moment of zen

For that moment, that one, solitary moment, he could forget. Forget about the war. The lies. The inept Attorney General and the quite-possibly-Devil-incarnate Veep. The 30% approval rating and clearing brush on the ranch. He could feel the rhythm, lose himself in the chants. And he could, for that one moment, live.

Labels: drums, escape

  ¶ 12:30 PM 2 comments

  What can we do? In response to the two previous entries (and ensuing comments) Anonymous said (bolding is mine):

Dearest Cicero,
While I completely agree with your point (and it is one that Rosie O’Donnell makes several times a week on The View), I have to present the other side as I see it. Yes, the media makes money with the art of distraction. However, Americans in general, have so many venues to choose from to receive their news: newspapers, magazines and tv programs that span the entire political spectrum, npr, endless websites, your blog. And while all of these are skewed, we have the basic option to choose what we want to read and when. And sometimes we just like to be distracted with Anna Nicole’s baby daddy because there is nothing we can do about the 4 year mess in Iraq. It’s not pleasant feeling so defeated all the time. I do admire your belief in achieving something better though, and if you have suggestions as to how the everyday citizen can help tackle mountains, please tell us.

J-lo responded:

I'd like to quickly comment on what anonymous had posted regarding the unpleasantness of feeling defeated. It is true that most of us may indeed feel defeated after the precarious situation our beloved president has entered us in, however, as Americans we can do something. There is a great quote by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr that states "The Greatest sin of our time is not the few who have destroyed, but the majority who have sat idly by." This is the case in point for most Americans who prefer to watch the next episode of twisted shows like 24 than take to the streets, join groups like MoveOn.org, send a heated letter to their representative, or simply vote. As Americans we've forgotten the power of voice and action. It's necessary that we demand action on the part of those politicians who claim they represent the public. Educate and speak your mind - teach your neighbor about the realities of Iraq and that 233 people dead in a single day is not a sign of success, but rather pandemonium - hell on Earth. Every little thing we do as activists, voters, citizens, does have an impact whether we believe it or not. We need to quit feeling defeated by a government that thrives on their ability to curb our civil liberties!

I understand where Anonymous is coming from. Sometimes it all becomes overwhelming. Many times, in fact, I can't even blog about things because I'm so frustrated and feel like I'm shouting into a black hole. But, as he or she mentions, there are plenty of media outlets for us to choose from - so how can it be a problem?

It is a problem because a singular media narrative seems to penetrate all of those different options. Take, for example, the lead up to the Iraq war. In the shadow of 9/11, the media just embraced Bush, his concept of an Axis of Evil, and the totally fabricated notion of Iraq posing some sort of imminent, Al Qaeda-linked threat to the United States. Over 80% of the American public bought this, because every single media outlet was selling it, and there was very little dissent. All of those scary graphics showing radical Islamist fighters running through obstacle courses and Saddam Hussein firing off a rifle made for good ratings, after all.

The point is then: what is variety when there is no diversity contained within it? This, in turn, brings me to J-lo's point, and his reference to MLK Jr. We cannot sit on our hands here and just say, "Oh well, it's the only thing on TV, so I'm gonna watch it." We have to be proactive. Action is as simple as speaking up, loudly and clearly, within your own group of friends. Action is going door to door as part of an organized voter education campaign (if you've never tried it, you'd be surprised at how easy and fun it is, and how many interesting people you'll meet along the way). Action is also being aware of the economics of media: don't be afraid to contact advertisers and let them know what you think about them associating themselves with certain networks or shows.

Above and beyond everything else, don't be afraid. Don't be afraid that you might step on someone's toes, or get yourself into a debate that might lead to some heated moments. It's your country too, and no matter the forum, you have a voice.

Labels: action

  ¶ 8:30 AM 3 comments

  The Sun never sets on tragedy While Americans (and our loving media) continue to allow the killer to play out his fantasy by endlessly obsessing over him and his massacre, the rest of the world falls father from our radar. The obsession is no surprise of course; the killer himself anticipated it in developing his fantasy and in executing his plan. In fact, he cared so much about the media exposure that he paused his killing spree to head to the Post Office so that he himself could mail his own personal media kit to NBC. Death is news, after all, and damned if he wasn't gonna cut out the middleman.

32 people killed anywhere at anytime is certainly a tragedy. Luckily for Americans it is a tragedy that does not befall us with any great frequency. Can you imagine if such a massacre were to occur every day for years and years? Resulting in thousands, then tens of thousands, and maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed while undertaking innocent pursuits like shopping, working, and even studying? In a country like that, a boy like Cho wouldn't be news at all. Lucky for Cho, then, that he wasn't from Iraq.

Yes, as America went about developing its latest tragic obsession today, more Iraqis died. 233, as a matter of fact. 183 in Baghdad alone, a city in which we have been told we need invest only a bit more blood in order to surge our way to victory. There, 32 is nothing. And our own troops? Our own young men and woman who did not happen to find themselves in a college classroom, but instead on the dusty streets of a city whose residents they did not know? They are dying, too:

From October 2006 through last month, 532 American soldiers were killed, the most during any six-month period of the war. March also marked the first time that the U.S. military suffered four straight months of 80 or more fatalities. April, with at least 58 service members killed through Monday, is on pace to be one of the deadliest months for American forces.

While the media continues to throw THE GREATEST MASSACRE IN AMERICAN HISTORY up on it's blinking flashing scrolling headline bars (making plenty of ad dollars in the process), we should be sad. We should be outraged that such a killing spree was able to happen, that so many innocents died. Outraged that so many students will never be able to realize their dreams, and outraged that even more students will never be able to learn from the several brilliant professors who were also slaughtered. However, we should not forget. We should not lose perspective. Death in Iraq may be far less surprising than death in Virginia, but it does not mean that it should be any less subject to our outrage nor to our demands that it must stop.

Labels: iraq, outrage, virginia

  ¶ 9:52 PM 3 comments

  On Virginia, and blame Longtime Cicero Jones reader, frequent comment, and sometimes contributor Chosun has been kind enough to provide us with some thoughts on the tragic crimes against humanity committed on the Virginia Tech campus. As a Korean-American (like the killer), Chosun offers a unique perspective.

From Chosun:

We’ve all heard about the killings in Virginia Tech by now, which is undoubtedly a horrible and horrific incident. Interestingly enough, Cicero sent me an article which had a comment that I found to be very disturbing. The subheading states, “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history” and has a picture of the first victim of the shooting—eighteen-year-old Emily Jane Hilscher. Disgusted by this subheading, I immediately posted a comment about how ridiculous and thoughtless this subtitle is. Apparently, I wasn’t alone in feeling this way—there are currently 379 comments slamming the article for this as well.

Oddly enough, only about 10 minutes before reading this article, I had been contacted by a Korean friend of mine (I am Korean) in NYC who warned me that a Korean Association in NYC had been contacted by the Korean Consulate’s office warning that Koreans (and Asians in general) should be careful in case of retaliations. I took it as a big joke and nothing to worry about, and Cicero and I even joked about how stupid people would have to be to try to “retaliate” against Koreans. It was right around this point when Cicero said something that made me consider this a little more seriously—he said something like, “wait until Fox News has a headline like, ‘South Korea: the source of the crazed gunman.’” I’m wondering if a headline like this would cause retaliations from people (especially in VA) against Koreans. Likewise, is it possible that Emily Jane Hilscher’s family will suffer from attacks from the families of the other victims/friends as a result of this article?

These thoughts have made me want to pose a question to my fellow Cicero Jones readers: What safeguards are there that some media outlets wouldn’t be so attention-starved and/or careless to say something completely ridiculous as “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history”? Should journalists, reporters, and/or companies be held personally liable for crimes committed as a result of careless/sensational reporting tactics?

On a side note, two plays written by Cho Seung Hui can be found here and here. They show how disturbed he actually was.

Labels: blame, virginia, what's next from fox

  ¶ 8:51 AM 4 comments

  Bagel to Go by: J-lo
Honestly can you think of a better way to reuse a cd container than this:

I encourage you all to utilize that aging cd container next time you contemplate bringing a toasted bagel and pastrami sandwich to work. Who knows, maybe you'll see Starbucks start a new hip movement with old garbage!

Furthermore, for those concerned about toxic plastics - no worries since cd spindles are made from the same plastic used in food containers meaning no vinyl or other toxins!

Labels: Bagels, Reduce Reuse Recycle

  ¶ 9:21 PM 1 comments

  Coffee as pretext Buried in this Slate article, about the explosion of the green tea phenomenon, is this gem:

The unappreciated business genius of Starbucks is not charging $4 for a latte but rather giving adults permission to drink milkshakes, on the pretext that they are merely tea or coffee.

Amen.

Labels: 8 am dessert, Starbucks

  ¶ 11:54 AM 0 comments

  Respek!

To The Nancies Pelosi!

Courtesy of Phoenix Woman over at Daily Kos. Her text in it's entirety follows:

Labels: nancy pelosi: whatta broad, syria

  ¶ 12:05 AM 0 comments

  Where there's fire... Where were you on September 7, 2006? I can't recall exactly where I was, though I assume I went to work and then watched the Mets beat the Dodgers 7-0. One thing I CAN say with absolute certainty that I was NOT involved in a firefight with Iranian troops somewhere on the Iran-Iraq border. Not all Americans can say the same:

The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more.
(Time.com)

The article goes on to give a few details around a largely hush-hush firefight that was, in all probability, not provoked by either side. U.S. and Iraqi troops, operating in tandem, might have crossed into Iranian territory. Iranians might have crossed into Iraqi territory. People from any or all three of the nations involved might have died, and might have done so on either side of the border. The Pentagon does not wish to discuss this. The Iranians have not mentioned it. The only reports, sketchy ones at that, come from the few people who were involved. So, who cares?

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.

As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?

Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.

But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.

Unfortunately, I still see this as becoming a reality. It makes too much sense. Anyone who has studied even a bit of world history knows one of the most common ways to unify a divided country is to create a common enemy. Just look at Yugoslavia, a conglomerate of multiple religions and ethnicities. Tito gave his people a dual enemy - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. - and painted over centuries of ethnic bloodshed to form a new nation-state. As that common enemy melted away, so too did the bonds that held the state together.

As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.

Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?

Labels: disaster in chief, Iran, iraq

  ¶ 7:30 AM 0 comments

  Save the Seahorse '08 by: J-lo


In addition to having raised over $26 million, Hillary Clinton has declared that a major focus for her presidential campaign is the seahorse. Clinton states that she was deeply moved by a personal experience she shared with one of 35 endangered species of seahorses.

Typically, I would avoid forming an opinion in line with Clinton's, however, I cannot agree more with her and the fact the United States, and the world alike need to take urgent action to protect the world's delicate and majestic seahorses.

Seahorses are also threatened by over-fishing, Dr Koldewey said. They are being targeted for use in traditional Asian medicine, as live pets, and for the souvenir trade.

An estimated 30 million seahorses are traded every year, by between 70 and 80 countries - which makes this the largest wildlife trade issue, in terms of numbers.

I hope readers can understand the urgency of this issue and the fact that we are contributing to the extinct of a mysterious creature that ignores the norms of biology, and practices both strict monogamy and the most extreme form of male prenatal care (the male seahorse, rather than female, becomes pregnant). Act now and save the seahorse, and maybe our species can learn a thing or two from them about relationships or even parenting.

Labels: Cites, clinton, seahorses

  ¶ 11:22 PM 0 comments