"Backbone"

I found this poem in a book from the WSU library called "Poems of Free Thought" compiled by James L. York in 1882, and thought I'd share -- it's as true today as it was then!

"Backbone"

When you see a fellow mortal
Without fixed and fearless views,
Hanging on the skirts of others,
Walking in their cast-off shoes,
Bowing low to wealth or favor,
With abject, uncovered head,
Ready to retract or waiver,
Willing to be drove or led;
Walk yourself with firmer bearing,
Throw your moral shoulders back,
Show your spine has nerve and marrow --
just the things which his most lack.

A stronger word
was never heard
In sense and tone
Than this -- backbone.

When you see a theologian
Hugging close some ugly creed,
Fearing to reject or question
Dogmas which his priest may read;
Holding back all noble feeling,
Choking down each manly view,
Caring more for forms and symbols
Thn to know the good and true;
Walk yourself with firmer bearing,
Throw your moral shoulders back,
Show your spine has nerve and marrow --
just the things which his most lack.

A stronger word
was never heard
In sense and tone
Than this -- backbone.

When you see a politician
Crawling through contracted holes,
Begging for some fat position,
In the ring or at the polls;
With no sterling manhood in him,
Nothing stable, broad or sound,
Destitute of pluck or ballast,
Double sided all around;
Walk yourself with firmer bearing,
Throw your moral shoulders back,
Show your spine has nerve and marrow --
just the things which his most lack.

A stronger word
was never heard
In sense and tone
Than this -- backbone.

A modest song and plainly told --
The text is worth a mine of gold,
For many men most sadly lack
A noble stiffness in the back.

Film: "Children of Men"

I went to the movies last week and saw the newly released and much-acclaimed "Children of Men." And I must say, I think it's worth the rave reviews! It's actually MUCH more like an independant film than a blockbuster, but obviously had a big budget. The way it's filmed makes you feel like you're part of the action, running along beside the main characters and sharing their trials along the way. I also must give a big kudos to the film crew for the war scenes - they are right on the money. As someone who's been in the middle of a war, I can tell you this movie comes pretty close! I wish I could be more articulate, but I'm sick and my brain doesn't work (I should have written this a few days ago when I was good!). All I can promise you is that if you enjoy independant films about human rights issues - you'll like this one!

"Elections" have lost value

As the elections wind up, the ballots are counted and the candidates start making plans for the curtains in their new state or federally funded homes, I can’t help but feel that I, as a voter, have been taken for a ride.

Though it was hailed as an extremely important election, and the fact that it was each American’s responsibility to vote was pressed ever so seriously into our minds, the candidates themselves made the whole thing seem like some sort of grade-school popularity contest.

Through television ads, radio announcements and yes, even newspaper articles, the candidates slung mud so fast and heavy I felt like I was back in grade 2, watching a mud-fight on the playground. It seemed that whoever was able to come out the cleanest won; whether or not he or she was actually any better than the other at all (at anything other than ducking anyways). As a serious voter, who truly cares about the direction our country is going in (demonstrably ‘down’), I took time to research the candidates who asked for my vote…. attempted to anyhow. The mud was flying online too. I also noticed that everyone was so busy telling us why the other guy was so bad, that no one really took the time to explain why they themselves were good. Has our democracy truly declined so far that our elections have come to choosing the least bad candidate instead of the best? Or is the general public truly of such low intellect that we can only understand the grunts of ‘ugh…he bad’ instead of debates about the issues? It’s downright scary to think so!

At the same time I find myself wondering when politics ended up being reserved for a new American aristocracy? Why is it that only the wealthy are running for, and winning elections? When did the money a candidate could throw at a campaign begin to choose who would win? It’s true; in the parties’ own words, they describe mad fundraising that is ‘essential’ to a given person winning an election, and state ‘so-and-so won’t win…he doesn’t have enough money.’ So, apparently, only the rich know how to run the country. And, apparently, we believe it.

Since when have the rich ever understood what the common many felt or believed? Are THEY worried about public schools, when their own children attend private? Are THEY concerned about public health care, when they can afford the best doctors anyways? Do THEY send THEIR sons and daughters off to war, or are they enjoying classes at Harvard? Do THEY worry about student loans and grants to get them there? And do THEY worry about immigrants in any other role than ensuring that their lawns are mowed and hotel rooms cleaned? HIGHLY doubtful. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty safe to say NO. Even if they were concerned, they would have no idea of what the people in ‘lower’ positions in life want or need.

The public decries more and more how congress and the president are so ‘out of touch’ with the common American’s wants and needs, and yet WE KEEP ELECTING THEM! We are actively choosing to subjugate ourselves to the rich in this country. We even PAY them, providing homes and planes and fancy cars. These people who are supposed to be representing us are so out of touch with the Americans they ‘represent’ that they couldn’t see eye-to-eye if they actually tried (and few do). The only time they get concerned about what the people think and want is at election time, when they tell us all how bad the other guy is in an effort to keep their jobs. In my eyes, this is the exact same as two brothers getting in a fight and declaring “Mom, but he…” in an effort to shift blame and responsibility away from themselves. Let’s wake up America, and end this! This loogey we called an election is unacceptable! Let’s change the election laws, demand more real information and less bull, create the ability for lower-income people to run for office, and cut the pork from the candidate’s own stomachs (do they really need all those ‘extras’ they get in office? Paid for by US?). Let’s put real democracy into action and clean up the mess we’ve created.

Chic Communism?

Here's a very interesting post I thought I'd pass on; it makes some excellent points! I hope you will all consider it next time you see a product featuring Che Guevara for sale.
-Becky

(repost from bureaucrash.com)
The typical high school U.S. History book treats 'fascism' as a virus to be removed from mankind, but socialism as something to be admired. I put fasicsm in quotes because that is the liberal establishments code word for anything that is not liberal.
What they really mean when they say fascism is National Socialism (Nazi's). Ironic, since the Nazi's neither were fascists, nor referred to themselves as such. They were the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party. They referred to their program as National Socialism (don't let the name throw you).
Fascism was the brand name that Mussolini gave to his branch (one of two dozen) of Italian Socialism. The Italian's and German's brand of socialism differed in that they were nationalists, i.e. they cared about the Italian and Germanic people, respectively.
Communists are more properly defined as International Socialists. They had little use for the Nationalism of the Italians and Germans; they were for the working class worldwide: Workers of the World Unite!
Thus, 'fascists' and communists were/are simply socialists bent on helping the national/international class.
Fast forward, and the left today hates of anything that smacks of nationalism. Since they are sympathetic to International Socialism, 'patriotism' is an insult, since it is chauvinistic. They love the word democracy, and especially the word all, as in all children can learn, or all workers deserve a living wage -- they always put all in italics, as if this confers some special advantage over the National Socialists.
Hence the left demonizes anything national, and glorifies, or at least gives a pass to, anything international. Back to high school history books. The one I teach from condemns Chiang Kai-Shek's Chinese Nationalist government as inefficient and corrupt -- as if that doesn't descrive all government -- which it was.
But the book describes Mao Zedong's Communist (International Socialist) government that replaced Chiang's as "effective land reformers" and "worked hard to gain the trust of the peasants." NO MENTION of the 30,000,000 it starved in the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, etc. Or the millions killed after that (another 20-30 million?).
National Socialism gets an entire chapter, with a special section for the 6-11 million killed in the Holocaust. See, they killed for the wrong reasons (nationalism). Had they only killed for internationalism (socialism/communism), they would have gotten a pass.
If you hate for the right reasons, teachers and principals everywhere will ignore you when you where a CCCP, Che Guevera, or Mao shirt down the hallway. Try that with a Swastika.

Actor Andy Garcia agrees with crashers in wondering why a killer like Che Guevera is such a pop culture icon even after murdering millions of Cubans. Starpulse reports:
Garcia, who left Cuba when he was five, says, "I'd be curious to go around and ask them how much they really know about Che. Some people wearing the T-shirt don't even know his name. They know he's some sort of revolutionary, and to wear his image is cool because you feel like a revolutionary. Someone told me the other day that they asked one of these people if they were aware of all the executions that Che was a part of in Cuba and the guy said, 'Well, I don't know if that's true, as if it had been made up to discredit him.' I wish you could say it was made up because that would mean that all those people didn't die under his thumb. That's the tragedy."
PROPS: Crasher PJaworski for the tip. Like Garcia he fled communism with his family except instead of Cuba it was Poland.

Posted comment:
WHEREFORE THE LOVE OF NAZIS?
As a teacher in a public high school, it amazes me how chic Che has become. The hat pins, the stickers, and of course, the t-shirts. (I have an identical shirt that has Ronald Reagan's silhouette instead of Che's. Lots of doubletakes.)
There's another kid -- from Russia -- who wears a hammer and sickle shirt. I always ask my class why this is allowed. Would any be able to wear a "National Socialism" shirt, a picture of Hitler or a Swastika?
Consider the fact that the International socialists have killed over five times the people that the National socialists have. Our schools are completely ignorant of this. Hell, our textbook doesn't mention a single death under Mao's regime; instead, calls him "an effective land reformer" who "worked hard to gain support of the peasants."
We need to raise awareness and satirize those who support Che. Commies aren't cool.

Film : “Higher Learning”

Columbia Pictures, 1994

This film is truly a masterpiece; one of very few unbiased films I’ve seen that really delve into the lives of Americans and the aspects of race, gender and sexuality that each of us must deal with and the choices each of us makes. A young black man struggles with his identity; where does his race play in to who he is? A girl suffers a rape, then questions her sexuality. A young white man, socially inept and thrust into unfamiliar territory, lets misdirected anger take control. A truly tragic, but realistic, look at the darker side of life, and the views of the people on the ‘other side of the glass’ from yourself.

I was really blown away by just how well this film breaks down the different feelings and reactions of people to the situations examined. Most of us will have faced at least one of the scenarios presented in the film, but how many of us got a clear look at the person on the side opposite us? I can't say much more - if you haven't seen this one you should.

On the Iraq War...

“US forces caught in the crossfire on streets of ‘capital of death’"
by Rick Jervis and Jim Michaels, USA Today (Oct.23,2006)

This excellent article in USA Today caught my eye earlier this week; it’s one of the few stories that I’ve seen that really presents the situation in Iraq for what it is; a mess of problems with few clear-cut answers.

I served in the US Army in Iraq from March 2003 to February 2004. I lived and worked amid Iraqis for a year in Baghdad. Some were good men; I made friendships that I will cherish always. Others tried to kill me.
When people discover that I was in Iraq, then ask me ‘what do you think?’ as if it’s a something I could give a quick ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to. As if I could ease their minds and their responsibilities by giving them a quick and easy answer. But it isn’t that simple.
There were days in Iraq where the skies were clear and the swaying palms beautiful. When I wandered the local marketplace enjoying the bright carpets, fresh food and children playing soccer in the streets. Times when I was amazed by the intellect and learning of Iraqis; By children who learned English faster than I could learn to count to five in Arabic. By doctors who worked to learn two decades worth of medical advancements from old medical journals donated by American surgeons. By the stories of Iraqis who posed for pictures with me, telling me how thankful they were that the man who had killed their families was gone from power. By the poorest workers, hired to sweep our floors, that still happily shared their lunches with me. Iraq was, and still is, a beautiful country with unlimited possibilities for the future.
Then there were other days, I hated Iraq. Days when I wanted to go home, to let every one who was shooting kill each other, as long as I didn’t have to be involved. Days when I cried in frustration because a school we had worked hard to open had been blown apart. When Iraqis screamed at me in Arabic on the streets, or threw rocks at our passing cars. When terrorists used a car bomb to blow up the Red Cross. When they kidnapped a dedicated woman who had been campaigning for aid for Iraqi citizens and beheaded her. When they used rockets to attack my ‘home’ at the time and blew off the arm of a young woman, in Iraq as part of a charity mission.
Being in Iraq is like a taste of being a serious manic-depressive; one day you love life and cherish every taste, touch and sound, the next you can’t stop crying, or are so angry your hands shake.

There is no easy answer in Iraq. I can’t tell you what you should think. I can’t decide what I think.

The new story talks about how Americans have become little more than ‘pig in the middle,’ taking fire from both the government they are trying to build and the insurgents and their death squads. Though the war to start was one of government forces, it has become a cat-and-mouse game, with both sides blurring the boundaries. How can the Iraqi government claim to ‘crack down’ on militias, when we are increasingly discovering that the very death squads we are pursuing have strong ties to them?
As the article quoted a US company commander as saying; “US-led raids often must be approved in advance by Iraqi leaders. This month, a unit in Baghdad got a tip about a torture chamber for Shiite death squads, but a planned raid needed clearance from the Iraqi side…by the time US troops conducted a nighttime raid on the two-story building, it was largely abandoned.”
With loyalties split, how can a force create a united front against anything? Those who think loyalty among Iraqi forces should make little difference need only look at the personnel number to see just how important it is; with 34,600 police and 9,500 Iraqi soldiers of unknown loyalty, our 15,400 soldiers have plenty to worry about.
What was a shaky war for freedom seems to be degenerating into a civil war among religious zealots, each stone-bent on killing whoever doesn’t agree with them. Split loyalties has allowed people with questionable goals for Iraq to rise in power. For example, the article quoted an American intelligence officer as declaring that members of the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia, had infiltrated every branch of public service and political office. “As soon as the US leaves, they’ll be able to dominate the area with key citizens, key positions and key offices,” he said.
Shiites are firebombing Sunni houses, Sunnis are torturing Shiites to death. The split Iraqi government and policing forces are leaking information, looking the other way, and even protecting key players. Who are we even fighting anymore? Saddam’s left-over forces? Foreign terrorists? Religious zealots? Ourselves maybe? Though people are dying, no one really seems to know. “Sometimes we have a feeling of complete hopelessness,” the intelligence analyst admitted, while another officer in a different unit seemed to throw up his hands in frustration; “We’re not trained in this. We’re not cops. We just want them to settle down long enough to get out of here.”

It seems the waters of the situation have gotten even muddier since my boots splashed through the puddle. At least when I was there, I felt that I had the support of most of the Iraqi people. They cheered us, gave gifts and looked forward to the future. Though polls of Iraqi people (given in the article) have show that 61% believe our ousting of Saddam was worth the trouble, it seems that most of them think that we are causing it now; 79% said that the US is having a negative impact on their country and 61% now approve of attacks on American forces. At the same time, 66% of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq and 48% think that our presence there has made America less secure. Polls of Iraqis also showed that the general populace is confident in the abilities of both their police forces and government, that they support their government (with higher approval scores than we have, incidentally) and that they feel the government is largely representative of the population. The information coming from the non-warring people tells us that American forces should leave, but the constant murder and in-fighting is forcing us to stay. I think it’s probably safe to bet that most American soldiers would LIKE to leave too, but know that if they do the country with devolve into bloody civil war (with no one to even slow it down). Thus the ultimate question becomes, do we leave and let the zealots have free reign, or do we stay and continue to act as the ‘brakes’ against the turning wheel of civil war? If we leave, it is pretty safe to say that the armed zealots will fill the country’s major cities with full-blown war; murdering anyone who happens to get in their way. The rest of the world will fault the US for ‘giving up’ and ‘failing to solve the problem’ (and possibly even causing it). If we stay, the rest of the world will continue to hate us for ‘interfering,’ we will lose billions of dollars in war costs and aid to Iraq and American soldiers will continue to die. Neither seems like a winning situation; so which do we choose? Therein lies the problem.

In my opinion, we should make a last-ditch effort to bolster the country’s police and armed forces, creating as large a force as possible. Mount a massive public campaign to create/bolster the Iraqi national identity; make Iraqis proud to be a free Iraq (huge national holidays/celebrations, LOTS of flags, patriotic art installations, etc.). Use whatever force is necessary to either involve separate factions in the government or to remove them from the platform fully. If separate ‘states’ for different groups would work, do it. If force is necessary, use Iraqi forces, under direct command, to initiate change. PR the snot out of any raids as ‘the government dealing with threats to the people’. At some point during this campaign, mount a massive national yes/no vote to ‘request the US forces leave’ (after a stated timeline) and let the people of Iraq make the decision for themselves. If they democratically vote us out, we should be able to leave with our heads held high and a complete dismissal of further responsibility. The people will have spoken. I think this timeline could be completed within a year or two; and I’d suggest the vote was done early on in the process so that the people could ‘count down’ to the US leaving and/or have a second vote to felt our ‘help’ was still needed.

I’m not saying it’s ‘the’ answer; just what I would attempt to do if in the same rock-hard-place as the president. Unfortunately, I think this war is a no-win situation for the US (the Iraqis can still win overall), and though we can’t (and shouldn’t) “run”, that it really is necessary that we leave Iraq and the middle east. The Arabic peoples of the middle east have such a different view of t world from Americans, and such a different culture, that we can’t apply any of the fixes that we are used to. It’s so easy for people to say “I’d just…” when they haven’t been there!
Overall, I can only watch the news and sigh, praying that both my Iraqi friends and my military comrades make it through this test safely. May God be with us all.

Film: "The Manchurian Candidate”

Paramount, 2004

An interesting film that looks at the control that big business has over the state of the United States. Though it exaggerates for cinematic flair, the entire film echoes strangely true:

• Large corporations and lobbyists are able to exert amazing amounts of influence over our politicians and the democratic process.
• Our politicians can have underhanded motivations for the things they do; some to unimaginable and illegal lengths.
• Our military personnel, though serving through many hardships, are often put in the middle of political situations, and come out the worse for wear.
• Our soldiers are used as guinea pigs for many new products, programs and ideas.
• Political spindoctoring is a danger to freedom, information, and the values we hold dear.
• Politicians are finding it ever easier to say ‘look what he did!’ to draw attention away from their own actions.

Though it is a work of fiction, I think that watching this film with an open mind and the thought of ‘what if?’ brings a little deeper realization of the undercurrents within our society, it politics and leaders. Especially in the face of the constant flow of scandals, under-the-table deals, crooked investments, and ‘quid-pro-quo’ revealed in the media seemingly daily. It works the same as a restaurant; if the dining room is dirty, and that’s what you see all the time, do you really think the kitchen is any better? If the parts of our political system that we see are so ‘dirty’, what do the part we don’t see look like? What other cockroaches, dead rats, and dirty grease traps are hiding out there? It’s a scary idea, and one that I think every person who cares about our nation needs to take the time to look at. The ultimate question – why do we allow it? Dirt CAN be cleaned away, but it takes a determined amount of elbow grease! In a country ‘of the people, for the people’ why do we allow these infractions, and why are politicians so rarely held accountable for their behaviors? Food for thought.