VinceT

OK, first a warning: this will be something of a rant. I’m finally getting it all off my chest just so I don’t have to carry it any more.

And apologies to friends who aren’t in the US, because it’s most definitely an American thing

[though I do reserve the right to be informed it happens elsewhere]

OK. You’ve got fair warning.

Right now, in America:

• Barack Obama is President
• John Boehner is Speaker of the House
• Deval Patrick is Governor of Massachusetts

We know this, right? It’s fact.

So, if I see Bill Clinton getting introduced anywhere as President Bill Clinton

[or even Mr President]

or New Gingrich getting introduced anywhere as Speaker Gingrich, or Mitt Romney being addressed as Mr Governor, any longer I will quite literally go thermonuclear.

Bill Clinton is an ex-president.

Newt Gingrich is the former speaker of the house.

Mitt Romney has not been Governor of MA since January 4, 2007.

[about the same time that Rick Santorum left the US Senate]

Or, in other words…

THEY DO NOT WORK THERE ANY MORE!

None of them have/had lifetime appointments.

I don’t know what it is that the media have to cling to titles – it’s certainly an aspect of American society, where the first question asked of anyone is “Oh, hi <insert name here> and what do you do?”

But in professional politics

[and let's not pretend that anything in the state or national arena is anything other than professional politics, it definitely isn't service]

every day sees implicit encouragement of the use of the last most senior title for candidates who are no longer employed in that job.

It’s laughable.

As a former/ex-recruiter

[see what I did there?]

it’s as laughable as an unemployed candidate coming to interview and demanding to be called by their last job title.

THEY DO NOT WORK THERE ANY MORE!

So say it with me: “Hey! Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, and every other talking head who has the temerity to suggest they have credibility to inform my political consideration – label these people for what they are: professional politicians.”

[or has-beens, or quitters, or shirkers, or usurpers, or interlopers… the list is endless]

End rant.

There, and I even kept my language clean.

Yours,

Former-paperboy Vince Tuckwood

Long ago
they whispered
that grass
should strive
to seek
such susurrant calm
Waving not even
in the slightest
breath
nor breeze
lest it
disturb
petty
pontiffs
Disorder
the universe
Overturning
oligarchies
Peter principle
pedantry

“Keep still”
they said
“Don’t break
tranquil
slumbers
we’ve placed
upon
your
dormouse
eyelids
Were you to wake
we might
be forced
to show our hand
Our
empty
manipulative
Machiavellian
certainty
that this world
is ours
and you
little more than
docile
sheep
grazing
on
too calm
grass”

Long ago they whispered
and we kept listening

[From Dianne's prompt: "Docile"]

I found myself near to yelling at Anderson Cooper on CNN last night as they covered the storm-in-a-teacup non-controversy of Anthony Wiener (D – New York) and a seeming Twitter hack. Wolf Blitzer’s interview is an embarrassment (for Wolf, not Wiener). I despair for all news media which seems to only have two modes: flippant/goofy, or all-out controversy. And, if I want some political pundit’s opinion of twitter use, I’ll ask for it.

My reaction brought to mind a poem that I’d written as part of the WeAreStory transcontinental virtual poetry event in 2009 and subsequently published in Garbled, Glittering Glamours:

Glaring at the headline
I scream at screen and anchor
Your glinting eyes
do not conceal your hunger
Salacious hearsay
Wasted egos
When you wake
in clean morning air
Do you choke for need
of smog
Does it get you off
This masturbatory
fascination
for angels
with broken wings?

I am always saddened when a child gets caught up in the bad things that come from men and women playing power games. The apparent torture and mutilation of 13 year-old Hamza al-Khatib in Syria triggered this piece, a meditation on the ways we damage our humanity in the pursuit of ‘us and them’ games.

It’s like taking a gun
and pointing it
in your brother’s face
Telling them
unless they stop
you will pull the trigger
Wasting life
to make you feel better
To make you feel like
you are getting
somewhere
You become
those them
becoming you
Face down on the ground
for the sake of scant borders
Pointless
Pointless
Pointless
Like taking a gun
and pointing it
in your brother’s face

The Republicans swung to victories in the last election on rhetoric of fiscal conservatism and job creation. So far, they’ve done little to achieve the latter and, under the guise of the former

[which doesn't quite extend to removing tax breaks for the super-wealthy]

they are showing their true colours.

In denial of America’s changing place in the world order, their protectionist, revisionist tendencies have them wanting to return to Victorian days. Their first target? Women, who have been degraded and subjugated by angry, fearful men for millennia

[even with historical precedent, it's never been right]

and are often the first casualties of testosterone-fueled, power-play pissing contests.

Enough.

Here, from MoveOn.org, are the top 10 most shocking things the Republicans are doing, right now, to wage war on women:

1. Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t.

2. A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”

3. In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4. Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5. In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6. Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7. And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8. Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9. Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10. And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).

Sources:
1. “‘Forcible Rape’ Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding,” The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=6

“Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced,” Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=7

2. “Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As ‘Accusers,’” The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=8

3. “South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors,” Salon, February 15, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206102&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=9

4. “House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows,” National Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206103&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=10

5. “New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion,” Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=11

6. “Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids,” Think Progress, February 16, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/

7. “Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli,” The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206104&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=12

8. “House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy,” The Hill, February 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-

9. “House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding,” MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206122&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=13

“GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds,” Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206105&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=14

10. Ibid.
Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women,” Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206106&id=26177-18396889-Tln87fx&t=15

In a few days time, a small christian church in Florida plans to burn a thousand copies of the Holy Qu’ran.

I shouldn’t have to write much more. I wish I didn’t have to.

But I will. So I am.

This is just plain, fucking idiocy.

Is it just a pure play by the pastor to sell copies of a book he’s written?

[methinks the good reverend has aspirations to corporatise his mission]

I don’t think so.

I’m an atheist. I don’t do religion, though I respect the right of anyone else to believe what they want to believe, provided it doesn’t hurt another person.

I do, however, expect people who express a belief system to hold to that belief system.

[for example, my daughters are not 'gifts from god', they are the beautiful outcome of chance interactions that are at the core of evolutionary life]

So, in the interests of pointing out how hypocritical and idiotic this stunt is, I will draw upon teachings of none other than Jesus Christ as reported in Matthew 5:44…

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”

That’s referenced as the King James Bible version – more at http://bible.cc/matthew/5-44.htm.

[I wonder how many of the congregation have read the bible... let alone how many have read a copy of the Holy Qu'ran which they're about to burn]

It goes without saying that the burning of the Holy Qu’ran will incite violence somewhere in the world – and the knowing act of inciting violence would appear to be counter to the central tenets of Christian teaching.

But then comes the weirdness. The justification for the act is not one of religion, it’s apparently a geo-political act. To quote the pastor involved:

“It’s time for America to stop bowing to kings”

It’s an interesting sound-bite, and every time I’ve heard him use it, it seems at odds with his rhetoric on all other aspects of the book burning. It sounds kind of biblical

[though I can't source any quote from the bible that would support it being a religious allusion]

as there’s a lot of kings and slaves stuff in both old and new testaments, but it’s delivery is kind of politically framed.

From a quick search online, it would appear to be a reference to President Obama’s bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in early 2009.

A re-ignition of a storm-in-a-teacup controversy relating to the president? A sound-bite tactic out of the playbook of political strategists?

Oh. I get it.

As far as I can tell, no major republican politician has condemned this book burning

[though the leaders of all major faiths have]

and I wonder how long it’ll be until the republicans are blaming President Obama’s administration for the deaths and anti-american sentiment which arises from this act?

In fact, while we’re at it, isn’t this just another example of the generation of a ‘boogeyman’ so that the fear-mongering conservative right can improve its chances of gaining power? To quote Orwell:

Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of power is power

I’d love to see where the pastor is getting his funding, and how much coverage of the controversy is happening in areas with many swing voters.

So, here we have it, the pastor of a blip-on-the-radar church engaging in one of the most inflammatory geo-political acts of the modern era, fully aware of the consequences, and playing right into the storyline that the conservative right plan to use to underpin their attempt for political gain.

This has the stink of swift-boats about it.

Political business as usual, I guess.

Like I said, just plain, fucking idiocy.

Short rant here (and I know I’m not the first to write or speak of this, but I’m going to rant anyway)

On the news today, a report of a British service-man killed in Afghanistan - “Early reports suggest he might have been killed by friendly fire”.

I’ve always been struck by the ludicrous and, frankly, demeaning use of this term to sanitize what, to me at least, can only be described as wrongful killing.

I’m sure the term comes from radar tracking, where blips corresponding to your own side are classified as ‘friendly’ – or at least that’s what my hollywood-fed knowledge-base suggests – so it may be correct militarily to describe someone as being hit by ‘friendly fire’. What I object to is the use of the term by media and politicians when discussing the situation, particularly with the families of injured, or wrongfully killed, service personnel.

How insulting.

It demeans the honour of the deceased and the dignity of their loved ones to describe such wrongful killing with a saccharine, PC homily or badly misplaced, military technical term. The fact that media and politicians use the term to somehow delay liability that would be inferred by use of the term ‘wrongful killing’ just amplifies the lack of respect for both the deceased and their loved ones.

And on a more holistic level, the term in itself is just plain incorrect.

A bullet, shell or shrapnel pierces the body of a living human being, doing sufficient damage to injure or kill.

What about that can be considered ‘friendly’?

It doesn’t matter whether the human being is one of ‘ours’ or one of ‘theirs’ – it is not, nor can it ever be, a friendly act to pull a trigger that launches a projectile at another person.

‘Friendly fire’ lends an air of directed morality to the act of shooting – that it was somehow an accident. The truth is, at the point when the trigger is pulled, the shooter does NOT consider whether it is ‘friendly’ or ‘non-friendly‘ – by definition, every shot fired on the battlefield is made with the intention of being ‘non-friendly’.

It is not, nor can it ever be, a friendly act to pull a trigger that launches a projectile at another person.

Again, I suspect that the potential claims for liability drive a desire to delay blame until formal investigation. That’s understandable, but still does not excuse using the term ‘friendly‘. Call it ‘own-side’, ‘our own’, or even ‘home-team’ fire by all means – just don’t suggest that somehow the shooting would have been all right if it had just hit somebody else.