a working ‘cowboy’ – the only woman among many men – on a working ranch in Texas.

So I get it.

Women can do whatever they want.

I agree, and think they should not only ‘be allowed to’ do whatever they want, but should just DO whatever they want, without assuming they need anyone’s permission to do it.

Today I opened the New York Times and on the front page was met with this headline: “G.I. Jane Stealthily Breaks the Combat Barrier.”

The article is a long one. Essentially the gist of it is… women are now going into battle with ever more frequency in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are working hard and earning the respect (another issue, one I’ll save for another post… why is it assumed women have to earn the respect of men in some kind of different way than men would??) of those they go into battle with. And they are getting shot at, and they are shooting back.

I don’t believe battle is innately against women’s nature, I don’t believe women should be or are any more suited for taking care instead of taking lives, and I don’t think there is some essential womanhood-ness these women soldiers are betraying. Identity is fraught with problems and pitfalls, and I don’t presume to believe women “shouldn’t” go into battle if that’s what they want. I even understand the impetus behind wanting maybe to ‘defend my country’ (if I believed that killing people in Afghanistan qualified as that), or help others (if I believed that killing people in Afghanistan qualified).

What makes me shudder is that war has become (no… there is no becoming in war, it has always been, on some level and to some people) an acceptable part of life on earth. We mouth the words ‘peace on earth/goodwill toward MEN,’ we prattle on about how sad but necessary it is that the U.S. must ‘help’ others less-aware/able/advanced to reach (our version of some kind of acceptable) democratic government, and we talk peace while hiding behind our country’s status as the most powerful – and a very aggressive – nation on earth. It’s easy to subscribe to the rhetoric of peace when you’ve got a big stick to enforce it.

And into this milieu of war-as-necessary, homeland-in-need-of-defense (i.e., running around the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq), women have thrust themselves, searching for yet another barrier to break. (For the sake of my argument, I’ll ignore the fact that this barrier has been broken for centuries; women have been warriors in many cultures throughout history – check out Boudicca for one early example.)

I don’t make light of these women’s service. I never make light of the service of soldiers – they are, for good or ill, for right or wrong, in a literal line of fire for what they believe. This takes courage. I get that too.

And, still, I read this article with a sick feeling in my stomach. History, women’s rights, and equality aside, it comes down to one thing: Essentially, women have earned the (equal) right to kill. Yay for them.

For you see, I don't want this right. I refuse to claim it. In this area of 'women's rights' I refuse to step up.

No Pictures Please

Recently I read in a New York Times article that photojournalists are not being allowed to photograph - and certainly not allowed to print anything they do manage to get - anything the U.S. government deems too... shall we say, too real. The story was about a photographer not allowed anymore to even be near 'sensitive' areas in Iraq; from what I can tell, this is standard procedure.

I won't even discuss freedom of speech, freedom of information, censorship or the rest. That is certainly an issue but one (or many) I'll leave to others. For now I just want to focus on the basic concept that because of this sanitizing of the photos we see here in the U.S., many people still believe what we're doing over there is a good thing.

For the sake of this post I'll stay away from the actual politics and not talk about whether we have a right to be there, whether we should be leaving now or later, what lies were told to get us there in the first place, and I'll, again, focus on photos.

Anyone not an idiot has been sure to notice the lack of images of war in the news - we don't see the blood, the gore, the body parts. We don't see Americans dying. We hear cold numbers - 4,000. Four thousand and more dead in a war... and we see none of it?

We don't see Iraqis dying. The numbers here range from 10,000 - 100,000 depending on who you listen to - at its lowest, it's more than double the Americans who died.

And no matter who it is, we see no pictures. We don't see the screaming children covered in blood, the broken faces of mothers and fathers who have lost their sons or daughters in errant firefights, mistaken identity, stray bullets, or a suicide bomb. We don't see the shattered shops or homes. We don't get before and after images that shows us that Baghdad wasn't a backwater slum to begin with. This we don't see because it would make us monsters.

We don't see the destruction on the face of a young soldier who has just had to kill a man, who has seen his comrades die at his side, who has to live his life facing the fact that he is responsible for the deaths of tens, of hundreds of people. This we don't see because it would make us ask 'is it worth it?'

We don't see dead soldiers. At least, we don't see dead American soldiers. These we don't see because it would make it too real.

When we do see dead soldiers, they are nameless Iraqis. These we get to see because they are, after all, not us. They are 'other,' they are enemy.

Ultimately, we don't see this war. We get excuses: showing photographs of the dead will hurt the families; it will dishonor the dead; it is not the point.

Actually, it is the only point.
If Americans could actually see - in living, bloody color - what war does to people, they might think twice (or four times, or eight) about sending young men and women out to kill others.
If Americans could see - in living, bloody color - what death really looks like, they'd be a lot less likely to vote into office another man who would jump at the chance to attack, who believes war is inevitable.
And if Americans were actually allowed to see - in living, bloody color - what war truly IS, they would, I think, work harder to figure out how not to destroy lives in this way again.

As it is, we open the paper and see words on the page: another soldier died in Kirkuk, another suicide bomber killed 10 or 20 or 40; another house was mistakenly bombed and 5 children killed. These words might begin to tell a story, but for us to truly understand, we need to see it.

We need to see what we bring into the world. We need to see what our actions do. For if we cannot see - in living, bloody color - what five children killed really looks like, then that is the tragedy. That is the dishonor. And that is the path to yet more and more - and more - dead children.

I say let the photographers in, let them make their own choices about what is fit for us to see. It's easy. If you don't want to see what this war is, what it does, what we do - then don't look.

It is always our choice to turn away and to choose what not to see.

Globalization and Starbucks

You know... I have to say that I am of mixed feelings about the concept of Globalization.

I agree 100% that the destruction of cultures in the name of progess is reprehensible. Western culture is particularly insidious; it is seen by many as the 'civilized' world, and many countries want to not only emulate but also participate in Western culture... opening the doors for the horrifying spectre of a McDonald's in Piazza Rotunda last year. I am frightened that the merging of cultures (really, the encroaching of Western ideas on the rest of the world) might result in the disappearance of local cultures everywhere. (I'm not convinced this is inevitable but for the sake of argument I can state vehemently that if it happened, this would be tragic.)

However, if the concept of Globalization is understood as an opening of communication, a sharing of ideas and concepts and/or a breakdown of stereotypes and misunderstandings throughout the world, with easier access to others' cultures and ideas... and if it all is approached with care, then I applaud it.

As with the advent of any new thing, it is the application of the technology or concept that matters, not the thing itself. Arguments could be made for the good and bad in almost every concept or invention throughout history -- from the big giant stick that could be used both as a weapon to beat one's neighbor or as an oar to row a boat, to nuclear power which has the potential to destroy us all, or power entire countries -- and Globalization is just as potentially terrifying, and potentially wonderous.

Bottom line... I dread the day Starbucks worms its way into Rome (though at home I visit it three times a week or more), and I hope countries worldwide don't get caught up in the game of trying to "keep up" by installing Western versions of all things in their cities and their lives. The danger lies in the potential for destruction of cultures around the globe.

On the other hand, I have faith that people will hold to their senses of identity (another slippery concept) and will still be Italians, still be Turkish, still be Germans, whether drinking a glass of wine or eating an order of fries.

I hope.....

New Directions

I've been writing on various slips of paper for a number of years the following goals:

• Travel, Write and Teach
  
• Run writing retreats in Italy
• Learn Middle Eastern Dance
• Speak Italian
• Travel in Turkey
• Write movies
• Write books
  

All of which seemed normal and doable - and so, I did them. And continue to do them. But there was this other goal...

• Be Peter Bergen... wait, what?
  

Obviously I don't want to really be Peter Bergen - that would be silly, and impossible. What I want is to do what he does, or what I imagine he does based on reading his books and hearing him speak.

To that end I finally applied for and was accepted into a PhD program at the University of New Mexico to study... cultural theory, terrorism - the history, the mindset, the groups, the way they shift and eventually become entities other nations will deal with - and how 'othering' is accomplished through word and image in media, and what are its inevitable results. What I intend to do with this degree is write about, teach, and become an expert on those subjects. (See, there's the tie to Peter Bergen - tenuous as it is. I'll be an expert on terrorism in the Middle East, an expert on othering, and will theoretically be called by CNN or other news orgs to give my two-cents worth. Would love to be interviewed on Foreign Exchange, too, once I actually have something to say.)

I set up this blog spot specifically to have a space for my thoughts on various political and cultural issues as they came to me. I subsequently wrote nothing in it for a year.

I'm back. The PhD program will provide me with not only a place to learn and explore new concepts and ideas, but will generate a ton of new thoughts about the world we live in, the way it's shaping up and breaking down, and how it seems to be moving inevitably toward... well, maybe the only thing that's inevitable is the future. We'll see how it works out.

I'm excited that we'll see the first black American president in three months, and I'm apprehensive and hopeful both about the way the world is moving. Peace talks seem to be replacing bombs in some areas of the Middle East; and on the streets of Afghanistan, women still can't show their faces.

Paradox.
It's at the center where we'll find the truth.

Until next time....