Who should Obama and the Democrats run against? And how?

In 2003 Israeli interests commissioned a study on how to manipulate the American public to maximize US aid to Israel. The result was the WEXNER ANALYSIS: ISRAELI COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES 2003 [pdf]. One thing the study recommended was that Israel demonize Saddam Hussein and keep on demonizing him, making him the enemy, using him to scare the American people, even if he was dead.

Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead…For a year – a SOLID YEAR – you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people. Saddam will remain a powerful symbol of terror to Americans for a long time to come.

The Republicans followed that advice on Saddam but they also did it with Clinton. They demonized Bill Clinton and ran against him even after he was out of office, held him up to their supporters as everything they were against, made him the boogieman, painted him in black and red, and ignored the truth.

In the same way Obama and the Democrats need to run against Bush. Bush and Cheney were widely hated before they left office. Obama and the Democrats need to remind people of all the evil that the last administration did and remind the American people that we do not want go back to those policies or people.

It hurts Obama’s chances when he does anything Bush and Cheney would have done, from torture to deregulation, from giving money to the wealthy, to blocking help for the poor. Whenever Obama continues one of Bush’s unpopular policies it makes it that much harder to run against Bush and the Republicans.

All this bipartisan crap is bad for the Democrats. It says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, that Republican policies are equally valid. That confuses people. When they had that health reform conference, which CNN showed all day, it gave the Republicans 8 hours to get their lies on TV and only hurt the chances for real health care reform. Whoever proposed it needs to be hunted down and fired.

The Democrats need to draw distinctions between themselves and the Republicans and make those distinctions clear. Every time Obama allows himself to be fooled by Rahm Emanual, or some other Almost-A-Republican adviser, and to compromise, to not act like a Democrat, he weakens his party’s chance of staying in office.

Be a Democrat! Run against Bush! And stop doing anything Bush would do!

How should the Democrats run?

The Bush administration had an echo chamber. It was disgusting because it was inspired by the Nazi daily parole, where the Nazis put out a message of the day to manipulate the German people. Disgusting but it worked.

The Obama administration needs to do something like that. The Democrats need to all stay on a single message on a single day – which will help them get that message in the media and help the American people to hear and understand it. But they need to remember another lesson of the Wexner Report:

Stick to your message but don’t say it the same way twice. If they [the American people] hear you repeating the exact same words over and over again, they will come to distrust your message. If your speakers can’t find different ways to express similar principles, keep them off the air.

The Democrats need an echo chamber to get through to the media, to reiterate the good things Obama is doing, but each voice needs his/her own version of that message so different people will not be repeating the same words. The Bush echo chamber was bad about doing that. The Daily Show used to show video montages of various Bush minions spouting the same message in exactly the same words. If that means the Democrats need to send a different fax to each person, each with a different wording for the Obama Administration’s Message of the Day, then that is what they need to do.

Lastly, Howard Dean needs to reappointed to head the DNC. He is one of the main reasons the Democrats took the House and Senate. Whoever has that job now is nowhere nearly as good.

Hmmm, maybe Dean needs to replace Rahm Emanual.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2010

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Gay Hunter

Gay Hunter by James Leslie Mitchell writing as Louis Grassic Gibbon.

Gay Hunter was published in 1934 and is one of those old books that amazon has, but overpriced, $96 in this case. I found a cheap copy on alibris though it was a version republished in 1989. Copies of the original hardcover ranged from $96 to $1250 on alibris. The prices made me wonder what could possibly be in this book, wondering if it could be about – a gay hunter?

Gay Hunter was a nice read, only taking about a day. It was sweet and most of what happens you want to happen. There’s something nice and indulgent about a book that doesn’t thwart your wishes, making you frustrated and pained by its treatment of characters you like. Gay is very likable. By the way, Gay Hunter, the lead character, is a woman and an archeologist, very free and fit, sort of a mild female version of Indiana Jones.

In the book Gay and a couple of freaky fascists find themselves in a future Britain where advanced civilization has been wiped out by atomic war. I was surprised people knew about the possibility of atomic bombs and that they could wipe out civilization but apparently they did, even in 1934. People in this future have reverted to hunter/gatherer bands. Gay becomes part of one of these bands while the fascists try to set up a society with themselves at the top using their ability to manipulate some of the technology left behind by the lost civilization. The hunters are very much noble savages except more noble and less savage. They all seem very sweet in a kind of “Garden of Eden before the fall” kind of way. It makes them two dimensional.

In addition to atomic bombs the science fiction elements include areas sterilized by radiation, mutated animals, a heat ray, television and voices from the past (Gay’s future). Stableford in Scientific Romance in Britain 1890-1950 calls Gay Hunter “…one of the most impressive post-holocaust stories written between the wars…”-

Gay spends most of the book nude, along with everyone else. Well, everyone except for the freaky fascists, who, like Adam and Eve after the God casts them out of the garden, cover themselves with plant material.

Though I liked it I couldn’t really understand why anyone would think someone else would pay $1250 for even a first edition. But maybe there is something else at work here. It’s a pretty hot book for 1934. Most of the characters spend the book nude. There’s sex, offscreen but without benefit of proper clergy. Gay implies she may, in the future, investigate lesbian sex and polyamory. That is pretty hot for 1934, for an England still in a hangover from the Victorian age. Maybe if someone read Gay Hunter in the 30s when they were young they might have found it very titillating. They might be willing to pay a lot to try to recapture that feeling.

Anyway, I liked it.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Tanith Lee: When the Lights Go Out

Tanith Lee – When the Lights Go Out

Tanith Lee has two kinds of books, the ones with lots of plot and little imagery and the ones with lots of imagery and little plot. When The Lights Go Out doesn’t have a lot of plot: Girl runs away, becomes priestess. While some of Lee’s books have just two or three images worth remembering, I left this book full of film flags. It was one of her ice cream books. It went down as easy as ice cream and just as sweet and creamy. Some of her recent books, particularly young adult or book club ones, don’t have the magic of her earlier works but When The Lights Go Out, published in 1996, does. Lee’s imagery is so beautiful, so precise, that I can see the things she describes in my mind. They transport me to the scene. I’ve long claimed that Shakespeare was Christopher Fry in his last life but in this one she’s Tanith Lee.

I think some reviewers, those who prefer the newspaper reporter’s spare prose, have criticized Tanith Lee’s use of the English language. It’s too lush for them. Lee sees the world in all of its colors but for some critics the world is black and white, or no more than 16 shades of gray. They think her descriptions are overdone. So more and more she has deserted the imagery that is her greatest skill, to conform her work to reviewers’ tastes. That is our loss but in When the Lights Go Out, she hasn’t done that. It’s one of her better things. Not her best, but lovely to read.

… the Thames, dirty silver as an ancient spoon…

…waves moved softly in transparent fans.

High up, the seagull called the scream of unvoiced human agony, on her behalf, to the ears of a God too far away to realize she had suffered.

The gull waddled along the sill, and jumped off, as if throwing itself to its doom.

…the knives of sunlight glinting.

Sea grey. Caps of cream like old curtain lace, and filmy greenness extinguishing. Then the cold sky turned a clear hot orange, fading up like smoke into violet. And the sea reflected, a chameleon, lying graciously. The sea was not any such colour, not even when she came in wearing red—

The sail bent like a wing.

…he saw…flame like a dart between their young jewelry eyes, a look.

Christmas stars on the tree of darkness.

Bells ran like knives in icing sugar air intense as vodka.

…under the full white ice of the moon…

The sea below, stilled by freezing. A crochet of ice against the beach…

A spray of water like diamonds.

The sea was loud. It crashed – a thousand goblets shattered – to the stones…

Snow and frost still drew in the shapes of things, the tiles on roofs, the pinkened coils of the stones along the beach.

She wound the serpents of her moon-pale arms about his neck.

The vivid red of the flames and the liquid ribs of the sea reflecting…

…and in their eyes the jewels of the lights.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Tanith Lee quotes property of Tanith Lee.

Clever Clover Killing Con-Men

Human beings are pretty credulous. We’re likely to believe anything anyone tells us. You can see how that might have been adaptive back in the days when we were evolving in kinship groups. Back then if your mother told you “Watch out for that snake. He’s dangerous,” you’d probably better listen. If your cousin told you “Be careful. There’s a lion down by the water hole,” you’d need to believe him. We told the truth and had the truth told to us. Even today it takes more energy for the human brain to lie than to tell the truth. Despite that, there are whole professions, like advertising, public relations or Republican Party Operative, dedicated to figuring out the best lies to tell people, the lies people are most likely to believe. Even today we tend to believe what we are told and let it effect our behavior.

For instance: Clover. When I was growing up clover was seen as a good thing. In those days a lawn covered in clover was continually in motion, animated by the movements of colorful and productive insects. In those days clover was added to lawn seed mixes because it fixed nitrogen. A lawn that is 20 to 30 per cent clover shouldn’t need fertilizer. It shouldn’t need much beyond mowing.

One of the earliest herbicides, discovered during World War II, is 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, called 2,4-D. It kills dicots, leaving behind monocots, which are things like wheat, rice, rye, corn, and sugar cane. In practice this means it kills many broad-leafed plants, leaving grasses untouched. Put 2,4 D on a lawn and the clover will be killed but not the grass. Back when people liked clover in their lawns they didn’t use 2,4-D. For the producers of agricultural chemicals this was a problem. The solution was to convince people, convince lawn owners, that clover was not desirable, that it was a weed. Without clover in a lawn they could sell 2,4-D to homeowners without them getting upset when their clover died. And once the clover was dead then the lawn would probably need a nitrogen fertilizer. With the clover dead it was easier to convince homeowners to buy pesticides for the lawn because it wouldn’t be so obvious they were killing beneficial insects. Bees and butterflies are rare now on residential lawns. All from that one lie, that clover is a weed. “Weed” means is “unwanted plant”. For the makers of agricultural chemicals clover was unwanted. It interfered with profits.

This is how Scotts, which sells lawn care products, describes clover:

Clover is a perennial weed that grows easily in moist areas. This shallow-rooted weed is found throughout the U.S. Clover also performs well in nitrogen-depleted soil, so consider applying a fertilizer application to help keep it from coming back.

Can you believe the gall? Because clover fixes nitrogen it does well in nitrogen depleted soils, enriching them. To Scotts that is a bad thing. Their solution is for customers to buy and apply fertilizer to replace the nitrogen clover would fix for free. Jeez! And to buy herbicides to kill clover. They’ve gotten their customers to believe that clover should be eradicated from lawns. Their lawn seed mixes no longer contain clover. These companies also sell pesticides and without clover (and dandilions) people are less likely to notice their chemically treated lawn is now a fatal affliction for most living things.

But clover isn’t the only thing relabeled to fool us as to its true nature.

I know you’ve heard news reports from time to time about police in Iraq being killed, in the dozens, in the hundreds. If you were like me you wondered, why would they kill police? Crime is rampant in Iraq, people are robbed all the time, girls are often kidnapped and raped. Why would anybody attack the police?

When Paul Bremer took control of Iraq in 2003, he was ordered by the Bush administration to fire the entire Iraq military establishment as well as the national police force. They were replaced with collaborators, not unusual during an occupation. What the Bush Administration called “police”, the Iraqi National Police, were really a collaborative paramilitary organization that responded to “incidents,” assisted Coalition Forces on raids and supported the Iraqi puppet government. Some police brigades have been implicated in torture and even helped sectarian death squads. So, of course, Iraqi patriots tried to kill them. But by labeling them “police”, the Bush Administration meant to keep us from understanding why, to make us think the people fighting them and us were afflicted with an evil madness instead of an understandable anger.

They used words to confuse and relabel what they did in the US as well. Those that fight to protect the environment through any kind of property damage they called “ecoterrorists”. People who rescue animals from lives of torture are called animal rights terrorists. When the Republicans passed a bill to curtail the freedom of American citizens they called it “The Patriot Act”. The list goes on and on as they tried to convince us that bad is good and good is bad, all by controlling what something is called, by controlling its label.

Remember, clover is not a weed. Bees and butterflies are good. And the Patriot Act is not patriotic.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Saving Science Fiction

Why do women buy more fantasy than science fiction?

Well, how is science fiction different from fantasy? In a sense all fiction is fantasy but in literary terms science fiction is set in a world that might be while fantasy is set in a world that never could be. But that’s not the only difference. The real reason that women buy more fantasy is that fantasy is not adverse to emotional content and most science fiction is.

Most, though not all, of early science fiction was written by men, particularly in the first half of the 20th century. Men don’t generally like emotional stories. Most male readers hate the Twilight series and generally don’t like authors like Jane Austen, the Brontes or Margaret Mitchell. Women do. When men were most of the writers, editors, and readers of science fiction, emotional content was left out so it would appeal to the readers most likely to buy it. This continues till this day. I’m not saying it’s a hundred percent. In the last thirty years there have been plenty of science fiction authors who were women, women like Lois McMasters Bujold and Olivia Butler, but I wonder if even their works are read by many men.

The gender bias in science fiction is undeniable. Who can forget the words of Robert Silverberg about Alice Sheldon, who published under the name of James Tiptree to avoid the gender prejudice of the genre.

“It has been suggested that Tiptree is female, a theory that I find absurd, for there is to me something ineluctably masculine about Tiptree’s writing. I don’t think the novels of Jane Austen could have been written by a man nor the stories of Earnest Hemingway by a woman, and in the same way I believe the author of the James Tiptree stories is male.”

So women turned to the literary ghetto of fantasy, a place where women writers were allowed to publish and women readers were not disdained.

Gender bias exists, not just in what writers get science fiction published, but in the work itself. Many science fiction stories and novels are so sexist that they are likely to repel the woman reader. Women are not just demeaned, they are often nonexistent. Many stories set in the science fiction ghetto are like the Smurfs or pictures of the Middle East, all guys with maybe one chick off to the side. When there is a major female character she’s either just a sex object or she’s like Michelangelo’s sculptures of nude women, a man with boobs stuck on.

As women love the love stories, men love the superhero stories and the hero’s journey. Women often consider the whole “hero’s journey”meme as the purest kind of fantasy. When, at least after the hunter gatherer days, has the physical prowess of one man made a difference in the outcome of anything? David and Goliath? Okay, after that. But men have it in their souls, probably from the hunter gather days, that if they can fight and win and save their group, they can be the hero and get the girl, or girls. Well, those days are gone. A man can’t fight a predator drone. Even in the hunter/gatherer days, when a young male made a “journey” it was generally because he had been thrown out of his natal group or was looking for unoccupied territory where he could establish his own group. I think one of the reasons males, subliminally, want to become a hero is so they will gain enough value that they will be allowed to remain in their natal group or even lead it. Very much a hunter/gatherer thing.

So now fantasy is outselling science fiction ten to one because women are still buying real books in much larger numbers than men and women buy fantasy. I would think the solution to that is to hire women editors and for them to buy science fiction stories and novels written by women, with female characters, and to market them to women. Stephenie Meyer’s science fiction novel, The Host, has sold millions so women will buy science fiction. Despite that many men in science fiction publishing think they are above the woman reader and writer and disregard any manuscript with a woman’s name on it. That’s why Alice Sheldon pretended to be a man, why other women published under names that did not reveal their gender. Women notice the contempt and go write and read fantasy. I read fantasy myself, even though much of it makes me feel a little dirty. I really like science fiction better, like I prefer Star Trek to LOTR, despite the cardboard backdrops. And fantasy won’t change the world, the future, while science fiction has, and more than once.

We need to make a deal. We women won’t roll our eyes at your superhero stories and you won’t roll your eyes at our love stories. We won’t snort derisively at Superman or Spiderman and you won’t sneer at Twilight or Wuthering Heights. Then maybe we could share. Men and women could both write and read science fiction and maybe we could save the genre.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

The North Korean Passion Play

Someone got me to watch a film on North Korea. It was a propaganda film, a film with spooky music and scary narration describing how terrible North Korea was but when I turned off the sound what I saw was a lot of monuments without people visiting them and a lot of young, pretty women. Maybe you have to be a pretty woman to be allowed to live in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital.

North Korea looked better to me than places like Saudi Arabia. Two things that the commies always delivered on were rights for women and education. It was clear women have more rights in North Korea than in most middle eastern countries. There were no children starving in the streets either, like in India or much of Africa. So it was hard for me to see North Korea as a monster country. True, they have made gods of their present and former leaders, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, very much like the Romans, Chinese and Japanese made gods of their rulers. Or the rulers declared themselves gods and the people didn’t laugh till they choked.

While Bush never got around to declaring himself a god, he did say he was on a mission from God and God had put him in office[1] which is similar. The statues and monuments to Kim Il-sung didn’t seem much different to me than the Lincoln or Jefferson Memorial, though lots less crowded. Or maybe everybody was at work during the times westerners were allowed to film.

The countryside filmed from a train was very pretty. The mountains and forests looked less interfered with than landscapes in the west. I have a touch of agoraphobia so I liked how sparsely populated it looked.

There are famous night time satellite pictures of the Korean Peninsula with South Korea all lit up like, well, like the US, Western Europe and Japan and North Korea as dark as Africa or central Australia. I really don’t see anything that important about street lights. Streetlights, we have them to keep down crime and to help people in cars see where they are going. If you live some place with very little or no crime, almost no cars, and without a nightlife, what do you need streetlights for? In fact, I think every streetlight should be on a UV motion detector so they would only turn on when something warm and moving comes within a certain distance of them. Then our cities could be dark at night and we could see the stars again. I miss the stars. It’s been so long since I’ve seen them.

Anyway, I don’t see that the lack of streetlights in North Korea indicates the darkness of their souls or anything.

Watching the propaganda film got me to watching the North Korean Mass Games. North Korea’s Mass Games are like a Busby Berkeley musical with a cast of a hundred thousand, everyone in beautiful costumes, everyone a star in their own eyes yet part of a beautiful whole. It makes the Olympic opening ceremonies look miserly in comparison. It’s like a national art project.

That got me to thinking about Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. In Cat’s Cradle two friends, Johnson[Bokonon] and McCabe, are washed ashore on the Caribbean island of San Lorenzo, one of the poorest places on earth. They decided to take it over and make it a utopia. Taking over proves easy but helping people proves very difficult because of abject poverty of the island. They decide to give the people a better life by giving them a passion play to be part of. They choose the “Tyrant in the Palace and Holy Man in the Jungle” and assume those parts. What you pretend to be you become. The man playing the tyrant becomes a tyrant and the man playing the holy man becomes a holy man. The entire population becomes part of this play and it gives meaning, zest and happiness to their lives[2].

In the same way a huge part of the population of North Korea becomes part of the mass games, this national art project, this combination of carnival, halftime show and celebration of national unity. It’s inspiringly beautiful, looks like great fun and takes a lot of time. It occupies many people.

There is another play afoot, a more serious one. The “tiny righteous country menaced by evil outside forces” play. That one might get them killed.

______________________

[1] ‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” Mr Bush went on: “And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”

[2] Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
“…when it became evident that no governmental or economic reform was going to make the people much less miserable, the religion became the one real instrument of hope. Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies.”
“How did he come to be an outlaw”
“It was his own idea. He asked McCabe to outlaw him and his religion, too, in order to give the religious life of the people more zest, more tang…”
“McCabe would organize the unemployed, which was practically everybody, into great Bokonon hunts.
“About every six months McCabe would announce triumphantly that Bokonon was surrounded by a ring of steel, which was remorselessly closing in.
“And then the leaders of the remorseless ring would have to report to McCabe, full of chagrin and apoplexy, that Bokonon had done the impossible.
“He had escaped, had evaporated, had lived to preach another day. Miracle!”
“McCabe and Bokonon did not succeed in raising what is generally thought of as the standard of living…The truth was that life was as short and brutish and mean as ever.
“But people didn’t have to pay as much attention to the awful truth. As the living legend of the cruel tyrant in the city and the gentle holy man in the jungle grew, so, too, did the happiness of the people grow. They were all employed full time as actors in a play they understood, that any human being anywhere could understand and applaud.”
“So life became a work of art”


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Double Punishment, Double Jeopardy

The last week has been pretty disturbing for those of us who hope to see our country restored and its moral center reestablished. President Obama decided to participate in the torture cover up and, at the CIA and Republican’s behest, blocked the release of pictures showing torture. Then he decided to prosecute the victims of US torture in military tribunals. Military tribunals, hell. Kangaroo courts.

I think he’s afraid of the CIA. He should be. There’s evidence that Bush 41, with the help of CIA agents and assets, assassinated President Kennedy. Kennedy had threatened to break up the CIA and scatter it to the wind. He fired two CIA directors. He refused to okay Operation Northwards. He refused to use the Bay of Pigs, which he was only told about a couple of hours before it began, as an excuse to invade Cuba. He refused to send planes to support it. All those things made the CIA and the Miami Cubans very angry at him. Thus they were willing to kill him and did.

President Jimmy Carter came into office promising to clean up the CIA and stop its excesses. It is said he fired 800 CIA agents. Many of these agents immediately became assets of the GOP and use their skills to fix the election of 1980 thus putting Reagan and Bush 41 in office.

The CIA has more power than we know and much more power than it should.

Both Obama and his mother are said to have been CIA assets and perhaps CIA agents. At least they both worked, at different times, for a corporation that was known to be a CIA front, the Business International Corporation (one of whose specialties was recruiting leaders of domestic left-wing organizations as CIA assets).

So Obama may know enough about the CIA to be afraid of it but I find it very sad that he has to be, that he can not do right because of the power of evil men.

I’m particularly disturbed at the prospect of trying prisoners who have already been punished. It’s a kind of double jeopardy.

You know, from time to time we will read about a police officer or some other government official who appears to have done something wrong or illegal and is put on paid suspension while his guilt and punishment is decided. And many people think, why didn’t they just fire him? It comes down to punishment and the law. You only get one punishment for one infraction. If a police officer punches a citizen without justification and is immediately fired and no longer receives his pay his union will appeal the punishment. If they prove that he had some justification for his actions he has to be rehired without any further punishment because he has already been punished once when he lost his salary when he was fired. So instead, they suspend people like that, keep on paying them, so when they come to punish them they can. If their employer punishes them once by withholding their salary, they can’t be punished again for the same thing.

The people held by the Bush administration have already been punished. Some of them have been water boarded 88 times, probably worse than a death sentence, or 88 death sentences. So even if they are found guilty they should be released because they have already been punished. It is not right to punish them twice for the same offense. It is a kind of double jeopardy. Personally I think they should be released with a considerable amount of money to pay for their suffering, and watched. Then, if they commit another offense against the United States, they could be tried in a real court.

Let’s hope President Obama figures out a way to get the CIA under control so he is in charge, not them, and that all torture victims go free, are compensated and their torturers spend the rest of their lives in jail.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Stupid Girl

I’ve been mulling over the incident between Rihanna and her boyfriend, Chris Brown.

Rihanna is a young singer from Barbados. I don’t like her music and I don’t know anything about her as a person but after watching her in video director Chris Applebaum’s Umbrella I viewed her as a work of art, or at least artifice. You’ve probably seen the video. In it Rhianna prances around on point carrying an umbrella. She’s a pretty girl. I didn’t pay much attention to the reports that her boyfriend had beaten her up until the pictures surfaced. He clearly went after her face with his fists, trying to break her beauty. I hoped he’d go to jail.


Rihanna, Before and After
Rihanna, Before and After

According to the cops the incident went like this:

Rihanna reportedly discovered a three-page text — from a woman — that was on Chris’ phone and an argument ensued. He tried to force her out of the Lamborghini, but failed because she was wearing her seat belt. So he allegedly shoved her head against the passenger window, then — when she turned to face him — punched her. He continued to punch her while he was driving as blood spattered all over her clothes and the car. Her mouth was filled with blood.

According to the report, Chris then told Rihanna: “I’m going to beat the —- out of you when we get home. You wait and see.”

So she called her assistant and left a message saying, “I am on my way home. Make sure the cops are there when I get there.”

Brown replied: “You just did the stupidest thing ever. I’m going to kill you.”

Chris continued to punch Rihanna, he bit her on her ear and fingers and put her in a headlock, which caused her to nearly lose consciousness.

A resident of L.A.’s Hancock Park, the neighborhood where this took place, [said] that Rihanna’s shriek’s pierced the usually quiet streets. “I actually heard her screams,” Roseann Diana said. “They were horrible, wrenching.”

http://www.starmagazine.com/news/15316

Now, much more disturbingly, a report has come out that Rhianna’s gotten back together with him. He brutally beat her and, not only has she reconciled with him, she’s trying to get him off on the assault charges filed against him. I can’t understand that. It’s bad enough that many women live in situations where they literally have no right to flee from abusers but this young woman is free, rich and successful. Is she mentally deranged?

I think the tolerance that some women have for their abusers is a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, a behavior to keep them alive when they are unable to flee from abuse. It’s almost as if they have amnesia, can no longer remember the pain or the fear.

Why would Rihanna go back to that thug? I’ve read studies that say most women in Western societies that stay with abusive men do so for financial reasons.

“After divorce, the income of the custodial single-parent mother falls an average 73 percent and that of the non-custodial father rises 41 percent”.

That’s a pretty big cut, particularly for a woman with children. Women stay with abusers not just to save themselves and their children from poverty but sometimes stay to maintain a standard of living they can never achieve for themselves. This doesn’t apply to Rihanna. She has a successful career. But there is a rumor that money is involved here as well. Supposedly Chris Brown will have to pay Rihanna $10 million if he hits her again. Exactly how she’s going to make him pay I don’t know. In fact, the loss of that kind of money hanging over his head might make Brown decide to kill her the next time rather than just beat her bloody.

When I see Brown’s smirking face on TV I’m reminded of Michael Vick. When it first came out that Vick was involved in fighting, torturing and killing dogs, it looked as though Vick was going to slide out from under any serious charges. When the local cops were confronted by protesters the cops showed a combination of annoyance and shame that made me think they been bribed. Then the protests grew until Vick’s football team finally realized they couldn’t keep on making money from him. It was protests that brought justice to Michael Vick. Maybe there needs to be protests every time Chris Brown shows up in public.

Sean Puffy Combs, already responsible for nine deaths, is said to be behind the makeup, which took place at his house. If Brown kills Rhianna some night that will mean Comb is culpable for an even ten. I wonder what financial interests got Puffy involved in this matter. Sony records, Chris Brown’s label? This reminds me of the stories of old Hollywood, old and new Hollywood, claims that studios and record companies protect the talented people that make money for them. When a star gets into trouble the lawyers come out, and they handle the cops and try to keep the story out of the press. Popular performers were and are often able to escape punishment. Just one of the perks of lining the pockets of the wealthy. Maybe the same thing happened here. Maybe Sony Records got Combs to persuade Rihanna to overlook the beating Chris Brown gave her and to take him back in the hope that Chris Brown can keep on making money for them. Will it work? Time will tell.

One thing we don’t need a crystal ball to know, though, is that Rihanna will be beaten again. Abusers don’t stop.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

The Amazon Kindle and Orwell’s 1984

Will the Amazon Kindle save publishing? Do you want one? Should you want one? I’ve been considering that question myself.

There are pros and cons. The pros: The Kindle seems to be very neat. It’s small, small enough to carry in a purse. Amazon claims you can drop it without it breaking. You can adjust the font and, for those of us whose eyesight is failing, that’s very important. And it can read to you. Amazon claims it can read to you better than other programs, almost as well as a person.

Then there are the cons.

First, using the Kindle, instead of a paper book, changes books from something permanent, something you can keep your entire life, to something ephemeral. I have books over a hundred years old but I have lost computer files on the day I saved them. I have lost programs. I have lost pictures. I’ve had a hacker get into my computer and delete files. If I go to electronic books I can guarantee that I will lose some. If it’s a book I love, or even like, that is something horrible to contemplate.

Then there is the format thing. I have a thousand records and no way to play them. As albums changed from records to CDs the change in format made records, well, little more than nostalgic talismans. As years pass there will be format changes in electronic books and some books in an older format will be lost. There are books thousands of years old that can still be read but when a format falls out of favor, will it take a new Rosetta Stone to decipher books in an old format? Or will they be lost forever?

Amazon claims you will be able to replace everything you buy from them at any time. Do they really expect to be around a hundred years, their files uncorrupted and their records of your purchases still preserved? No, that is too much to ask. If you buy a Kindle eventually you will lose some of your books. The law may even change so you have to pay to keep rereading them. Certainly the format would make that possible.

Even worse, changing books to an electronic format, some of them stored on Amazon, would allow these books to be easily modified to reflect the lies of new administrations, of new rulers. In Orwell’s 1984 books were continually changed to reflect the changing propaganda of a repressive government. I never understood how they did that. How could they collect every affected book and replace it with a slightly different book? With electronic books that would become all too easy. Already on the Internet I’ve seen articles change, seen articles, even in major publications, that disappeared. Certainly electronic books would make book burnings unnecessary. Books would just be put on a restricted list and, the next time you logged into Amazon, that book would disappear from your Kindle. Or maybe just be replaced by a “corrected version.”

Publishing all books and magazines and newspapers in the Kindle format would be a dream come true for any repressive regime.

So, what to do, what to do?

Not that the decision of any one reader will make a difference. It is the decisions of millions of readers that will seal the fate of books. So maybe I can ignore the dangers and get a Kindle for my own convenience and screw the world.

And it sounds so convenient.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.

Davos and Trust

One of the themes of this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos was “Trust”. The participants felt they needed to build up the people’s trust in business, in the stock market, in banks and in the economy generally so investors and consumers would return to buying.

I think that ship has sailed.

It took the stock market 25 years to return to the levels seen before the 1929 crash. Twenty five years. That’s a lot. That’s … a generation. So a whole new generation had to grow up, a generation that didn’t remember losing their money in ‘29 and in the depression, a generation willing to trust the economic system, a generation that hadn’t been burned. As for consumers, my grandparents never got that trust back. After the depression they never returned to the kind of spending they did before the depression years.

Now people who have lost half their savings in 401Ks or stock market funds have learned never to put their money in the stock market again. The rich have learned not to put their money in hedge funds or investment funds run by Bernie Madoff or Stanford or anyone but themselves.

I don’t think trust is coming back for some people, not for as long as they live.


~~~~~~~~

To comment email alllie at alllie@newsgarden.org

~~~~~~~~~

© alllie 2009

Distribution: This article is copyrighted by alllie, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as you tell me where and this credit is attached as well as a link back to this page, http://www.alllie.com/alllieblog/.