Monday, July 23, 2007

Where have all the heroes gone?

The seventies era was the beginning of the end for popular sequential art, ushering in a revitalised sense of page layout and story design that had its roots in the sixties and would see its final decline in the mid-eighties with such classics as Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. Comic book illustrators and writers like Jim Starlin, Steve Englehart and Steve Gerber brought ingenuity and vitality to seventies comic books that would spark a later revolution in independent publishers and cultivate some of the finest examples of the form. Yet rather than creating a sustainable model, the work done by imaginative and greatly talented artists would give way from mythic storytelling to commercial interest and bankrupt editorial meddling.

Marvel Comics Group produced groundbreaking titles in the seventies, like Jim Starlin's Warlock featuring a man struggling to find a nonviolent path to save his soul, and Steve Gerber's Howard the Duck with its eponymous hero navigating the joys and pratfalls of modern living. Steve Englehart's run on Captain America is probably the heaviest hitting of the three, translating the Nixon years into comic book form; the "star-spangled" hero confronts dark truths about his nation's political heart and has to decide what the American Dream truly is. These pioneers laid the groundwork for later serious books created by other artists in the eighties: Baron and Rude's Nexus, for example, in which the question of justice is thoroughly explored, or Dave Sim's Cerebus, an evolving experiment of the boundaries of comic book storytelling. Then along came Frank Miller and Alan Moore.

This pair of deeply gifted artists transformed the comic book landscape in ways that have been duly noted by aficionados and scholars. Moore's Watchmen is an epitaph for superheroes, at the same time utilising literary techniques to explore human nature. Miller displays similar literary virtuosity in The Dark Knight Returns but wraps it in pulp mannerisms and vigilante justice. Taken on their own these seem natural and even necessary progressions of sequential art, developed out of the hard pioneering work of their predecessors. Yet one has only to look at where comic books have gone from there to see that the form has degenerated and now is a pale reflection of what was.

What you see in the seventies and early eighties is evolution; what follows is regression of the form and a softening of what defines it, to the extent that comic books now resemble tv shows and movies and video games. (The style of comic book storytelling is also true in the inverse, as we can see in the huge popularity of Spider Man at the box office and shows like Heroes on tv.)
What's changed? In short, comics are no longer about mythic storytelling.

The grounding Moore and Miller used for their opuses was an old innovation: give spandex wearers real hangups and conflicts. Stan Lee introduced this style in the early sixties with his coterie of illustrators at Marvel, the "House of Ideas" as was, yet never strayed from putting characters into situations way beyond the pale of human experience. Like protosuperheroes from antiquity Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Samson and Odysseus, the House of Ideas gave us Spider Man and the Fantastic Four, humans with special gifts faced with epic challenges. These challenges developed beyond simple struggles of good versus evil, setting the stage for the more significant questions of the seventies stripe of hero. Yet even as Warlock and Howard the Duck strain against boundaries that we mere mortals can relate to, still they are part of narratives culled from a dizzy, cosmic scope, a factor unique to comics and woefully absent as of late.

The kind of obstacles seen in comic books today run the gamut of dealing with pregnancy, teenagers on the run or, as in the case of Spidey, which close relation is going to be killed next. The potential for these obstacles to be part and parcel of more epic narrative is still there and intrinsic to the form, but it gives way for issue after issue of protracted discussion and emotional handwringing, highlighted by the occasional fisticuff with a villain who also happens to be burdened by mundane concerns: spandex wearers are so much like real people now that the grandeur is lost and they no longer possess the ur-capabilities of true mythical figures. The root of this development can be traced back to Miller and Moore.

I am not assigning blame to either of these men. I'm not part of the camp that takes Steven Spielberg to task for creating the first summer blockbuster (Jaws) and therefore enabled the profusion of superficial "tentpoles" that make up the bulk of Hollywood fare, and neither am I attempting to say Moore and Miller are responsible for the loss of mythmaking in comic books. What is closer to the truth is that reader expectations have changed and the dizzy pioneering of superheroes is more liable to simply give them nausea. Meanwhile the few books that do aspire to those old heights come off derivative and uninspired.

Meddling by increasingly influential stables of editors is also a big part of what has changed. Comic books now are more driven by top-down decision making, in which the home office tells creators what to do with licensed characters rather than creating an atmosphere in which bold ideas can take off and find expression. You can see a little of this in Grant Morrison's breathtaking and prolific output at DC Comics, but even then the fingerprints of editors are all over the pages stealing his thunder. Consequently the best comics to be found today are not about a staple diet of superheroes, rather you will find formal experimentation and reconstuction of old conceits leading the way. Morrison's graphic novel The Filth is a fine example of a new direction for comics, yet it is with a little sadness because a significant appeal to the book is its deconstruction of the spandex myth. Comic books, it seems, are no longer fertile ground for mythical narrative.

RollerBlog

My friend Katy has become obsessed with all things 70's and recently started a blog to honor this new phase. As I am also a fan of the "brown era", I can only heartily recommend you check it out. There's a convenient link just to the right of your screen!

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Is this you? Is it me?

Now you can make your own Simpsons avatar at: simpsonsmovie.com. It's fun!

willitblend.com

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Mother of All Rubber Duckies

Thursday, June 14, 2007

First Life

Eve Online is "not a computer game. It is an emerging nation, and we have to address it like a nation." This comes from the chief exec of the Icelandic company, CCP. It looks like nation, too, with a population scratching 200,000. Within these diverse groupings of characters, alliances are forged, each vying for control of the game.

The "game" in this instance has digital real estate, not unlike Second Life. What separates Eve, though, is the mode in which you gain real estate. Rather than float blithely through safe zones, such as SL offers, in Eve, while it does have neutral territories, is primarily made up of 0.0 space -which means zero security or policing. Alliances control systems and battle each other to expand them.

A far cry from Pac Man, yes?

Recently CCP, owners of Eve Online, has been accused of corruption. Some alliances are convinced that CCP rigged the game to favor Band of Brothers, one of the most influential groups in the game. A rival faction, Goonswarm, has even gone so far as to say that the Band of Brothers are engaged in espionage and theft of game secrets. Because of these accusations, it turns out that a majority of players do not trust CCP to run a fair game.

In response CCP plans to hold elections this fall: nine player-overseers will act as ombudsmen for the game's subscribers.

"I envision this council being made up of nine members," says the chief exec, "selected by the players themselves, where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, and they can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis.

"They can see that we did not make this game to win it."

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Generation Now Redux

You've probably already heard about this: dotcoms for the wee ones. Kids are getting into some online fun with sites like Club Penguin, where your avatar is a self-designed... you guessed it, a self-designed penguin. Who amongst us has not wondered what it would be like to be a penguin? Certainly I cannot count myself exempt from this group, and so many were the nights when I as a child lay awake on my pillow dreaming of life as a penguin, it's a wonder I slept at all. And hey, the frosting on this cake of nostalgia is that my sense of lost childhood is compounded by the fact that it is now more obvious than ever that I was born too soon.

Other sites let "small people" (as children are sometimes considered, in lieu of simply calling them "pint size consumeroids") they set it up so you can collect and dress media celebrities like they were dolls. Webkinz.com and Stardoll "your paperdoll heaven" are places where you can finally achieve your dream of creating Hillary Duff's wardrobe. Not only this, you can wrap her up in the smartest garb and take her out for a night on the town at HollywoodNightsnDelights.com.

Being a kid was never so much fun!

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Remembering Tiananmen Square

This week is the eighteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, where Chinese soldiers indiscriminately slaughtered students protesting for democratic rights. Eighteen years since that horrible event. I was in college when it happened, and when news reached us here, it had a profound impact on my life. I would go so far as to say that it was the spark that set off my social consciousness. Previously, I was content doing and living by a narrow set of strictures, rules handed down by my mom and aunt, boundaries that, until that point, I had been happy to ignore or rail against. Something about Tiananmen broke open my shell and I began to take notice of a larger world beyond the borders of my ego. Eighteen years since then... I wonder how much has really changed, cynically, perhaps, but certainly with an eye that horrors like Tiananmen continue to be enacted daily, in Gaza, Darfur, Grozny, Baghdad... the list goes on. But what power there is in the image of the single student stopping with his body the advance of four tanks, cannons aimed forward and at the ready, his annihilation seemingly at hand yet doing nothing to shake him from the spot: it is as inspirational today as it was the day we first saw it.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Arrest all Smart Alecks

To follow up on yesterday's bit about cellphones being seized at New York school's, there was an incident I came across during further reading: In October of last year, a large contingent of NYPD arrived unannounced at Wadleigh High School for the Performing Arts, in Harlem, to set up a metal detector and herd students through it, ostensibly to search for weapons. One student, vp of the school government association, nervous that his cellphone would be taken away, called his mother and waited outside the school for her to arrive. When officers approached him and wondered what he was doing, the student explained that he was waiting for his mom. Their response was to call him a "smart aleck", seize his phone, handcuff him and book him into the local stationhouse, where he was detained for several hours in a jailcell.
Where's John McClane when we really need him?!?!

Friday, June 01, 2007

Electronic Contraband

That's what cellphones are called now: electronic contraband. At least according Middle School 54 on the Upper West Side of New York City. Check it out, we're accustomed to having metal detectors at schools now, sure, but probably nobody ever gave much thought that they would be used to confiscate cellphones.
Yet this is exactly what police -yes, NYPD was there in person- did at Middle School 54 this week. "People were crying," says one eighth grader.
I'm being serious.
Any child caught with a cellphone on their person after passing through the metal detector was detained and had their contraband taken away. A tearful scene, evidently.
The Education Department first banned "communication devices" in 1988. In those days such devices were beepers, the cellphone revolution still several years off. More recently, New York's mayor took action to prohibit cellphones specifically in the area's schools -forbidden items also include headphones, batteries, and can openers.
From the sounds of it, the kids were traumatised by this week's event. "I feel naked," another eighth grader reported. "I feel like I lost something very important to me."
Parents are up in arms. Oftimes, it appears, the phones are not owned by the student but by their parent. One outraged mother says that she is getting her lawyer and "filing a criminal complaint that they stole my phone."
In all, four hundred cellphones were taken, plus sixty nine ipods, two knives and one imitation gun (always a good thing to have in eighth grade). They will be returned to parents (and parents only) no earlier than next week. Which means mobs of preteens roaming the city streets without cellphones.
Could be trouble.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Zombie Halitosis

"We laugh because it's true." Whenever I hear this old saw, I want to quote Pilate and say, "What's truth?" (Preferably in a jersey accent, Marvin Dorfler-style, like, "What is this stuff, the 'truth', anyway? Somebody want to fill me in?")

That's a big question. What is truth? Is it an idea? Does it exist in some objective, transcendent form? Is it bad for your teeth? Perish forbid anyone would ever need a truth canal.

Which makes me think about zombies, this whole truth question. Bear with me a second.

George A Romero is obsessed with zombies. Look at his films. The flesheating ghoulhordes infest his stories. They are predators on the heroines and heroes, literally, when they catch them, consuming their flesh.

There's some truth to that kind of relationship. You don't exactly date someone if their whole aim is to chew off the muscle from your shoulder. You know where this kind of person is coming from; they just want to kill you and eat you. Okay.

So, why are these stories so entertaining? Isn't it interesting that the whole zombiemonster genre is so resurgent these days, that it doesn't seem like anything is entertaining anymore unless a zombie shows up?

Maybe we laugh because it's true; maybe we are entertained because there's something valid there.

Maybe, maybe not.

If there is some truth to zombies, what kind of truth is it? Does it mean that we believe zombies are trying to eat our flesh? Or, on the other hand, does it mean that we believe humanity has no real, natural predator?

Zombies are a pure, predatory mob: they exist to literally consume humanity while a living, conscious person is still running around. (Makes you wonder what they'll do when they run out of people.)

Yet we all know there's no such thing as zombies. That's the truth of the matter, the national consensus, right? (Granted, in Haiti, Africa and South America, the zuvembie is a major player in folklore.)

I wonder. If we think there is no predator out there, what kind of position does that put the human in? It does give us more time to think, and what we think about is some kind of search for truth, in some form or other, sublimated, obsessional, sociopathic, what have you, and what do we think about? How can I find better entertainment. What more do we want, when there's no hunter, no hunted, other than to be entertained?

Monday, May 14, 2007

Cosmic Halitosis

I'm a sucker for science-fiction, in all its myriad expressions, not least of all when it tackles spiritual themes: I think the genre is specially outfitted to be the ideal sounding board for spiritual inquiry. Take as exemplar Robert A Heinlein's famous Mohammed-as-Martian novel, Stranger in a Strange Land.

In this terrific story, he proposes not so much the second coming of Christ as the arrival of another in a series of holy prophets; Valentine Michael Smith, first human born on what we call the planet Mars, is the latest "Mohammedan" to visit our planet, which is to say that, like the prophet Mohammed, this is not the manifestation of the son of God, as Christ was, but rather one of the sons of God, a line of (apparently) masculine prophets with news for the world.

You should read the book. Heinlein very seriously takes on human belief in its most profound dimensions, and delivers a very sober appraisal. His satire is fiendishly subtle, as if the author wishes to provoke the less-openminded of his readers into an intellectual wrestling match, one at which they will invariably find themselves outflanked and outmanuevered. So be it, this is the privilege of the artist: he is presenting his view. Personally, I find it an important one.

Valentine Michael Smith, over the course of the novel, reaches a key understanding of our race. In doing so, he grasps a conclusion that I found to be intensely Christian. He is talking to his dearest friend and "water brother", Jubal Harshaw, about the optimism with which he embarked his project of a new church. Having believed that eventually all humans would come around to his side, Smith reaches this conclusion: "Humans aren't Martians."

He continues, "I made this mistake again and again -corrected myself... and still made it. What works for Martians does not necessarily work for humans. Oh, the conceptual logic which can be stated only in Martian does work for both races. The logic is invariant..." (here, Smith is talking about love) "but the data are different. So the results are different.

"I couldn't see why, when people were hungry, some of them didn't volunteer to be butchered so the rest could eat... on Mars this is obvious -and an honor. I couldn't understand why babies were so prized. On Mars our two little girls would be dumped outdoors, to live or die -and nine out of ten die their first season. My logic was right but I misread the data: here babies do not compete but adults do; on Mars adults never compete, they've been weeded out as babies. But one way or another, competing and weeding takes place... or a race goes downhill."

Smith reaches his key understanding of humanity: "But whether or not I was wrong in trying to take the competition out at both ends, I have lately begun to grok that the human race won't let me, no matter what."

What he "groks" -a Martian term undefinable in human terms, but roughly meaning to shed philosophical inhibition- is a rare insight, one that Heinlein achieves at the end of great striving through the mysteries of our race. Valentine Michael Smith realises that humanity doesn't want to be saved; the human race wishes to go on being human, not to live against its own instincts. What's crucial, though, is that Smith doesn't then proceed to give up all hope. No, instead he flies into the face of this brutal insight, and strives, as he feels all people should, against morbid reality.

At the end, his friend gives him good advice: "If you've got the truth, you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people."

At the end he unmistakably fulfills the prophet role, though more in the vein, I would argue, of Christ than of Mohammed -of Buddha, Blavatsky, Crowley or whomever: Smith believes, in the end, that there is a state of grace all around us that must be recognised. His fateful choice to put his life in the hands of that grace is a distinctly beautiful one, one that goes contrary to our socialised tendencies yet arrives from the core of being.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Trilogy Triumph

Face it, we live in an age of film trilogies. As sequels become more profitable, the chance of seeing tri-sectioned movie arcs increases. This summer is the true barometer, given that we have four trilogies coming to a head; starting with Spider Man, we are soon to see the third iterations of Shrek, Bourne and Pirates of the Caribbean. Audiences know and adore the characters in these films so much that they increase exponentially with each outing. So, there must be something super appealing about trilogies, right?

Kevin Smith, in his sequel to Clerks, argues that there is only one trilogy, the Star Wars trilogy; all others, we gather, can kiss his kiester. Which begs the question: what other trilogies are there? Let's see, we have Lord of the Rings, Spider Man, The Godfather, The Matrix, Shrek... any others? For argument's sake, we'll leave out Kieslowski's Three Colours, since it so far above and beyond anything else that it is de facto greatest of them all. Out of the trilogies listed, which one succeeds in being the one that stands above the rest?

I believe Sam Raimi, with his Spidey movies, has created the best.

If you're still reading, let's look at the points of variance first (to be followed by points of congruence):

Unlike Return of the Jedi, Matrix Revolutions or Godfather 3, Spider Man 3 doesn't totally suck air through the open wound of its own epic inadequacies;

Unlike Return of the King, Raimi has not betrayed his source material and bent the film into a shape that only somewhat resembles its origins.

(Since I have seen neither Shrek the Third, Bourne Ultimatum or At World's End, I cannot say how Spidey departs from these three, other than to speculate that it is probably a more mature work than Shrek, less needlessly violent than Bourne, and less bloated and exhausting than Pirates.)

As for points of congruence, we can safely say that, like Star Wars, the shining moment of the Spidey trilogy is the second film, and;

like Return of the King, Shrek, Bourne and Caribbean, character and dramatic tones are beautifully consistent, creating the sense the all three movies flow together seamlessly.

Okay, so what makes Spidey the best? I would argue that it's all in how it ends. (Beware! If you haven't seen it yet, I'm about to spoil a plot point at the end of Spider Man 3.)

First, let's look at how the other trilogies end:

In Return of the Jedi, Luke has taken up his father's mantle as a jedi. Unfortunately, as we see in the first three episodes, this victory is spoiled by the fact that Anakin doesn't turn out to have been such a great jedi after all, and the jedi order is so incompetent that maybe the universe is a better place without it: Luke's ascendance is pyrhhic at best;

In Matrix Revolutions, we learn that Neo will probably return in the future. Sadly, this goes contrary to the stated goal of the trilogy, which is to upend all our conceptions of a messiah. Whoops, turns out Neo exactly fulfills our conceptions of a messiah! Profound failure on the part of the Wachowski's;

In Return of the King, the great threat to Middle Earth turns out to be a big eye that can't stop itself from falling down! Peter Jackson renders Sauron into such a silly and anti-climactic villain, I found myself giggling when I should have been cheering. If only he had stuck with Eomer's grandslam takedown of the Witch King; now, that was climactic. Also, Tolkien explicitly painted Frodo's decision at Mount Doom as a hero's failure; Jackson manages to undermine this essential part of the story as well, turning the final moment between Frodo and Gollum into a wrestling match;

Godfather 3 fails on so many levels, I won't insult one of our finest directors by trotting out his greatest failure. Suffice to say, the third part sucks in every conceivable way.

How do Bourne, Shrek and Pirates end? We will see, and perhaps I will eat my words, but I don't think so. Because the end of Spidey gives us a totally unexpected resolution.

What stands out for me as being so great about the end of Spidey is the fact that he forgives the villain, the man, in fact, who murdered his uncle. This kind of maturity (brought by Raimi, incidentally, rather than taken from the source material) is so absent from popular entertainment, the decision to go this way is nothing short of subversive. It is also truly heroic.

Out of all the trilogies, I found Peter Parker's decision totally satisfying. It comes at such great cost, too, part of what makes it so consistent with the series. At the end of the first movie, he rejects Mary Jane because of his responsibility to the greater good; here, again, he sacrifices his own deep desire for vengeance for the sake of greater good. This decision, having been reached at the end of a long night of the soul, may ultimately undo his romance with the girl of his dreams. When they are dancing together at the end of the film, there is a sense of tragedy; we do not know if MJ can take the same step and forgive Peter for the grievous wrongs he has committed against her (culminating when he physically strikes her down out of pique). What's more, we don't know if they are really meant to be together. When MJ is coerced into breaking up with Peter, her supposedly concocted reasons are actually quite valid, and I found myself wishing that they wouldn't get back together, for the sake of their separate happiness.

Nevertheless, Peter Parker is a hero at the end, because of his sacrifice. Perhaps for no better reason than that -the outstanding uniqueness of Sam Raimi's vision- I believe Spidey's is the best trilogy.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Bring Back the Bees!

Major news: bees are vanishing, by the billions! Known as "colony collapse disorder", hordes of hymenopteroids are going out to pollinate but losing their way home, becoming disoriented by some unknown cause and dying away from the hive. If the trend continues, the impact on our food supply could be catastrophic.
Check out this report:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/225/popup/index.php?cl=2408020

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Come Unity

Seeking community... I'm feeling tired: the search for a new group of Christ's followers is wearing me out! Maybe I should have stuck with the last group, the body of believers at Green Lake Presbyterian. Some good people there, some good friends. Oh, but my ex is there, too. There's that little detail. My departure from Green Lake has everything to do with her; at the same time, it has nothing to do with her. Let me explain.

First of all, I was a newcomer to GL when we started dating. By the time we broke up a year later, I had made some moves and was poised to become a member. A handful of people said they "understood" why I would stay away, given the end of the relationship. There was no question that she would continue going, since, after all, the church was headed at one time by her cousin: Green Lake is family for her. I, on the other hand, feel that I was treated like a step-child. Those who said they understood whatever my decision would be, they had gained this insight without asking me a single question. What kind of understanding was this? It seemed superficial at best, and once stated, the subject never came up again.

I've been strangely quiet on the topic. The breakup took place over a year ago, but just now do I feel as I'm coming to grips. Lacking my own understanding of what I was experiencing, how could anyone else claim it? That kind of superficial engagement I can understand from friends: it's no big fat hairy deal. But from a community of brothers and sisters? Perhaps it is too insubstantial for real accountability, and now more than ever I recognise that I'm looking for accountability in whatever body of believers I join.

Recently I've been reading Alexander Schmemann's great book about orthodoxy, For The Life of The World, and in it is a great passage about church, one that sums up my expectation for the worship experience:

The Church takes us, as it were, to that first evening on which man, called by God to life, opened his eyes and saw what God in His love was giving to him, saw all the beauty, all the glory of the temple in which he was standing, and rendered thanks to God. And in this thanksgiving he became himself.

I think the body of believers I seek are those who are seeking to become themselves, in the light of understanding what grace has done for us, how grace is the very outline of our true being. Tall order.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Everything and Nothing

"Mistakes were made," is what we're hearing from the Attorney General lately, in connection with the purge of seven officials whose loyalty to the Administration was in question; with the "Bushies" it's either purge or surge. This is not the first time mistakes were made, nor is it likely to be the last. All the more reason to consider this curious phrase. It is neither admission nor an apology. Heard in the past from Bill Clinton, Tom DeLay and Donald Rumsfeld, this nonconfession is suggestive of inefficiency and needless exposure, as if it is meant to say not so much that similar actions will not occur in the future, rather parties will try harder at not getting caught so baldly next time. A DC political guru, William Schneider, asserts that politicians have contributed a new tense to the English language. "This usage," he says, "should be referred to as the past exonerative." Recent events in Israel recall this phrase, too, if elliptically.

Israel's ambassador to Germany last week condemned statements made by Roman Catholic bishops. During a visit to the Ramallah ghetto in Palestine, these German bishops commented on the appalling state of living there; Gregor Maria Hanke and Walter Mixa said some blunt things. Bishop Hanke is quoted as saying, "We see the photos of the inhuman Warsaw ghetto, and in the evening we travel to the ghetto in Ramallah; that makes you angry." Mixa went further, describing the conditions in Ramallah as "almost racism."

I don't see an explicit connection between Warsaw and Ramallah. The former was a staging area, in essence, for people on their way to extermination, whereas the latter is a miserable place from which, to its residents, escape must seem impossible. Nevertheless, a place not being Warsaw does not exempt it from criticism. Shimon Stein sees it differently. The ambassador rebutted the bishops: "If one uses terms like Warsaw ghetto or racism in connection with Israeli or Palestinian politics, then one has forgotten everything or learned nothing."

(The ambassador, in his repudiation, fails to mention what Cardinal Joachim Meisner -another member of the visiting delegation- said in response to seeing the West Bank separation barrier, when he compared it to the Berlin Wall: "I never thought I would have to see something like this ever again in my life.")

The suggestion of taking responsibility for deplorable living conditions within your own borders is provocative, true, but perhaps the ambassador protests too much, for to forget everything and learn nothing is dangerous. If the bishops were to outright call the West Bank a clearinghouse for wholesale slaughter, similar to what the Nazis did in Poland, that would be mischaracterising the situation. Yet can Israel deny that it has built a security fence around the Occupied Territories? Such an egregious action does recall the barrier that penned Jews in Warsaw and brings about similar degradation, loss of hope and disenfranchisement of the youth -as well as spurring a violent resistance. Ambassador Stein misses the emphasis made by the bishops, which is not to say the situations are the same but that the lack of outrage, that a population should exist in such reprehense, is a produce of national neglect. They elucidate Israel's right to sovereignty and call upon it to behave better than Poland did. The bishops have done the opposite of what their critic suggests. They remember and learn: can Israel do the same?

Even were the ambassador to say something along the lines of a past exonerative statement, "Mistakes were made," as neutral as that would be, at least it would acknowledge Israels place in history.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

You Too Can be an Armchair Microfinancier


This is not a phishing expedition, I promise. The problem of poverty is one that crosses all borders and nationalities, and I found a great, frugal solution for lending help. Even with a salary as small as mine, this is a site that creates the opportunity to help out with people that live in far worse conditions than I do in scenic, quiet, peaceful Seattle.

Basically you can become a microfinancier. Check out to find out what exactly that entails -but I can tell you it doesn't take much more than a little bit of money and a Paypal account.

If you have access to nytimes.com, you can also read Nicholas Kristof's editorial about Kiva in today's edition. That's how I heard about the service in the first place.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

It's All in the Signs

My friend Tim sent me this cool link, at which I composed the above image: http://www.warningsigngenerator.com/

Open up!

Production sharing agreements are what the oil industry wants to see more of in the Middle East, particularly a little place called Iraq, and they are getting help from our executive branch. The Bush Administration is pushing for these agreements, aggressively pursuing laws in the new Iraqi Parliament that will open things up over there. Whereas countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have long experience deflecting Big Oil from their reserves, the fledgling government in Baghdad is vulnerable.

Sharing agreements are about just that -sharing. They can exact long contracts up to thirty five years and allow foreign companies to enjoy direct interest in oil production. ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and BP are the world's largest and most powerful financial empires: they want something called the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law to be signed by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki; he and his parliament, such as it is, have proven resistant thus far, but the recurring chaos at the capital continues to wear down resistance and has proven to be a lever with which the foreign companies can exert their influence. Having the US military on their side doesn't hurt either.

The Iraq Hydrocarbon Law (have to love the euphemistic name, when they could have just called it "Gimme All Your Black Gold"), if passed, will hand over exclusive control of Iraq's oil fields directly to foreign interests. It will allow a major portion of revenues to go out of Iraq. Back in March of 2001, that so very innocent time when the worst we had to worry about was a stolen election, Vice President Cheney convened his national energy development group, the infamous Energy Task Force whose members included "Kenny Boy" Lay from Enron. At the end of their august deliberations, they gave out the recommendation that the US should support initiatives by Middle East countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." That was six years ago. Today the minutes from those meetings are still classified. What's more, the CEO of Halliburton, the company VP Cheney used to head before going to the White House, is moving operations to Iraq's neighbor, Dubai; to be closer to the action, one can only suppose.

VP Cheney just the other day said that Congress is "undermining" our troops by refusing to support the President's one hundred billion dollar "surge". What exactly are we sending 21,500 more troops to protect?

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

A Great Composer Honored

The greatest living composer in our time is Arvo Part. Last year he turned 70 and appears to be as vital as ever. His studies in silence and iteration have been a source of revelation to me, his choral works a joyful wellspring; a couple weeks ago I was staying with my friends the Dalrymples in Campbell, CA and they had on their shelf Part's Passion, and in listening to it I experienced such a spiritual outgrowth of feeling that I was moved to tears. Arvo Part is able to bring resonance to life that is all at once natural and electric: like voltage grounding itself through the medium of my ear, when I listen to his works I am a conduit for his tremendous creations of sound.I mention Arvo Part now because he has been awarded the $105,938 Sonning Music Prize, Denmarks' foremost music award. The prize will be given at a May 22nd concert in Copenhagen, at which Part will reveal a new work. I wish I could be there!

http://www.arvopart.info/