THE RACE ISSUE: VOLUME 12, ISSUE 22
WORLD PIG BAIT
by Malik Isasis


















Evan Thomas, a Newsweek writer, stated in his cover article “Memo to Obama” that “race is difficult to talk and write about”. This was his opening sentence, which set the tone for the rest of the article. Race is difficult to talk about, for white folks. Political hacks like Thomas and his ilk are always projecting and displacing their difficulties with white supremacy, constantly, and annoyingly trying to normalize the notion that it universal to feel uncomfortable to discuss racial matters.

If Thomas were to stand up straight so that his head would pop out of his ass, he’d notice that it isn’t difficult at all, for neither whites, nor blacks to discuss race. Lou Dobbs over at CNN as well as others, has made it a personal crusade to use the broadcast airwaves to spread fear of a Mexican conspiracy to over take America; and over at Fox News where on a daily basis blacks, Muslims and Arabs are caricaturized for public consumption, as grounds for discrediting their political views, wholesale.

Whites folks don’t have a problem with race when it is they, who are framing the debate. Like this “Memo to Obama” tripe. When black folk or other People of Color are framing the white supremacy debate that's when “race is difficult to talk and write about.”

Thomas like his brethren has put the problem of white supremacy on the backs of brown and black folk. It is somehow our fault that poor whites do not like us; folks like Thomas like to ignore the elephant in the room by ignoring the corporate media’s, Republicans’ and Democrats’ roles in flaming the xenophobic nature of white fright with daily dehumanization campaigns of job-stealing Mexicans, violent and oversexed blacks, and barbaric Arabs and Muslims.

Thomas says of Obama “The good news is that you have all but won the nomination. The bad news, if we are willing to face reality, is that the country—some parts of it, anyway—may not be ready to elect a black president of the United States. It is hard to get a precise fix on the problem.” The precise fix on the problem is the corporate media’s and politicians’ coddling of the white supremacist philosophy of people in the Deep South, and Rust Belt of America.

Legitimizing Bigotry

Thomas’ analysis is shit paper.

But the message of change, of a new world order, is unsettling to some voters, particularly older ones. Far from Appalachia, there are some disturbing pockets of fearfulness. A New York Times front-page story last week was headlined AS OBAMA HEADS TO FLORIDA, MANY OF ITS JEWS HAVE DOUBTS. Some whom the Times interviewed suspected that Obama was not sufficiently pro-Israel, while others mentioned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. fiasco or Michelle Obama's remark that your electoral success made her "for the first time" in her life "really proud" of her country. The article quoted Ruth Grossman, the 80-year-old resident of a gated community, saying, "They'll pick on the minister thing, they'll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color." Grossman told the Times she is thinking of voting for Obama, but said, "I keep my mouth shut." True, only 5 percent of Florida voters are Jewish. But you need them: while Clinton currently leads McCain in Florida, you trail him.

A part of becoming a national figure in politics is kissing the ring of Israel. One has to prove him or herself to be a loyalist to Israel and all of Israel’s policies in the Middle East. The idea of being a loyalist or be marginalized (in many cases, facing a fierce campaign by the Israel Lobby) is unbelievable to me and should be disturbing to any American.

What Thomas does in this paragraph is place blame on the person who is the recipient of white supremacist attacks and for Thomas to suggest that Obama submit to an ideology of moral superiority puts an extraordinary burden on the victim rather than the perpetrator. But this is how white supremacy works, those who are not white must satisfy an irrational fear and mistrust in the white populace before they are blessed with being legitimate. Black and brown fear is often met with skepticism and charges of race baiting, or paranoia. Since there is a false sense of superiority, ideology outside of white supremacy is irrelevant.

Put on your goulashes, I’m getting ready to walk you through more bullshit…

Still, telling your story can be a little difficult. The fact is, your father's family was Kenyan; you grew up, in part, abroad in Indonesia (and Hawaii, which is a foreign land to some), and you went to Harvard…

Again, the burden is being placed on Obama to tell Americans that he is indeed an American. Does a white person have to pass a loyalty test when running for higher office? Did Arnold Schwarzenegger have to prove his mettle? Was his patriotism questioned?

The corporate media and political elites such as Thomas love to put poor Working Class ® whites on a pedestal, massaging their ignorance and lack of education by putting down the education of others so that it provides political cover for conservatives to call progressives elitists and Out-of-touch ®. Being ignorant is nothing to be proud of, but it is the key to why Republicans consistently win the South and Rust belt parts of this country. Working Class ® whites are bitter about their situation and have been taught to blame brown and blacks rather than the real culprits. Therefore, they vote with arrogance against their own interests to stick it to those blacks.

“It is hard to get a precise fix on the problem” says Thomas. No, it’s not hard, just pop your head out of your ass, and maybe—just maybe you’ll get a more precise fix on the problem.

Whites resent being accused of racism for remarks they regard as innocent or innocuous. It's hard to think of what would turn off whites quicker than playing the thin-skinned victim. One of the strengths of your campaign has been to get past the old-style politics practiced by the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and other "race men" who use skin color as a political tool.

Whites resent being accused of racism for remarks they regard as innocent or innocuous, huh? Blacks hate being shot 50 fucking times for acts that they regard as innocent or innocuous. Or how bout this: Iraqi civilians hate having their limbs melted and fused, or mutilated by white phosphorus weapons for acts that they regard as innocent or innocuous.

Just as every white political operative and hack, Thomas couldn’t go too long without evoking Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It is what people like Thomas do to discredit black people wholesale. Discredit their leaders, and you discredit their grievances, right Thomas? Conservatives to muzzle Obama are playing this strategy of praising him for being unlike Civil Rights leaders of the past. It is a polite threat. It doesn’t take much for the corporate media, conservatives and so-called progressive writers and commentators to show their contempt toward political and Civil Rights activists. The media has anointed Sharpton and Jackson leaders of the American Negro, ergo; they serve as the firewall for black America, absorbing the corporate media’s vitriolic contempt toward blacks in this country.

The rage projected onto Sharpton and Jackson in the media is laser-focused contempt from the corporate and government institutions toward African Americans. When the corporate shills dismiss, discredit and marginalize Sharpton and Jackson, it is because they believe they represent black thought.

You need an issue that plays against prejudice or typecasting. Affirmative action is deeply unpopular with white, working-class voters who see African-Americans bestowed with privileges long denied poor whites. You've suggested—obliquely, but nonetheless provocatively—that you might prefer seeing affirmative action for disadvantaged whites rather than black elites, noting that you wouldn't expect your private-school-educated daughters to need an admissions break at college. Taking a stand for affirmative action based on socioeconomic class rather than race would send a powerful signal.

Affirmative Action came about as a result of 400 years of American slavery and apartheid, it is a poor and inadequate way to address the four-century head start white folks got on black folks. Affirmative Action has failed as a corrective action against centuries of genocide, apartheid and dehumanization because a large portion of the black population is still living in developing world conditions.

Thomas continues to perpetuate the idea of blacks and browns taking away opportunities from poor whites, when in reality, blacks and browns ABSOLUTELY have no access to the political infrastructure, banking and financial infrastructure, or military infrastructure to take things away from white folks. A large portion of blacks are still stooped in poverty too, attending poor schools and have very little chance of going to college. The game he is playing here is Divide and Conquer. Let’s have the poor people in general, fight over a small piece of the pie. The state of black people in America was witnessed during Hurricane Katrina. Black folks sure looked upwardly mobile when they were drowning and climbing the roofs of houses to save their lives.

Thomas should have addressed Corporate Affirmative Action. He didn't because he is a corporatist. He should have addressed the corporate subsidies that take things away from poor whites, like factories.

Thomas is the scariest type of white supremacist because he sees himself as thoughtful, and maybe even progressive, but he believes his gospel and is blinded by his own false sense of superiority. His memo to Obama is nothing short of racist dribble, with no advice for the working white poor, who really should bare the burden of their condition, which is to take responsibility for their own failures, stop displacing their anger and self reflect on the Republican Party’s objective, which is to keep them poor and angry so that they can use them just as they have for the last 40 years.

Working Class White Voter your real grievances are the policies that keep you from earning a livable wage, having health insurance, an inability to afford gas…black and brown people have nothing to do with any of those things. Corporate America, Republicans and Corporate Democrats are the reason for your condition.

PIMP THIS |

Nth DEGREE: THE STRAIGHT DOPE
I HEART ASSHOLES
by N























Given that we are all about dishing, divulging, and digging up dirt on the Nth degree, I feel the need to share my feelings with my new blog friends. Well here it goes; my relationship of two years came to abrupt halt last weekend and is now over. In fact, I was told just that. He said, “It is over for now!” Yes ladies, the spineless and manipulating coward actually used the words “FOR NOW!” As if I would wait for him to come into a miraculous state of enlightenment six months to a year from now when he finally gets his shit together, Sheesh!

Since then, I have been told numerous times by an overwhelming amount of people:

“He’s just not worth it!”

“He’s an asshole!” and my absolute favorite, “You’re so much better than he deserves!”

Still I find myself shooting him the 3am drunken text or the not so elusive “I love you and why did you leave me” email. (Yes, you’re not alone! I do this too!).

The truth is I love dating assholes. Seriously, the more of a douche bag he is the more I am attracted to him. I can’t let them go. (See previous sentence regarding drunken texts and emails.) I really am a dating masochist. I started to think if I was alone on this sort of masochism, but then I thought, so are many other women I know. What are we doing?

If you are a woman and you have been on at least one date in the past ten years, you know by now what I mean when I say we have all dated them; the assholes, the bad boys, the guys we thought we could change. We stick around for their bullshit excuses, lame compliments, and settle for everything we tell ourselves is not what we truly want.

“Oh, I definitely want a boyfriend who is emotionally detached, does not compromise, plays video games non-stop, is selfish in the bedroom, lives in his mom’s basement, has no job, refuses to talk to me when sports are on, yells, screams, and cheats on me?”

Why do self respecting, educated, women subject themselves to this? Well in my case, it was the mind-blowing sex, his sense of humor, and his fucking adorable smile. I thought in my relationship that I could change him and I thought I was not settling. However, here is the truth, we CAN’T change them and we ARE settling.

Take for instance this particular “over for now” douche bag. He was your run-of-the-mill pseudo nice guy. He began, as all douche bags do, by courting me; bringing flowers, texting/calling nonstop, taking me to fancy dinners, hanging out for casual beers in matching Red Sox jerseys, offering to help around my house, and even throwing out the uber early “I love you.” I was smitten. He was next husband! I honestly and truly can say I believed wholeheartedly that last statement. That was until we started getting more serious, talking about the future, and even possibly moving in together.

Enter the ASSHOLE.

He started by saying mean things occasionally, then he did not call as frequently. I started to think he could be seeing other people, and then as if by clockwork the screaming matches on the phone started to happen.

“Why are things falling apart?” I would always argue.

I completely ignored that he told me time and time again he would not move in with me, ever, our fights about his financial status, and the fact that his family thought I was the devil. I already knew the answer. It had come to fruition long before this last infamous call.

I had settled.

It took me a while and a lot of tears to come to terms with this fact. I recognized deep down that he wasn’t going to start buying me flowers again, send thinking of you cards, stop having a temper, get over what his mom thought about me, or move to Brooklyn. I knew what he was not willing or going to do but I hoped and prayed that he would. I felt like a desperate idiot! I started only thinking negative thoughts about relationships. Cynicism and bitterness sat in. I thought, “Why think positive? Look where that has gotten me!”

I know your saying, “But N, is it really that bad to believe in the positive and think that changes can be made?” In the beginning, when I was in love, I would have said, “Absofuckinlutely not!” But looking on it now with some distance, I think it can be somewhat detrimental. Unfortunately as women, we take this positive dream like stance on relationships. We metaphorically build and build and build a relationship “house” on a foundation of wobbly dreams and liquid hopes. That can’t work.

So, the only way to pull ourselves out of this masochistic and agonizing pattern, and into working, positive, wholesome relationships, is to rebuild. And if, just if, you are still like me and consider wanting to build a metaphorical relationship “house” with your former ASSHOLE, well then it will only logically stand under new construction plans; a reworking of the “foundation.”

My suggestion going through this now, as painful as it is, is to get out there and actually knock down or break apart the preexisting structure (the old relationship or the one we are settling for) and figure out what and why, if at all, it’s worth rebuilding. Hell, I already feel better about my break up just by picturing this crazy house building analogy in my head! Here’s to finding ourselves a qualified (and cute) new contractor! Happy Building!

PIMP THIS |

THE REAL POLITIK ISSUE: VOLUME 11, ISSUE 21
END OF THE BUSH-CLINTON ERA?
by Robert Parry, Consortium News























Hillary Clinton’s comment, referencing Robert Kennedy’s 1968 assassination to explain why she’s continuing her campaign, may serve as a crass punctuation point for the end of a grim period in American history, the Bush-Clinton era.

This period – roughly marked by George H.W. Bush’s rise as Vice President and then President from 1981 to 1993, Bill Clinton’s embattled two terms, and then eight years under George W. Bush – represented an extraordinary period of lost opportunities for the nation as its global power peaked and began a rapid descent.

Notable for its bitter partisanship, mindless jingoism and willful historical amnesia, this era saw the United States fail to address its bloated energy consumption, reverse the decline in its manufacturing base, stop the erosion of the middle class, provide universal health care for its citizens and wisely deploy its military might.

So, on one level, the Democratic presidential battle has been a struggle over whether Democrats want to revert back to their brief hold on the White House in the 1990s (by picking Hillary Clinton) or strike off in a new direction (by nominating Barack Obama).

Early on, some Democrats told me they supported Sen. Clinton because her election would repudiate the Bush family and its nasty brand of politics. They envisioned a hard-working and battle-tested President Hillary Clinton completing some of the reforms that Republicans thwarted in the 1990s.

However, other Democrats have come to see the Clintons as less a cats-and-dogs enemy of the Bushes than two sides of the same coin, a kind of duopoly that is more common in Third World nations where two ruling families trade power back and forth without disrupting the power structure.

In this view, Bill Clinton essentially earned his bones with the Bush family in 1993 when he swept a dustbin full of Republican scandals under the rug – including the Iran-Contra Affair, Iraq-gate and the October Surprise question.

President Clinton may have thought he was being responsible and buying some bipartisan peace. But he actually cemented an incomplete and false history of the Reagan-Bush period, thus denying the American people a thorough understanding of what their government had done over those dozen years. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Attack Machine

Clinton also freed up the Republican attack machine from playing defense for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, enabling it to go on the offensive against Clinton and his wife. In other words, Clinton’s acquiescence to the Reagan-Bush cover-ups proved to be both wrongheaded and shortsighted.

Yet Clinton didn’t seem to learn much. Despite the pummeling he took – including suffering only the second presidential impeachment in U.S. history – Bill Clinton still kept his Justice Department on the sidelines when George W. Bush stole the Florida election and thus the White House from Al Gore in 2000. [For details, see Neck Deep.]

Then, after leaving office, Clinton made one of his chief priorities the forging of an alliance with George H.W. Bush, as they traveled around the world on humanitarian missions. This Bush-Clinton tandem became a feel-good measure of how Washington insiders gauge bipartisanship, the two ruling families working together.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton – having won a Senate seat from New York in 2000 – demonstrated another side of this elite bipartisanship. In 2002, she sided with President George W. Bush in his desire to invade Iraq and remained a staunch war supporter over the next several years.

All in all, at the start of 2005, the future of this Bush-Clinton duopoly looked fairly bright.

George W. Bush had secured a second term and Washington pundits lavished praise on his neoconservative vision for the Middle East, hailing the soaring rhetoric of his second Inaugural Address as well as the seemingly successful election in Iraq and other glimmers of hope across the region.

There was political talk, too, that Sen. John McCain had struck a deal with the Bushes, embracing George W. Bush’s reelection bid in 2004 with an understanding that he would get the Bush family’s backing in 2008 and possibly agree to pick Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as his running mate to set the stage for another Bush restoration in 2012.

On the Clinton side, there was optimism that Hillary Clinton was well positioned to win the Democratic nomination in 2008, with her staunch support of the Iraq War serving to dispel doubts among the general electorate about her national security credentials.

A Difficult Year

However, 2005 didn’t play out as either the Bushes or the Clintons envisioned.

The Iraqi elections only hardened the sectarian divisions and made progress toward reconciliation tougher. The death toll for U.S. soldiers and Iraqis kept rising and Iranian influenced increased.

The crises in Palestine and Lebanon also grew worse – and signs of democratic progress in Egypt and Saudi Arabia proved illusory.

Then, in summer 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, with the widespread death and destruction exposing the cronyism and incompetence of the Bush administration. Bush’s approval ratings dropped below 50 percent and never recovered.

Hillary Clinton’s bet on the Iraq War soured, too. She found herself on the wrong side of the dominant opinion among the Democratic base, leaving her little choice but to reposition herself as a war opponent in 2006.

Still, as the Democratic race took shape in 2007, Sen. Clinton found herself as the clear frontrunner.

She possessed the potent Clinton fund-raising machine; she benefited from nostalgia for the relatively affluent 1990s; she enjoyed strong support from older feminists; and she faced fairly weak opposition, especially with Al Gore shying from the race.

The one wild card among her rivals was the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who was a phenomenon among college students and younger voters. But he appeared struck in the 20 percentiles through summer 2007, leaving Clinton with a wide lead.

Feeling a growing confidence about her inevitability, Clinton chose to reaffirm her hard-line credentials in a Sept. 26, 2007, vote on a resolution sponsored by neoconservative Sen. Joe Lieberman urging President Bush to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard an international terrorist organization.

By voting with Lieberman, Clinton rejected warnings from Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, that the resolution could pave the way to a wider war. Her vote also reminded many rank-and-file Democrats of her past support for Bush’s Iraq War resolution, causing them to give Obama another look.

On Dec. 17, 2007, a still-confident Bill Clinton offered voters a sense of what bipartisanship meant to Hillary Clinton. He announced that his wife’s first act in the White House would be to send him and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to explain that “America is open for business and cooperation again.”

In other words, the Clintons and the Bush patriarch would clean up some of the messes left behind by a headstrong Bush son. Implicit in this picture was the Clintons giving another pass to the Bush family. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Fight for Bush’s Legacy.”]

Rebellious Base

As the Democratic “base” started to rebel against this Bush-Clinton arrogance, Barack Obama’s support began to surge. In the Iowa caucuses, he pulled off a stunning victory, with Hillary Clinton stumbling in third behind John Edwards.

With dreams of their restoration suddenly threatened, the Clintons quickly turned to divisive tactics often associated with the Bushes and Republicans. Indeed, one of the arguments that I heard from Clinton operatives at the time was that it was their duty to destroy Obama now because otherwise the Republicans would do it in the fall.

In her comeback win in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton also learned the power of playing the gender card in getting white women, particularly in the over-50 demographic, to vote for her. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hillary Plays a Risky Gender Card.”]

When Obama chose not to counter with the race card, the Clintons played it for him – as Bill Clinton disparaged Obama’s South Carolina victory by noting that Jesse Jackson also won there. The goal apparently was to treat Obama as the black candidate, rather than the post-racial candidate that Obama sought to be.

At first, the racial insinuations redounded negatively against the Clintons as many white Democrats – especially youth and men – voted for Obama along with a solid phalanx of blacks who were offended by what they saw as George Wallace-style racial tactics.

Though it wasn’t immediately apparent, Hillary Clinton’s campaign reached its Waterloo on Feb. 5, 2008, with the coast-to-coast Super Tuesday primaries. Instead of racking up the decisive victories that were supposed to cement her inevitable nomination, Clinton managed only a split decision with Obama.

Rather than making the later primaries irrelevant, the muddled Super Tuesday results made them more important. But the Clinton campaign had not planned for an extended campaign and needed a cash infusion from the candidate simply to stay afloat.

In the weeks after Super Tuesday, Obama went on a winning streak of 11 straight contests, building an almost insurmountable delegate lead. In a Feb. 21 debate, Clinton declared that she was “honored” to be on the same stage with him.

Some Democratic operatives were hopeful that the “honored” moment heralded an end of any nasty campaigning. However, Clinton soon reversed herself, deciding not to throw in the towel, but rather to “throw the kitchen sink” of her “oppo” research at Obama.

In the days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Clinton ratcheted up the negative campaigning, questioning Obama’s honesty, his readiness to answer a 3 a.m. phone call, and his fitness to serve as commander in chief – ripping pages from the playbooks of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

When those tactics contributed to her victories in both primaries (though she lost the parallel Texas caucus), she escalated the negativity.

Before the Pennsylvania primary, the Clinton campaign borrowed Joe McCarthy’s guilt-by-association tactics by feeding the furors over Obama’s ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright (and through Wright to Louis Farrakhan and Hamas) and Obama’s tenuous links to Vietnam War radical William Ayers.

Clinton personally made a big issue out of Obama’s supposedly being “elitist” because of his comments about “bitter” small-town voters in Pennsylvania.

Strange Bedfellows

The Clinton camp also struck an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend alliance with some of the same pro-Republican media outlets that Hillary Clinton had dubbed in the 1990s the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

This alliance of convenience made Sen. Clinton a strange bedfellow with right-wing media mogul Richard Mellon Scaife, Fox News and even Rush Limbaugh, who urged Republicans to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primaries to block Obama’s nomination.

As part of the “ghetto-izing” strategy, Clinton supporters also fed the animosity toward Obama by fanning white unease about and resentment toward this talented but little-known black politician with the exotic name.

Throughout the campaign, Clinton supporters had dropped comments about his acknowledged drug use as a young man, sent around photos of him in African garb, and referenced his family ties to Muslims. Clinton backer Geraldine Ferraro called him “lucky” to be African-American.

This George Wallace/Joe McCarthy/Lee Atwater/Karl Rove-style politics appeared to pay dividends in Pennsylvania on April 22, when Clinton won by nearly 10 points with solid support from working-class whites.

However, her momentum stalled two weeks later on May 6 when Obama won decisively in North Carolina and came close in Indiana.

Then, in an interview on May 7 with USAToday, Clinton voiced what had become a sub rosa pitch to Democratic “super-delegates” for months – that the black guy just couldn’t win in today’s America.

Clinton cited Obama’s troubles with "hard-working Americans, white Americans” who were moving toward her campaign.

Despite outrage from many rank-and-file Democrats proud of their party’s history on race relations, Hillary Clinton proved her point the next week by drawing overwhelming white, working-class support in trouncing Obama by 41 points in West Virginia.

That was followed a week later with a 35-point Clinton victory in Kentucky, but Obama countered that with an 18-point win in Oregon, virtually guaranteeing that he would end the primary battle with a majority of elected delegates.

The RFK Reference

Three days later, when asked by a South Dakota newspaper to explain why she was continuing her long-shot campaign, Clinton suggested there was some bias implied in the question.

The candidate, who had pegged her strategy on wrapping up the race by Feb. 5 and making the subsequent primaries essentially irrelevant, argued that it was natural for Democratic races to extend into June.

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” Clinton said.

She later explained that the comment was meant only to provide historical context. However, others were horrified at the suggestion that she was staying in the race because of the possibility that something terrible might happen to Obama, another argument that Clinton backers have been raising privately (albeit without the notion of a violent ending).

Yet, whatever was going through Clinton’s mind, the RFK reference – when combined with the Wallace/McCarthy/Atwater/Rove tactics that preceded it – there can be little doubt that the Clintons are grasping at whatever straws still might be available, no matter how flimsy or how slimy.

This ugly denouement has the look of an ugly era reaching an ugly end.

Arguably the Bush-Clinton duopoly might have a chance at another restoration if something bad does befall Obama or if John McCain wins as a likely one-termer in November.

If Obama loses, Hillary Clinton can say “I told you so” and make another run in 2012.

And perhaps another round of nostalgia for the Bushes might give Jeb a chance to carry the Bush family’s banner back into the White House four years from now.

But it looks more and more as if the American people have chosen to move on – leaving the disasters and the disgraces of the Bush-Clinton era to a sad chapter in the history books.

PIMP THIS |

THE STRAIGHT DOPE
SEX AND THE CITY
by N

















When we left the ladies of Sex and the City, Charlotte was happily married a second time to Harry and announced the coming of their new family edition; a daughter. Miranda had finally become happy giving into her two worst fears; relinquishing total relationship control with Steve and moving to Brooklyn. Samantha, the show’s resident sexpert, had overcome breast cancer and realized what love truly was with her man-friend, Smith.

And last but not least, we had Carrie Bradshaw. Audiences watched as we thought she had made the biggest mistake of all, moving for the man she “loved” to follow his dreams. Carrie had been carried away! Or so we thought, until the final scene when Big, or John as we all know now, sweeps Carrie off her Manolo’s and back to the Big Apple. Was this it for Sex and the City?

The last episode ended on February 22, 2004; the day before my 23rd birthday. This was an influential time in my life. I had unwillingly just moved from the city to the country. I was in an emotionally vacant and sexless marriage of two years and was living a life I knew was not mine. My life was a daze. So as I watched the last episode, I started thinking. If this was it for the Sex and the City ladies, was this it for me to?

I won’t lie and tell you that the culmination of Sex and the City changed my life forever that night, but it did set into course a series of extremely deep personal questions. I wanted to know who I was. I was only 23 and I knew I hadn’t known. What I did know was that part of me wanted to be like Charlotte. I wanted have the uncomplicated happy marriage/relationship and be financially secure. Another part of me wanted to be like Samantha, free, fabulous, and an avid participant in raunchy sexcapades. I also wanted to be Miranda, a smart ass, witty, and successful career woman. I even wanted to be Carrie; a woman who was eccentric, a bit jaded by love, a fashionista, and a dreamer.

I missed MY life, wherever or whatever it was. Sex and the City was all I had and it was over. I could no longer go on living vicariously through the television show. So, I decided to do something about it.
While I was watching a rerun of an episode, I heard Carrie say,
“As we drive along this road called life, occasionally a gal will find herself a little lost. And when that happens, I guess she has to let go of the coulda, shoulda, woulda, buckle up and just keep going.”

I thought this was great! This was what I needed; a push. I know what you’re thinking; a push from a television character? Yes, but in my defense, I was desperate. I decided to do the unthinkable and leave my marriage. Marriage was hard. Not the same “hard” as in, “I can do this if I try.” Hard as in, “Is this worth it?” I always thought marriage was suppose to be easy; especially looking at my parents, at the time, 25 year long marriage. I knew now it wasn’t.

I was confused and alone. I moved out and started the divorce process. I was lonely. All of my girlfriends had boyfriends, were consumed by college requirements, or had their own mid-twenties drama. I decided to turn to cheap red wine and my DVD collection of the Sex and the City television show. That’s all I had that I felt would cure what I was feeling. Not a great plan but a plan.

Over the next four years, I would laugh and cry with those four women. They were my fictional breakup buddies. I would date, have sex, breakup, have trouble with finances, start new jobs, move to new cities, start new friendships, learn to live alone; find myself.

I have to say, I did find myself. I have a successful job like Miranda, a great sex life like Samantha, the hope of a great second marriage like Charlotte, and the possibility of finding my one true love in the Big Apple like Carrie. As we know it’s not the end for the women of Sex and the City, with the movie version coming out on May 30th, and it’s definitely not the end for me.

PIMP THIS |

THE REAL POLITIK ISSUE: VOLUME 11, ISSUE 20
I WANNA BE AN ALPHA MALE
by Malik Isasis














I’ve been observing Bush the Idiot Savant, his neocons and their political operatives in the corporate media try and turn their petulance on Iran for political gain. The Republicans are taking a beating in the polls and special elections.

It will be a slaughter come this fall and the Republicans are beating their chests to gin up fear about Muslims again because they have nothing but fear to offer. So, they play alpha male. Their fear tactic, which has worked from 1994-2006 is dead, but this won't stop them from playing Rupelstiltskin once again, trying to spin their bullshit into gold. Like the dwarf Rupelstiltskin, Bush and the neocons seek children of others to feed their god of war. These cowards hide behind others’ courage and foolishly take the credit for their successes, and pass on their failures.

Bush and his lot of fools like to be tough, talk shit, knowing that they and their families will be far and away from the blood and destruction. They are faux alpha males who huff and puff, beat their chests from afar but do not have the courage to die for their convictions.

Are they willing to die for what they believe in? Probably not. What are they personally willing to sacrifice for the oil beneath Iran’s soil? We already know they are ready and willing to dispose of millions of Arab and Muslim civilians’ lives, and thousands of United States’ troops’ lives for wealth and power.

These cowardly men call themselves Republicans and conservatives and they hide behind mechanized sponsored terrorism supported with State resources. They only have respect for power, which is why they will only pick on those smaller and less powerful than they.

Did I tell you how much I hate these people?

Watch this clip of a neocon talking shit.

I would like to see FOX News put its headquarters in the green zone in Iraq since they believe in the occupation and the subjugation of the Middle East. I’d like to see the neocons move their families to the green zone. The house of cards in which their folklore was built is collapsing.

Man up bitches, be real alpha males.

PIMP THIS |

THE REAL POLITIK ISSUE: VOLUME 11, ISSUE 19
I HATE YOU
by Malik Isasis




President Bush, the Prince of Chaos, Cymbal Monkey of Violence, El Diablo, The Giggling Killer, Shit-for-Brains, Mensa-Man spoke in Israel at the Knesset, Israel’s legislative branch on May 15, 2008, and smeared Barack Obama with Hiltler analogies and received an awkward, and nervous response.

When I think of this Cymbal Monkey, I think of the classic parable, The Frog and the Scorpion, which goes something like this:

The scorpion needs a ride across the riverbank and asks for a ride on the frog's back.

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you won't try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

"What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help?!"

The frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his sting.

A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we both shall die! Why did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged.

"I couldn’t help it. It’s in my nature."

The frog and the scorpion both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

The Nature of The Prince of Chaos

George Bush is incapable of listening. I can explain.

George Bush is willfully ignorant and blissfully unimaginative, and only bows to power and influence. To understand Bush is to understand his privilege; born with a silver spoon and failed upwardly, all of his life. George W. Bush has never had to take responsibility for the chaos he has left in his polluted wake. In order to have compassion, one must have empathy. This blind spot in Bush’s scripted life allows him to have contempt for those who disagree with him.

Bush doesn’t understand losing; privilege has protected him from this painful, albeit necessary life experience. He’s like that child in the grocery aisle throwing a temper tantrum because his parents never says no. His father President George Herbert Walker Bush has done his son and ultimately our country a disservice by not allowing his child to fail. As George W. Bush’s presidency is headed toward the record books as one of the worst presidencies, ever, his father has often come to his son's aid by providing him with cabinet members from his former administration, again saving his son from the lessons of life. Too bad it is us who have to suffer for the father-son co-dependency.

Former President George H.W. Bush, affectionately called 41 by current President Bush, broke down and wept when paying tribute to his son Jeb Bush a couple of years ago. I found his vulnerability, moving. Former President Bush like most parents, see their offspring for who they want them to be, rather than for who they are, it’s blinding.

But over caring is just as bad as under caring. It’s painful to see Bush 41 defend Bush 43; he twists himself into a pretzel trying to justify his son’s style of governance. 41’s defense is purely emotional and is not grounded in reality. A CNN report: An Unfinished War: A Decade Since Desert Storm reported that Bush 41 during Desert Storm was able to muster a 34-country coalition, which included Arab countries such as Syria and The United Arab Emirates. American troop level was 500,000 with coalition totaling 160,00 troops. At the high-end, the war cost 71 billions dollars, with 54 billion coming from donor countries around the world. Everything that Bush 43 had done with his invasion, was in complete contradiction with Bush 41’s philosophy. It’s sad to see Bush 41 defend a policy he knows has cost millions of lives, and will probably cost millions more in the future, if the current civil war escalates.

What is it about President George W. Bush that brings out the co-dependency nature in people? He has the same affect on the corporate media, who protects him from scrutiny by pacifying his vacuous curiosity, an inability to articulate policy, emotion or his ideas…and the fact that he has been way over his head from DAY ONE. Instead of exposing this fraud the corporate media continue to breast feed him. The country has suffered a great deal in the world for this co-dependency of Bush.


He’s incapable of listening because he has never had to. He’s a throwback to Royalty whose entitlements had no boundaries. He plays golf and eats grapes as the soldiers of Working Class Voters are grounded up in his gears of war. He has used Muslims and Arabs as gimmicks of fear so to money-launder trillions of dollars through a corporate war and occupation.

George Bush I hate you, and everything you stand for. You consider yourself a Christian, but you praise only false GODS: power, greed, and destruction. May you reap what you have sown.

PIMP THIS |

THE ELECTION ISSUE: VOLUME 10, ISSUE 18
THE MANUFACTURERS
by Malik Isasis

















The corporate media’s impulse to use race in the most derogatory, and abusive means of explaining voting patterns, has been a way to define Barack Obama. Ever since Ohio, it’s been the trumpeting of the Working Class Voters ® and how Obama has not connected to the Reagan-Democrats®

Working Class Voters ® is code, well, was code until Clinton decided to decode the slogan out in public with this statement to a reporter:

"You know, there was just an article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans -- white Americans -- is weakening again, and how the whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina), who had not completed college were supporting me," Mrs. Clinton said. "These are the people you have to win, if you're a Democrat, in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

For those of us who are black, we already knew what the code “Working Class Voters” meant. Political operatives and pundits talk code as if they’re talking over our heads. We get it. We just have no voice in the corporate media to refute the bullshit that pundits throw up out of their mouths.

First of all, I’d like to refute the folklore of Reagan Democrats ®, which seems to be perpetrated by the corporate meat puppets. There is no such thing as a Reagan Democrat®, those Democrats who voted for Reagan 28 years ago became Republicans. Reagan Democrats® is only a marketing ploy to push Banana Republicanism.

The Manufacturing Job

The Republicans have sloganeered their way into power using extremely simple answers for complex issues. In fact, a Republican can solve all of your life woes with two simple answers: Tax Cuts® and Smaller Government®

Bush has OD’d on Tax Cuts® --if Tax Cuts ® were heroin, Bush would have been found in an alley covered in his own vomit.

"Mr. President, what is your plan for New Orleans?"

"Tax Cuts."

"Mr. President, what is your plan for the war?"

"The war has been good for the economy. I'd like to make my tax cuts permanent."

"Mr. President, how do you plan to address global warming?"

"I think it's important for government to stay out of regulating businesses. Regulations don't stimulate the economy, tax cuts do. I'm asking congress to support my tax incentives for corporations willing to self-regulate."

My rendition of a Bush press conference would be hyperole if it didn't represent the truth about Republicanism. The corporate media and Bush have been doing this dog and pony show for 8 years. The corporate part of the media is out to protect their interests, and their ability as Kingmakers give them great influence over politicians striving for more than just doing the right thing for the people. The corporate pirates benefit by having ego-driven politicos like Bush who are more than happy to put on kneepads in the name of self interest. Those who suck the hardest will get all the benefit of the media’s deep reach, and their subsidiaries' coffers.

I’m getting real tired, real quick of the corporate bullshitters saying that Obama has a Working Class Voters® problem. In 15 months, Obama has run a near perfect campaign, all those years as a community organizer has helped him raise more money than anyone else in the history of politics, yet when he loses the states that he is suppose to lose, the corporate toads move the goal posts.

The corporate media has indulged the Working Class Voters®, The Values Voters® and their racism. The corporate media has treated this group with a preciousness that no other “Working Class” receives. Even though there are millions of working class voters in communities of color, only white working class voters’ voices matter. It’s amazing to me that the corporate media can always find a way to make white folk, victims, and underdogs in spite of the reality.

During no other time are white working class voters more important than every election cycle. When the election cycles passes, the Working Class Voters® are tossed into the trash like a used condom. Bush sure knows the working class, doesn't he?

It doesn’t matter to the Working Class Voters® that Republicans have wrought them more poverty through policies that have moved their manufacturing jobs overseas, broken up unions, increased their cost of living by outsourcing the United States government to private contractors…oh, and sending your children, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters off to fight corporate wars. What do you think of that Working Class Voters®? I know none of that matters so as long as you’re white, you all right…right? Right on. You’ve been convinced to vote against your own interests. Keep on being white, broke and dead.

My galoshes are full of shit, because I’m wading through all the bullshit that the corporate media keeps putting out there, like Obama has a problem with the Working Class Voters® The reality: the last Democrat to win Working Class Voters® was Lynden B. Johnson in 1964, and after his administration passed Civil Rights legislation, Working Class Voters® made a mass exodus to the welcoming arms of the Republicans. This was called the Southern Strategy.

In October 2007 I said of the much coddled voting bloc and Nixon’s and the Republicans’ strategy:

The Nixon Doctrine was not adopted to address the misperceptions or heal the grievances of these so-called disenfranchised but to build a voting block of white men by pitting their interests against those of people of color and women. Although all of the disenfranchised shared more in common than not, the Southern Strategy was a euphemism for divide and conquer. This tried and true strategy works because it fractures communities by individualizing them, if people are fighting rather than discussing their shared grief, a collective revolution is less likely. Politicians and dictators the world over understand this concept.

White Presidential hopefuls Al Gore and John Kerry were unable to win over the Working Class Voters® so, prêt ell, why is it up to Obama to win over this group? This is a straw man argument used by the corporate media to make Obama a weaker candidate to build up an incredibly flawed and weak McCain.

Republicans have done something else. They have made people with college degrees the devil. Elitists® Out-of-touch® Latte Drinkers® San Francisco Liberals® have all been branded to perpetuate a class warefare.

If the Working Class Voters® were to come to consciousness, there would indeed be a revolution America hasn’t seen in decades. So, WAKE THE FUCK UP!

PIMP THIS |

THE REAL POLITIK ISSUE: VOLUME 9, ISSUE 17
PARADE OF HORRIBLES
by Malik Isasis























Eight years of Bush’s blunt force trauma has brought out the worst tendencies in global politics. Bush’s blunt force diplomacy has changed the global landscape by jump starting a new Cold War bloc with Russia, China and Iran, joining forces in a strategic partnership.

Just recently, Russia’s new government put on a parade that hasn’t been seen in nearly 18 years, that is, goose-stepping troops, and a procession of tanks, missiles and other armaments in Red Square. It was back to the future. Russia’s new president Dmitry Medvedev wanted to show the world, specifically America, just how big his dick was; and why not, Bush has been showing the world specifically, Russia, China and Iran just how big his is by starting to two wars and two occupations, and a number of proxy wars with Lebanon, and Iran.

America may not display goose-stepping troops and its armaments in a square, but what we do is subtler, it’s called patriotism, see here:



Read, here.

Iraq is a window into things to Come

In spite of Bush’s surge, day after day in the occupation of Iraq, the death and the destruction claims at least 100 Iraqi civilian lives per day. Millions of Iraqis are displaced and tens of thousands more have and will lose their lives.

The daily blood bath is squeegeed into the drain of distraction by corporate media. Instead, they rather focus our attention on political fluff like Reverend Wright. Why hasn’t the corporate news discussed the correlation between Bush’s troop surge, and the surge in violence and gruesome deaths in Iraq among civilians?

The media acts as the government’s funhouse mirror, reflecting a distorted view of what we do around the world. In this mirror, nothing that we do--no matter how immoral, is justified, because we are Americans and we come in peace.

If we were to look at international media, we would see our true reflection: an occupying and overly aggressive force who has destabilized the world on almost every level. The funhouse corporate media did not question Bush’s troop surge, but the international media looked at the plan and deemed it dead on arrival.

It was inevitable that the Bush’s troop surge would fail even before it began. We are not at war in Iraq; we are an occupying force, acting as an irritant. Not only are we occupying a country, but also we have completely destroyed its economical, cultural, and political infrastructure. We destroyed the physical infrastructure, but most importantly, we destroyed the middle and educated class, but the funhouse corporate media will not expose the pestilence that is the United States government because we like the distorted image of ourselves.

United States Unmasked

Just as Iraq is flaring up in violence, so too is Lebanon and where there is smoke, there is fire. Bush, the savant of death and misery, continues to spread his endemic of violence and total destruction of life by arming militias in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq. Bush doesn’t want peace; he wants and needs chaos in order to produce fear as a distraction from his crooked ways.

The despotic Republican Party, the Erectile Dysfunctional Democratic Party and the funhouse corporate media have allowed Bush and his sickness to spread and infect.

If the United States is the sickness, Israel surely is the symptom.

The Symptom

Iran is a tempting target for American and Israeli neocons. The neocons in Israeli’s Knesset have been on a campaign blitz for years to over hype Iran as a threat to the world.

"The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare not only for us but for the whole world"


"Despite all the different circumstances, we see similarities to what happened in the 1930s, when people underestimated the real problem or focused on other dangers. For us, either the world will tackle Iran in advance or all of us will face the consequences."

I believe that Israel and it’s lobbying arm--the most effective lobbying coalition ever, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have both Democratic and Republican party's unquestionable support. Democrats and Republicans fear the wrath of AIPAC and their ability to create an anti-Semitic campaign to assassinate careers.

Back in March 2007 when the Democrats were trying to stop the troop surge funding, there was language included in the bill that stated that Bush had to get approval from Congress if he were to attack Iran…predictably, the Democrats backed down and removed the language from the bill because of "its possible impact on Israel.":

U.S. legislators are willing to suspend Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress the sole authority to declare war, because they don’t want to upset Israel or its supporters here at home?

AIPAC members were busily lobbying Capitol Hill earlier this week, and it looks like they prevailed yet again.

This time, over our Constitution.

Israel and AIPAC will be successful in getting the United States government to fight its unprovoked war and underwrite its expansionist dreams. It will be the United States sacrificing its blood and its treasure for Israel’s colonization effort for a Greater Israel.

The real deal is that if Iran wanted to start a war with Israel, it would have done so. Iran has not had a war since the 8-year Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). The corporate media will overlook Iran’s history of non-aggression, in order to carry out Bush’s propaganda.

When the United States attacks Iran, the Democrats and Republicans will stand and salute and goose-step in synch, spewing jingoistic bile.

The Re-Alignment

Bush’s troop surge policy was not for Iraq, it was for Iran. This is why he’s arming militia groups to fight the chaos that he has created. Bush has been provoking a fight with Iran under the auspices that they are a threat to Israel and the United States. Interestingly enough, the United States and Israel are colonists, as evidenced by their occupations and policies that support that end by stripping Arab and Muslim people out of their lands and resources.

We are going to destroy the Middle East, for peace. IS it no wonder that we now see Russia unzipping its trouser and pulling out its willy?

If China were to roll up on the West and East coasts of the United States in all of their military glory and state:

“We come in peace.”

Would you believe them?

Well our politicians must think that Arabs and Muslims are stupid.

“Progress in the cause of security and long-term peace never comes easily,” he[Cheney] said. “Yet the United States and Israel persevere in that cause.” This requires, he said, “moral clarity, the courage of our convictions, a willingness to act when action is necessary, and a refusal to submit to any form of intimidation, ever. These qualities are a credit to the American and the Israeli people.”

PIMP THIS |

THE LEADERSHIP ISSUE: VOLUME 8, ISSUE 16
THE DECAY OF LEADERSHIP
by Malik Isasis























In December circa 1994, I received a book entitled, “Transformation: Understanding the Three Levels of Masculine Consciousness” as a Christmas gift. Robert A. Johnson, a Jugian Analyst wrote the book. I received the book from my then, girlfriend’s, friend, Stacey.

Stacey wrote on the inside, “I see you’re so fascinated by the workings of the female; I am happy to enlighten you in the ways of men, and maybe in turn you can enlighten me.” I was twenty-two years old at the time, and didn’t know my ass from my elbows. As a matter fact, I put the book away, like most people who receive books as gifts. It wasn’t until 2001, when I was cleaning out a cabinet and found the book again and read the inscription by Stacey, that I decided to sit down and read the book from cover-to-cover. Stacey’s inscription made more sense to me with a few more years under my belt. She was also twenty-two; apparently, women do mature quickly than men.

Although the author Robert A. Johnson comes from a Caucasian, Western male perspective with Freudian roots that are naturally biased toward people of color and women, there is still great insight that can be gleaned from his writings, especially for those of us living in Western societies.

Johnson is much better at articulating his ideas than I, so I will quote the intro at length:

"Tradition indicates that three levels of consciousness are available to us: simple consciousness, not often seen in our modern technological world; complex consciousness, the usual state of educated Western man; and an enlightened state of consciousness, known only to a very few individuals, which is the culmination of human evolution and can be attained only by highly motivated people after much work and training" (Johnson 3).

To illustrate his point, Johnson uses three literary characters to represent the three-levels of consciousness in the book. Don Quixote, “a near-perfect representation of the simple peasant man”(Johnson 15), Don Quixote falls under the simple consciousness due to his abundance of optimism and ability to find something to live for; Hamlet, “a man of tragedy, he who makes chaos and failure of everything he touches (Johnson 35). Hamlet falls under the complex consciousness. The author tells us “most people today are Hamlets, caught in that dry place between Don Quixote. Faust, who rounds out the three literary characters, represents the enlightened state of consciousness. “Hamlet’s basic error was his failure to incorporate his shadow or dark side into his working life (Johnson 52). Faust, a servant of God, an intelligent man, has reached all the pinnacles of success, but has found himself alone, hopeless and miserable—so miserable in fact, that he is on the verge of suicide. To add to his problems God and the devil has placed a wager on whether or not he can be diverted from the path “that is true and fit” (Johnson 53). Through conversations with the devil, Faust is able to find his way, by adopting a higher level of consciousness.

"It is a compliment of the highest order when a man finds that he cannot go farther and that his life is an irredeemable tragedy. His ego consciousness is stalemated, and this stalemate is the only medicine that will drive him out of the Hamlet tragedy and inspire him into a new consciousness. A fault of this magnitude cannot be repaired, but can be healed only by finding a whole new level of consciousness from which to function" (Johnson 55).

Johnson throughout the book uses these characters to go back and forth to illustrate the emotional work, self-actualization and maturity that are needed to grow through the three levels of consciousness. I am in complete agreement with Johnson that most of us will never make it past Hamlet or the complex consciousness. We are too consumed in anxiety, pain and hopelessness. This level of chaos becomes our identity and self worth. We are too distracted by our own genius to achieve the discipline it would take to achieve the third level of consciousness, that is, the enlighten state of consciousness.

In 2003 I attended a lecture by Princeton Professor, Cornell West. West said something profound. He said that we no longer have leaders who would die for us. Leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, Malcom X, Nelson Mandela, and Mother Teresa who would not only die for their cause but would die for their people. These people are an example of leaders who were able to transcend to the next level of consciousness, the enlighten state of consciousness. Today our leaders lack sacrifice, they much prefer that others sacrifice for their political gain. It is personal gain over political responsibility.

“The Decay of Leadership” I suppose is a misnomer. The world has always been governed by Hamlets, with a hand full of Fausts in the populace appearing through out history to make significant changes in social movements. We don’t expect much from the people we elect, and they in turn don’t expect much from us. It is not a decay of leadership. Our leadership is a symptom of our failure, our lack of critical thinking, our ability to be easily frightened, easily manipulated and managed by superficial distractions, and easily misinformed. Or maybe it is us who are selfish. We are who we elect, right?

PIMP THIS |

THE MEDIA ISSUES: ISSUE 7, VOLUME 15
US MEDIA TRIVIALIZES CAMPAIGN 2008
by Robert Parry, Consortium News























Every four years, during U.S. presidential elections, the same thing happens, except it’s always a little bit different.

Some clever political operative injects “oppo” into the campaign – some little “scandal” that supposedly speaks to the “character” of a candidate – and the press corps obsesses on this marginal issue nearly to the exclusion of all substantive matters.

This all-consuming event distorts the campaign, turning the targeted candidate into a laughingstock or someone who isn’t quite American enough. Pundits pile on with criticism that the guy should have reacted faster or slower or answered this way or that.

Millions of voters become convinced, amid this intense negativity, that they simply can’t vote for this loser and the outcome of the election changes.

Then, in the election aftermath, the American press corps goes through a period of self-reflection; some excellence-in-journalism group issues a scathing report about the superficiality of the news coverage; political journalists vow that in the next election they won’t get suckered again.

Then, the process – which dates back at least to 1988 and Lee Atwater’s savaging of Michael Dukakis – begins anew, albeit always with some slightly new twist.

All this might be quite funny if one doesn’t consider the consequences for the Republic. When historians try to figure out how the most powerful nation on earth managed to end up under the control of someone as unfit as George W. Bush for eight years, they will have to take note of this media phenomenon.

In 2000, Al Gore was transformed from a thoughtful, even far-sighted government official into a delusional braggart who claimed “I invented the Internet” (though he really didn’t say that), a traitor who sold nuclear secrets to China (though he didn’t), and a phony who wore earth-tone sweaters and cowboy boots.

John Kerry also had many strong points – as a genuine Vietnam War hero (a decorated Swiftboat captain in the Mekong Delta) and a gutsy investigator (Nicaraguan contra drug trafficking and BCCI) – but saw his war heroism smeared by the misnamed Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and his Americanism mocked because he “looked French.”

At key moments in these campaigns, the press let the “oppo” define Bush’s opponents and thus millions of Americans went to the polls believing fiction was truth, up was down. (For details, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.)

Going to Be Different

In 2008, however, the conventional wisdom was that the pattern would be different.

America could no longer afford the silliness – with the United States bogged down in two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), with the dollar sinking and the federal debt rising, with global warming requiring urgent attention and gas prices soaring, with America’s image in the world shattered by Bush’s policies of preemptive wars and torture.

This time, the campaign press corps would keep its focus on what really mattered. Or at least, it would not wander too far off course.

But it didn’t turn out that way. With Hillary Clinton’s campaign playing the “oppo” role filled before by Republican operatives like the late Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, the attacks on Barack Obama’s “character” gradually took hold.

Especially, during the six-week lull before the key Pennsylvania primary, the American people got a steady dose of this “oppo,” especially the guilt by association that sought to define Obama by the comments of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright and by his tenuous connection to Vietnam War-era radical William Ayers.

There also was the furor over the fact that Obama often didn’t wear an American flag lapel pin (though Hillary Clinton and John McCain didn’t either).

One might have thought the obsession with Wright and with the lesser themes of Ayers and the flag pin would have soon disappeared as just little blips on the campaign’s radar, but that would have required the exercise of some judgment and self-control by prominent national journalists.

Instead, the old pattern reasserted itself. So, on April 16 in the first prime-time debate on a major network, ABC News moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson hammered away at these “oppo” themes for nearly the first half of the debate: Wright, Ayers, flag pins.

By the time many Americans had given up or flipped the channel to Fox’s “American Idol,” they hadn’t heard a single question about issues that affect them directly. Though Obama appeared damaged by the pounding, ABC also got roughed up by critics of the debate, which was denounced as the most disgraceful debate ever.

Another Chance

So, on May 4, the Sunday before another important round of primaries, one might have expected something better or at least different when NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert interviewed Obama for a full hour. But that’s not how this process works.

Russert opened up “Meet the Press” with a steady barrage of questions about Rev. Wright – a dozen all told – most of which had been thoroughly plowed previously.

Russert: “What has the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright done to your campaign?”

“You're still a member of the church?”

“Why do you think he re-emerged?”

“What did you learn [about Wright] in those [past] five weeks that you didn't know in March?”

“The critics have said he [Wright] can attack the United States of America, he can do all sorts of things that divide the country, but only when he made it politically uncomfortable for you did you finally separate himself [sic] from him.”

“Reverend Wright was going to give the invocation [at Obama’s campaign launch], he was disinvited. … So you knew in '07, this guy's a problem.”

“Why didn't you just say then, ‘You know, Reverend, we're going on different paths because this country does not believe in white supremacy and black inferiority’”?

“He said in a letter to The New York Times, he suggested that you apologized for not letting him do the invocation. Is that true?”

“Is it fair for people to raise questions about your judgment for misjudging Reverend Wright?”

“You're done with him?”

“If you're elected president, you won't seek his counsel?”

“Could you have handled this better, differently, by severing your ties earlier?”

“What's the most important thing you've learned from this?”

Russert then pivoted into a reprise of Obama’s supposed lack of patriotism, mentioning Wright’s comment, “God damn America,” and the criticism of Obama for not wearing a flag pin – with the question framed as a question from Democratic superdelegates about Obama.

Russert: "How is he going to defend or define his patriotism?"

Serious Issues

It was almost halfway through the program before Russert touched on a question that actually related to the lives of Americans, a question about whether or not the government should suspend the gas tax for the summer driving months.

Russert: “Why are you against giving taxpayers in Indiana, North Carolina, a relief from federal gasoline tax this summer?”

Only in the second half of the hour did the interview address some substantive questions about U.S. policy in the Middle East, before Russert ended the interview with a flurry of questions about what might happen in the campaign depending on the outcomes in Indiana and North Carolina.

Given the amount of time devoted to Rev. Wright and political tactics, what was striking was what wasn't discussed. Russert didn’t ask a single question about President Bush’s policies on torture, his stretching of his constitutional authority as the “unitary executive,” the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the possible recession, the declining dollar, the federal budget deficit or a host of other important issues.

Since Russert is an icon to many Washington journalists, he was spared the kind of criticism that Stephanopoulos and Gibson encountered after the April 16 debate. But Russert’s obsession with political trivia was arguably worse than theirs.

When the post mortems on Campaign 2008 are written, Obama – like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry before him – will be faulted for failing to figure a way out of the “oppo” trap. But the bigger question confronting the American people will be how they can escape this recurring nightmare of a silly news media trivializing and distorting the selection of the President.

Another Chance

So, on May 4, the Sunday before another important round of primaries, one might have expected something better or at least different when NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert interviewed Obama for a full hour. But that’s not how this process works.

Russert opened up “Meet the Press” with a steady barrage of questions about Rev. Wright – a dozen all told – most of which had been thoroughly plowed previously.

Russert: “What has the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright done to your campaign?”

“You're still a member of the church?”

“Why do you think he re-emerged?”

“What did you learn [about Wright] in those [past] five weeks that you didn't know in March?”

“The critics have said he [Wright] can attack the United States of America, he can do all sorts of things that divide the country, but only when he made it politically uncomfortable for you did you finally separate himself [sic] from him.”

“Reverend Wright was going to give the invocation [at Obama’s campaign launch], he was disinvited. … So you knew in '07, this guy's a problem.”

“Why didn't you just say then, ‘You know, Reverend, we're going on different paths because this country does not believe in white supremacy and black inferiority’”?

“He said in a letter to The New York Times, he suggested that you apologized for not letting him do the invocation. Is that true?”

“Is it fair for people to raise questions about your judgment for misjudging Reverend Wright?”

“You're done with him?”

“If you're elected president, you won't seek his counsel?”

“Could you have handled this better, differently, by severing your ties earlier?”

“What's the most important thing you've learned from this?”

Russert then pivoted into a reprise of Obama’s supposed lack of patriotism, mentioning Wright’s comment, “God damn America,” and the criticism of Obama for not wearing a flag pin – with the question framed as a question from Democratic superdelegates about Obama.

Russert: "How is he going to defend or define his patriotism?"

Serious Issues

It was almost halfway through the program before Russert touched on a question that actually related to the lives of Americans, a question about whether or not the government should suspend the gas tax for the summer driving months.

Russert: “Why are you against giving taxpayers in Indiana, North Carolina, a relief from federal gasoline tax this summer?”

Only in the second half of the hour did the interview address some substantive questions about U.S. policy in the Middle East, before Russert ended the interview with a flurry of questions about what might happen in the campaign depending on the outcomes in Indiana and North Carolina.

Given the amount of time devoted to Rev. Wright and political tactics, what was striking was what wasn't discussed. Russert didn’t ask a single question about President Bush’s policies on torture, his stretching of his constitutional authority as the “unitary executive,” the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the possible recession, the declining dollar, the federal budget deficit or a host of other important issues.

Since Russert is an icon to many Washington journalists, he was spared the kind of criticism that Stephanopoulos and Gibson encountered after the April 16 debate. But Russert’s obsession with political trivia was arguably worse than theirs.

When the post mortems on Campaign 2008 are written, Obama – like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry before him – will be faulted for failing to figure a way out of the “oppo” trap. But the bigger question confronting the American people will be how they can escape this recurring nightmare of a silly news media trivializing and distorting the selection of the President.

PIMP THIS |

A BOOK REVIEW
BURNING QUESTIONS: REVIEW DEBUNKS HONOR CRIME MEMOIR
by Therese Taylor, Al Jadid























“Burned Alive” is a best-selling memoir that recounts an Arab woman’s survival of an honor killing. It has been translated into numerous languages, is in school libraries, on university reading lists and recommended to anyone seeking the “truth” about Middle Eastern women’s life stories. Despite its wide circulation, “Burned Alive” has never been authenticated. Australian historian Thérèse Taylor describes how she came to doubt every word of it.

Few books by Arab women gain a worldwide audience. However, the 2003 publication of “Burned Alive: A Victim of the Law of Men,” by an author who uses the pen name “Souad,” was internationally hailed as an important new development.

This book is marketed as a genuine memoir by a survivor of an attempted honor killing. It describes how Souad survived a violent attack by her brother-in-law, during which he set her afire after dousing her with gasoline. She fled to Europe with the assistance of a French aid worker, Jacqueline Thibault. These events apparently occurred in 1979, and Souad is now at liberty to tell her story. The book cover shows the masked face of an Arab woman, and carries a commentary from a British newspaper: “The terrifying memoir of a young Palestinian woman…. Her ordeal reveals the scandalous treatment of women that is the real human rights abuse in the West Bank.”

When I read “Burned Alive” it struck me as having all the characteristics of a fake memoir – too many of which have been published in recent years. The importance of honor killings makes the doubtful nature of this memoir a grave ethical issue.

There is nothing improbable about a story of an honor killing – about 20 such cases currently occur every year on the West Bank. But the flaws in this account are obvious, and some of the events described are physically impossible. For instance, Souad claims to have been kept in a hospital on the West Bank for at least six weeks, with burns to most of her body, yet received “no nursing at all.” The medical staff even withheld water from her, and Souad says, “I knew they were letting me die.” This is nonsense, because Souad claims to have suffered third-degree burns over most of her body, including her head. A person with this type of injury will surely die if not provided with immediate and high-quality medical care.

In May 2005, The Diplomat published a critique in which I contended that “Burned Alive” should never have been published as a work of nonfiction. Despite my accusations that they lied appearing on newsstands across Australia, the authors of “Burned Alive” have never publicly responded to my criticisms. (The review of “Burned Alive,” titled “Truth, History and Honor Killing,” is available on the Internet at www.antiwar.com.) Since the publication of this review, many people have provided me with invaluable insights. Not one person has written to confirm the story in “Burned Alive.” Instead, readers have pointed out additional errors in the text. Israelis revealed errors in geography, wedding customs and funeral rites. An Armenian noticed that Souad describes making tea with a teapot. Teapots are not used in the Middle East: the tea is boiled on the stove. My Australian students, in a rural university, asked why Souad describes sheep as if they are pets – this is not an authentic view of a farm worker – and why both shearing and lambing are described erroneously.

Even more damning, people in Europe have forwarded copies of media interviews during which the authors of “Burned Alive” recounted differing versions of events. Souad and Jacqueline always tell a good story – they just don’t tell the same story twice.

Memory and Truth

The scenes that Souad describes as normal are in fact bizarre. For instance, “Burned Alive” claims that after a mother kills her infant, she is congratulated by close relatives who visit and reassure her that they, “would have done the same.” Other reported customs, such as Palestinian parents feeding the dead bodies of their children to dogs, are really quite extraordinary. Souad writes, “The sheep’s blood, the blood of the virgin woman, always blood. I remember that on every Eid… To get inside, you had to pass through this door painted in blood. It made me sick.” Souad’s imagination seems to be out of control.

However, despite the memories Souad evokes, she has lost all memory of her native Arabic language. Her native language could have been the indisputable evidence, authenticating her claim to be a Palestinian. As she explained to Die Weltwoche in 2004: “I am no longer an Arab, I am a European woman … I no longer speak Arabic.” When questioned by the interviewer, she was unable to translate a single word of that language.

During an interview with English journalist Jane Warren in the Express on May 20, 2004, Souad stated, “For years my memory was fractured, I forgot how to speak Arabic, I felt weak all the time… I was living in the shadows, but after I wrote the book I got stronger and stronger: I started to exist. It was good therapy for me.” She continued, “When people used to ask me about my scars I pretended I’d had an accident, but now I feel strong enough to explain what really happened. Telling my story has helped me to reconcile the truth.”

If one strips away the sentimentality, we have a statement from a woman who cannot speak Arabic, has long-term mental health problems and, by her own account, has repeatedly lied about her past.

When Souad held press conferences in Europe, Christelle Méplon of De Standaard reported that “for security considerations, no interviews will be permitted to persons of Arab ethnicity.” This was conveyed in admiring terms: Souad has the courage to speak amidst such dangers. However, one cannot help wondering if persons of Arab ethnicity might endanger Souad’s credibility because Arabs can recognize a true Palestinian immediately upon hearing them speak.

A Tale Which Grows in the Telling

Prior to 2003, Souad and her co-author, Jacqueline Thibault, gave many public testimonies to raise funds for their campaign against honor killings in the Middle East. In those days, the tale was that Souad had been an innocent untouched virgin, attacked by her family because of neighborhood gossip that she had been speaking with a boy. “Tortured for speaking to a boy!” was the headline in Elle magazine. By 2003, following the publication of “Burned Alive,” the story had transformed into that of a seduced and abandoned girl, burned alive because she was pregnant.

In June 2003, Souad told the journal Ouest France her little sister Hanan had been killed by her brother Assad when Hanan was only 10 years old. Later, in April 2004, Souad was interviewed in Switzerland by Menschenrechte fur die Frau and said that her “fourteen year old sister had been killed.” She has produced endless variations of this murder, always changing the times, the ages and the chronology of events.

In “Burned Alive,” Souad describes how a young woman in her village died in childbirth, while attempting to give birth to twins. It is a touching story, and in fact the only natural death known to her – all the other deaths in her village being the result of murders. This seems statistically unlikely, but as Souad explains, “it was normal to kill.” Indeed, by the time she was interviewed in Spain by El Mundo in November 2003, she claimed to have witnessed many murders – including that of a young woman in her village who was killed because she was expecting twins. The sole natural death in her village has become, in this retelling, yet another murder.

Remarkably, no journalist has confronted Souad over the improbabilities of her story. They report her words with admiration, describing her as a “spirited” lady, and presenting each version of events as true.

In “Burned Alive,” Souad emphasizes that her mother, like all the women in her community, was uneducated. She explains that women were prohibited from reading or writing, and instead “were kept illiterate.” In later interviews, she describes how publishing “Burned Alive” is a form of revenge for her, and told El Mundo: “Now it is going on sale in Israel and I hope that my mother and her neighbors read it.”

Evidently, it is Souad who needs to read “Burned Alive,” to refresh her memory of exactly what her testimony is supposed to be.

In a 2004 interview in Switzerland, Souad was asked if there was any symbolic significance in the white mask she wears during interviews. Souad replied that she wears white “Perhaps, because in the past, in my village, I always had to wear black.” In “Burned Alive,” she states the opposite. The girls always wore long dresses: “They were grey, usually, or sometimes white, very rarely black.” As a free woman in Europe, “I love … black, maroon, all the colors I could never then have.” This detail about clothing is a slight, but telling, mistake. What woman forgets the clothing she wore in her youth?

Perhaps the type of woman who forgets her father’s face. When interviewed by La Vanguardia in November 2003, Souad explained that when first meeting Jacqueline Thibault she was amazed, having never seen blond hair in her life: “I saw her so blond, so luminous, that I thought it was God.” This is like an episode in a children’s story about colonial Africa, such as “King Solomon’s Mines,” where the ignorant natives are so amazed by the sight of a white face that they are ready to worship a European.

The story is an obvious fable, and an inaccurate portrayal of the West Bank in the 1970’s. People with light-colored skin and hair are common in the region. In an almost comical mistake, Souad has apparently forgotten her previous descriptions of her own father. He is described as a menacing creature with light, gingery hair: “he had a pale complexion with red splotches … and mean blue eyes.” In another part of the text he is “almost an albino.” One really ought not to claim, on one occasion, to be the daughter of a sinister near-albino, and on another occasion, to have grown up without ever having seen a fair-skinned person. These are both good stories, but they contradict one another.

The examples given here are but a few of the many contradictions found in Souad’s interviews. Some are minor details – others are issues of life and death. Souad’s co-author, Jacqueline Thibault, who claims to have rescued her from the West Bank, is scarcely more reliable. Thibault is a human rights worker and an ardent Christian. A French national, she has a sentimental attachment to Israel, but her writings show little real knowledge of the Middle East. Like Souad, Thibault’s recollections of whether Souad was a virgin or an unmarried mother at the time of her rescue have changed over time. She has also altered many of the medical details, originally stating that she found Souad in a hospital in Ramallah, but later deciding that she had initially been in a hospital in Bethlehem. No wonder the authors of “Burned Alive” are unable to provide a crucial point which is always missing from each increasingly fantastic story – the name of said hospital.

Thibault has produced no evidence supporting her testimony. In particular, her allegation that children in the care of Palestinian social services “die without explanation” is unfounded. It should be noted that no Israeli journalist or writer has mentioned, much less documented, tales of infanticide and blood rituals like those found in “Burned Alive.” Such allegations are regarded with suspicion in the Jewish culture because they are similar to earlier anti-Semitic fantasies.

Tales and the Audience

In a 2003 interview, a journalist from ANSA noted: “Souad … remembers very well how her mother had strangled two newborn babies because they were girls.” In “Burned Alive” Souad says that she saw her mother giving birth and killing babies on two occasions: “I’m not sure I was present for the third one, but I knew about it.” One notices that the earlier “very well” remembered account is now being elaborated upon – two infanticides have become three. Following the publication of her book, the German television station ZDF broadcast an interview during which admiration for Souad’s stoic manner was expressed: “Laconically, she tells how she saw her mother kill four or five of her sisters, immediately after their births.” That was in January 2004. By April of that same year, Souad was claiming in De Groene Amsterdammer: “I have seen my mother suffocate seven of my little sisters. Seven!”

One would be mistaken to think that Souad’s chronic exaggerations about her misfortunes have raised even passing doubts in the minds of her audiences. As the book reviewer of The Australian enthusiastically proclaimed in May 2004: “Souad, for that is the arresting name emblazoned on the cover of this gripping and immensely brave book, was lucky. Nine of her siblings were smothered at birth.” In the same article, the reviewer comments that she knows that this story is authentic, because it is so similar to that told by Norma Khouri, the author of “Forbidden Love.”

Khouri has since been exposed as a fake. Her “memoir” about honor killing was a novel, and her “best friend” Dalia never existed. After she was discredited, people examined her book and interviews, and realized she had been altering and embellishing her story over time. This would be expected in tales of imagination. The author of “Forbidden Love” consistently claimed that it was necessary to keep Dalia’s family name a secret, lest she be exposed to violent revenge. This claim went unchallenged – but would not Dalia’s own family recognize their story circulating across the international market?

Souad says that she lives in fear: “Fear that her family will learn that she is still alive, and will return to kill her again.” This is why she must remain masked and anonymous. And yet, in an interview with L´Express in March 2003, Souad commented, “My greatest hope is that this book will be published in my country of birth, so that the population there will develop a conscience.”

If the story in “Burned Alive” were a faithful account, then the people concerned would easily recognize themselves. Hence, the anonymity of the story serves no useful purpose – although it does ensure Souad’s identity remain a secret, preventing those who might recognize her from her former real life in Europe. One can understand why she would conceal her current location, but not why she would rely on evasive stories about her past. Why are she and Thibault unable to name the village in which the midwives assisted in the murders of newborn children, or the orphanage from which the babies disappeared?

When praising this book, the Washington Post Book World said, “Her tale is so shocking that it has to be told plainly; this is not a literary effort so much as it is a rare artifact … nothing less than a miracle.”

But the story in “Burned Alive” has not been “told plainly.” It is replete with errors, and has been embellished over time through a series of increasing exaggerations. Critics and academics who have recommended this book as the product of an authentic voice from the Middle East must reexamine it, and must be more wary of undocumented memoirs in general. The charities and publishers who are using “Burned Alive” to earn money owe the public an explanation. Any evidence demonstrating the veracity of this story must be proffered.

As it stands, “Burned Alive” is an example of fantasy, tale-telling, and stage-acting.

PIMP THIS |