>>>CNN, Bush, & Rumsfeld’s What-If War or , How I Haven’t Stopped Caring Nor Learned to Love the Bomb
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
-Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense
And for going on two weeks now, we’ve been searching for those “unknown unknowns,” bombing for them, and killing for them. A long list of “what-ifs” has led us to invade a country, destroy its infrastructure, and kill its people. And this is the guidance we’re given. Our Secretary of Defense – who’s understanding of defense is by means of attack – offers his wisdom on “the things we don’t know we don’t know” and our “president” starts a war based on it. And what does our “free press” – the supposed purveyors of fair and balanced truth – make of it? They eat it up.
I was watching CNN on my lunch break the day we declared “diplomacy dead,” and Bush, Jr. was about to announce his 48-hour warning to Saddam Hussein and his sons. Did any of the reporters or any of the people they were reporting on ever mention that what “we” meant by declaring “diplomacy dead” was that diplomacy simply wasn’t producing the answers we wanted? That diplomacy never failed – the U.N. was simply making decisions that went against our war-making efforts. So, instead, we successfully subverted the U.N. and international law by declaring the death of diplomacy and stating that it’s high time we begin ignoring world opinion and start dropping bombs. But was anyone mentioning this? No. CNN, along with every other major news network and newspaper toed the Bush administration’s line. The phrase “Diplomacy is Dead” made for a good headline, a good graphic to go alongside the words “TARGET: IRAQ.” Because, unfortunately, the media isn’t liberal-biased. It’s sensationalistic. Anything sensational sells, and the media is an industry, and the goal of industry is to make money. So CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS geared up for their war-reporting, they embedded their journalists, and they turned on the live-feed from all of those cameras they must have spent months setting up in Iraq. And this is what we consider good journalism.
And was there anyone around to comment on just how insane this whole situation had become? How Saddam Hussein went from bothering no one other than his own people whom we couldn’t have cared less for to being the world’s most “potentially” dangerous man? How we backed out of weapons inspections as soon as they started working? How ironic and arrogant it is for us to punish a man for “supposedly” manufacturing weapons of mass destructions by dropping weapons of mass destruction on his country? No, there wasn’t. There was just cool graphics and live-feed from Baghdad.
And maybe I’m a little bitter about this whole war because for a brief moment it looked as if it might actually be stopped. When my brother and I were marching in New York City on February 15th alongside millions of other people across the world that also did not want a war in Iraq, it felt like we might be powerful enough to actually end the military build-up. It was the largest mass protest of any war in history and it seemed like “the people” might actually have a voice – one that is listened to and decisions are made based on. And if we had, it would have been the greatest step towards world peace in history because it would have set a precedent that took the decision to declare war out of the hands of the people who profit from it. It would have been true democracy, because everyday people don’t want to die for no reason – and they don’t want to see other people die for no reason, either. But CNN did not talk about this. They did not give peace much of any coverage.
So I sit here now, two weeks and some odd days into this irrational war with little idealism left other than the will to clarify and cut through the propaganda George Bush and his buddies over at CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS are spewing to any of the few people who will actually read this essay. Like when the media and our government talk about bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to the Iraqi people, they mean nothing more than bringing “capitalism” and a “free market” to the country. And more accurately, bringing “white capitalism” into Iraq’s “Arab oil.” Race and racism, my friends, are undoubtedly issues in this “Operation: Iraqi Freedom.” And when CNN reports on the strategic buildings we are bombing, I would like everyone to know that there are people inside those building, and those people are dying. And even though U.S General Tommy Franks comments that “we don’t do body counts,” there is body count totaling -- and though it may go unreported, it is there and it is rising. And those lives were real. And their deaths are final. And most importantly, I want it to go down on record, if only in the annals of the SeatSeven anthology and maybe, if I’m lucky, in my F.B.I. file, that I did not stand behind our cowboy president, nor his bully politics that got us into this crazy, bloody, evil mess. Because, unlike Saddam Hussein’s supposed stockpile of weapons, the bombs we’re dropping are real. They are real, and they kill. There is no big “what-if” about it. It is what Rumsfeld would call a “known known.”
-Mathew Swiatlowski
April 1st, 2003
>>>Gays Adopting Children (written by jan)
I don't know about you, but I find myself watching the news (or reading
it) on a frequent basis, so I am usually up on most of the events
of this world, though maybe not in the most timely manner. Anyways, have
you ever seen or read about one of those child adoption cases? Adoption
is a very controversial topic, but throw a homosexual couple into the
mix of things and the issue gets blown out of propotion. Each year gays
and lesbians are denied the right to adopt children soley because of
their sexual orientation. They could be the best parents ever- two stable
jobs, loving, outgoing citizens in their community, but still, if
they're homosexual the judicial system see it as fair game to deny them
custody right. I personally find this totally bogus.
There are many in the world today that thing that a homosexual raising
a child would infact harm the child. This is merely based on myths such
as the child will grow up gay, the child will be sexually abused, he or
she will not have knowledge of their own gender identity, the parents
of these children may not instill enough values in these kids, or even
worse- these children will be sexually abused. These are valid points,
because any of these can occur but the likelyhood is not high. If any of
the circumstances abouve were to happen it is merly the person. Who is
to say that children of straight parent cannot be sexually abused, grow
up gay, or be confused about their life. Other opposers of gay adoption
seem to think that homosexuals live unstable lifesyles and will go
their separate ways, meaning they will split up. The other factor invovled
with this is morality. Many people are open about their lifestyles and
perhaps should be a little less open as to instill good values.
Studies show that children are less likely to be changed
personality-wise from being raised by a homosexual parent. Other studies prove that children are just as well adjusted as any other child, and that they are
no more likely to be confused about their sexual orientation. When a
child is adopted at a young age these result are more probably of course,
however when the child is older, say his or her teens, theres really no
control on instilling values because all they know is anything that has
happened previously. There's no early stabity, though perhaps just such
parents could balance that out and give such stabitity. They argue that
they are just as good as any other parent, that they can provide the
essentals, food, clothing, shleter, love, and values. They can do
virtually anything a heterosexual parent can. They can be that soccor parent,
they can help with homework, they can be what anyone else is. It does
not matter what gender you are to be a good parent so long as you are a
devoted parent.
When it comes to this issue, I'm definatly for homosexuals adopting
children. I mean, children sometime grow up never having homes, though
they could if the judical court would allow them into the hands of loving
parents. What people say are merely myths or rumors. I know adoption is
a long and expensive process, but if one wants a child so badly
than anything is certainly possable. It seems so pointless to deny children of
good homes and good parents the lack of a child.
>>>Give up the Love, Take Off Your Pants! (Written by jan)
March 29 presented a show in the small town of Gilberville. The show
started at 4:30 and would last until 11 pm. Numerous bands played
including Heros of the Time Warp Kitchen, Glodas, West Bound Train,
Dangerously Happy, and The Get Rich Quick Scheme. The show started off on a
slow and unintersting note, no offense. It would pick up when Dangerously
Happy played. Our street team member, Ashley, began to scream things from
the audience. Maybe it was out of frustration, maybe it was out of
boredom, maybe she just wanted to scream. The fact was, she wanted to hear
covers. (Actually, she wanted to see the specific venue burn, due to
the people there unwelcoming of strangers, unwelcoming of mosh pits, and
all the stares she, cera, and myself recieved.) When Dangerouly Happy
began their set, Ashley felt it was her duty to make it known that she
was there, which was great. Crowd involvement is super cool. This is about
the time she began to chant "Give up the love! Take off your pants!
Give up the love! Take off your pants!". Of course most people know that
this is a silly chant, just like when she chanted "Burn the House Down!".
However, many said they would be more than willing, if it was not so
public.
However, after a phenominal set by Heros of the Time Warped Kitchen,
another ska band known as The Get Rich Quick Scheme played. The set
itself was good. Then the lead singer volunteered their saxophonist to take
off his pants, coincidently. A chain reaction, and one by one the
pants came off. Her persuasion you may wonder? It was definitely the loud
chanting and the fact that her inspiration was cera's offering of $5.
The band was great about all of it which was very cool. Those
are some of the great memories about shows. When bands can brave it out
and do something outrageous. That'll be a show I never forget for many
reasons, but the taking off your pants thing definitely sticks out in my
mind most.
Ashley has since been given a sweatshirt that says that infamous chant
and yes, it's not because shes a perv, it's just to spread the love. So
my advice to you, dear fellow show goers, give up the love, take off
your pants. Mitchell from Skarmy of Darkness did!
>>>Visiting Amherst by cera
Massachusetts is absolutely beautiful in the fall. This fact has never been more apparent to me than on a Wednesday afternoon, driving to Amherst to visit Mead Art Museum on the Amherst College campus. The trees were in full color, an artwork themselves, beautiful living strokes of bold color. Riotous reds, vivid oranges, eye-popping yellows everywhere. The drive was definitely a fall drive.
And thus I arrived in Amherst. Amherst is a very beautiful town. It's very clean, organized. It has a timeless feel. The architecture of the campus- mostly brick buildings- was a compliment to the trees in their fall color. I park on the Common and get out my map (I've only been to Amherst a couple of times in my life) and begin the trek to the other side of the campus, after realizing I parked in a rather pointless place, to try to find Mead.
After realizing I have no clue where I'm going, I stop and ask for directions. The first person answered politely, and sent me in the right direction, but I got lost again. The second wasn't a student and didn't know, and the third didn't either and needed a phone. So I loaned him my cell phone and he tried to help me find it. I eventually did, with his help (thanks Eli).
Up the textured stone steps onto a quadrangle with Mead Art Museum and two other buildings flanking it. To the left of the door, there's what could pass for a sculpture that is reminiscent of gothic-style naves in cathedrals. To the right, the exact opposite: A sculpture of modern art.
As you enter the building, a friendly face at the desk greets you and assures you they're open (and free of admission). Through another set of doors and you're facing a red wall. On this wall are black and white photos of a man and dress apparel. He poses by himself and sometimes with others, and some of the photos are of hats and canes alone, with no human figure in the frame. These photographs use the lines created by the hats and canes to create patterns, and make for very interesting subjects. Who knew dress clothes could be so interesting? The use of black and white film only adds to the pattern, allowing for the contrasts to be more obvious, making for beautiful photos.
On the wall to the left, the "Bauhuas" display begins. Featured work includes Lotte Jacobi, Alexander Rodchenko, Andre Kertesz, and Boris Becker. Although none are world-famous photographers, all are extremely talented.
Some of the more eye-catching works include a vertical triptych of dancers. The top and bottom photos are by Karl Grill, both titled "The Dancer Daisy Spies, in Oskar Schlemmer's 'Triadic Ballet'" (1926). They're very formal, classic posed portraits of a ballerina in full costume. The middle photograph is in almost complete contrast; Lotte Jacobi's "The Turn, The Dancer Claire Bauroff" (1928) is a blurred, off-center image of a dancer completing a turn. The motion of this becomes even more apparent when juxtaposed with the portraits above and below.
Another notable portrait is Florence Henri's "Portrait (Margaret Schall)" (1928), a portrait of a woman in black taken through mirrors. The portrait is still a front portrait, but it was taken in an unconventional way. Rather than posing the model in front of the camera, she is off to one side, with a system of mirrors set up in front of the camera to reflect her image to the lens.
Alexander Rodchenko's work graces a far corner of the first room, beautiful photographs that are almost two-tone. The first, "Ladder" (1925), is a view of the bottom of a fire escape ladder on the side of a building. The light from the sky creates a silohuette of the ladder, the iron lines well defined. The angle makes the photo unrecognizable until further examination, but remains interesting before and after identification. The second of Rodchenko's works on display is "Stairs" (1930), a beautifully shaded photo of a young woman and baby going up a flight of stairs. The light is either early morning or late afternoon, casting long diagonal shadows on the stairs, and causing a dramatic lighting.
One of the most beautiful pieces on display, Lotte Jacobi's "Lotte Lenya (Berlin)" (1928) is a head shot of a stunning woman. At first glance, her expression seems nonchalantly seductive, a mere photo with no hidden turmoil. However, the longer you look at her, the deeper she gets. There seems to be a sadness in her eyes, a sadness not even her beauty can disguise. You can't help but wonder what trauma has caused this, and feel pity for the woman staring sadly from the frame.
The exhibit continues around the room, mostly black and white photos, with a few color, all amazing and beautiful expressions of emotion. Some are of people, some are of architecture. Some are more expressive, others are very crisp and formal.
Mead Art Museum, a tiny gem tucked away on the campus of Amherst College, is well worth the travel. The only regret you could possibly hold is not getting there early enough to see it all.
