a slow fast

Last Friday, for the first time in my life, I fasted. There are many reasons for this. The most immediate is that my wife decided to fast, and asked me if I wanted to join her. But a deeper reason is that I had never done it before in my life. It was only a 24 hour fast, but it felt good. It was surprisingly easy. I felt very good afterwards.

For me, a fast (at least for now) means “no solid food.” I still drink coffee, and I’ve been drinking lots of water, some fruit juice, and broth.

Those who know me will know that I have a complex relationship with food. Indeed, this is one of the prime areas of my own spiritual work over the past few years. I have undone some very bad habits I picked up growing up. But it is a constant struggle for me.

Furthermore, I think fasting will have some good political benefits. It is not difficult for me to imagine a time when food will not be nearly as plentiful for us as it is now. So if I get used to going without food now, it could help down the road. Who knows. I don’t want to get all apocalyptic, much less feed that energy pattern, but fasting for me is a way to attune to those who suffer under the imbalances of capitalist food distribution in the world.

Anyway, this week I decided to extend my fast for 48 hours. So no solid food until tomorrow morning. This is a personal challenge. I’ve never known hunger in my life. This will be the longest I’ve ever gone without food.

Non Liberty

This article details the results of a very interesting experiment involving copyright law enforcement and a text that is in the public domain (John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty:

As part of a recent research project, I posted a section of Mill’s On Liberty on the internet (which is clearly in the public domain), then issued unfounded copyright complaints against it. One internet service provider (ISP) removed the chapter almost immediately. This illustrates the problem with self-censorship procedures, which rely on hidden judgements being made by unaccountable bodies.

Interesting story. This points out yet another flaw with copyright law — which was originally architected to govern print media — as applied to the digital age. As the article explains:

ISPs are acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time. They not only have to make a judgement whether a website is illegal or not – they also have to act as a private detective agency, investigating the accusations and deciding on the merits of the evidence they gather. Nevertheless, when an ISP removes content it invokes the cyber equivalent to the death sentence. When an ISP acts it can effectively destroy a business or censor a political campaign, by making access to that website impossible.

I would add to this that the British ISP who removed Mill probably has a policy to instantly remove all copyright claims, regardless of validity, simply because it is cheaper to do so than to investigate all copyright claims.

Who should pay for these investigations? That’s a tough call. Either way, this model of copyright is way too topheavy and unwieldy. It is obsolete.

Someone had to say it

And Greg Palast has the guts to. You can’t really call his article on Ronald Reagan an obituary, precisely. It’s far too bitter. And realistic.

But as I wrote in another forum:

I’m sorry for those close to him and for those who loved him, but I can’t exactly say with good conscience that we lost a great man.

Who knows how history will remember him. I think if you go out far enough into the future, he’ll be remembered as being deeply connected to the process of American global hegemony, neoliberalism, and imperialism. And I can’t see how this will be regarded as a good thing.

But Palast pulls no punches. Again, someone had to say it.

Wil, to power

This is a flawless rant from Wil Wheaton, author and actor (you know him as Wesley from Star Trek, also from the movie Stand By Me). It’s from an interview he did recently. Great stuff.

You know, I have always been pretty moderate. I’m socially liberal, but fiscally conservative … until now. In the last three years, I have been radicalized by the Bush administration because I believe them to be incredibly dishonest and incredibly divisive, and acting not in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. Remember “I’m a uniter, not a divider”? What ever happened to that? Bush has divided the country at every opportunity. It’s just a modern updating of the old Nixonian “Southern Strategy”. Look, to give these comments some context: I was not a huge supporter of the Clinton administration. That whole lying thing really bothered me. I don’t care what it’s about; I don’t like to be lied to by my leaders, regardless of what party they’re from. Truth has always been more important to me than anything else, and I resent it when politicians lie to us. I resent it even more when the media make them repeat their lies over and over again. Judith Miller at The New York Times, I’m looking in your direction.

I really think that history is going to remember George W. Bush and eventually Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld … and the rest of the neo-conservatives (neocons) as the most corrupt, dishonest, dangerous and damaging group of people to hold the reins of American power in history.

I really try to be middle-of-the-road. But when the President of the United States uses his bully pulpit to call for an amending of the Constitution — a document that should be guaranteeing freedoms to the people, not taking them away — to deny basic rights to an entire class of people (in this case homosexuals) it makes me explode. Bush’s call to amend it to deny homosexuals a right that heterosexual people take for granted was really the last straw for me, and now I am officially On The Left. The purpose of the Constitution as I understand it is to put limits on what the government can do, not who can get married to whom. These Republicans talk about smaller government, but that’s such a lie! What they really mean is “smaller government programs to help out the less fortunate people in our country so we can get rich, and bigger government intrusion into your private lives so we can control you.” It’s such blatant pandering to intolerant religious extremists who are trying to force their mythology down the throats of the entire country. Guess what? That’s not Democracy. That’s Theocracy. Isn’t that one of the major reasons we left England in the first place? The separation of Church and State was pretty goddamned important to the Founding Fathers, but the Bush administration is trying to shove a far-right, ultra-conservative, mythological Christian agenda on the rest of the country, and by extension, the rest of the world. I mean, it’s like he’s using Revelations to get his foreign policy!

You know what? In a rational world most of those guys in the Bush administration would not have jobs right now. Remember Bush smirking through the 2000 campaign, saying, “I will return honor and dignity to the White House” and “I will restore accountability”? Where’s the fucking accountability?! Donald Rumsfeld should have resigned months ago because of the lies about Iraq. George W. Bush should be impeached for lying and deliberately misleading America and the world into an unnecessary, illegal war that violates the Geneva Convention, and goes against international law. He should be impeached. If Bill Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex — And it doesn’t matter what he lied about: he was impeached for lying, okay? And that’s not alright. It’s not okay to lie under oath; that’s perjury and he should have been held accountable for that. But if he can be impeached for that, if he can be investigated for something so stupid like Whitewater, where the fuck is the Congressional investigation of the Bush administration? My God! They’ve lied about everything, and thousands of human beings have died because of it!

I just want to know where all these conservatives are who were so concerned about truth and honesty when Clinton was in office. Their silence about the outrageous lies of the Bush administration is deafening. Why did Bush try so hard to prevent the creation of the 9/11 Commission? Why did he put Henry Kissenger in charge of it, and fight it, and fight it, and fight it, every step of the way? Why did he try so hard to prevent us from finding out what happened? What’s he afraid of? It’s our fucking right as Americans to know what happened. This is our country. Those were our fellow citizens who were murdered on that day. He will gleefully stand on the ashes of the World Trade Center to make a campaign speech, but he won’t give the 9/11 Commission everything they need to find out what happened? It shouldn’t even be a question. The worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, he’s exploiting our fear and our national outrage for political gain, and he is doing everything he can to hamstring the commission. Who is he protecting? Who does he care about? Does he care about his buddies in Saudi Arabia who are funding al-Qaeda? Or does he care about the Americans that he was allegedly elected to represent? Just — The fucking duplicitousness of this administration is so offensive to me and the cognitive dissonance that you have to have to support these people is stunning. Donald Rumsfeld goes on Face the Nation on Sunday and he says, “Nobody ever said it [Iraq] was an ‘imminent threat.’ We never said that.” Well, we all know that’s false. And thank God there was a reporter from The New York Times who said, “Well, as a matter of fact here, Secretary Rumsfeld, you said, ‘They have the most lethal weapons presented … They are an imminent threat.’ It’s right here! You said it. Answer that now.” And Rumsfeld goes, “Um … uh … er …” He said, “Well, what I meant was, um … Well, he sort of, uh … I mean, he — We’re going to find it.” And he got away with that! Where is the outrage? Paul Wolfowitz admitted that the neocons focused on WMDs to justify the war, and now we know that everyone except the Iraqi National Congress — who have been totally discredited as liars — told the Pentagon they just weren’t there. The Secretary of Defense is caught repeatedly lying about the main justification for the war and Congress doesn’t even flinch! Can you imagine what would have happened if that had been William Cohen? There would have been 50,000 Republican operatives marching on the Pentagon with pitchforks and torches, and you can bet your life that it’s all we’d hear about from the so-called liberal media until he was forced to resign. It just drives me crazy. Until this administration, I was never a partisan. I always put principals before party — I mean, I’m registered as a non-partisan!

ST: You just vote with your heart.

WW: I vote with my conscience. I believe in the values I was told America stands for, and all my life I have loved America. “One man, one vote.” “A nation of laws, not men.” “Truth before all else” — that’s just going to be a myth (if it isn’t already) if we don’t get these psychos out of power. I believe in equality. I believe in freedom of the press. I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And these people … are the most anti-American people to ever have power. Ever. The things this administration has done have gone totally against traditional American values. I wonder if the vast majority of Americans even know how virulently hated we are in the rest of the world now, because of the Bushies. I wonder if they even care. And you know what’s awful? In some twisted way, conservatives take my criticism of the lies of the Bush administration and turn it into support for our enemies … what a load of crap. I opposed the war in Iraq all along, and it’s not because I love terrorists, you morons. I completely support our military. I honor and respect the men and women who took an oath to defend our country and my freedom. That is why I have always opposed, and continue to oppose, the war in Iraq, because it was unnecessary and took our focus away from stopping al-Qaeda. And the best argument war supporters can come up with is, “Well, isn’t the world better with Saddam Hussein not in power?” You know what? Fuck Saddam Hussein. I don’t care about Saddam Hussein, and the only reason he ever even had power in the first place is because he was funded and given weapons and intelligence information by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. He was created by the United States, just like the Taliban was. And don’t take my word for it. Read [the book] House of Bush, House of Saud. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States. Osama Bin Laden was, and is. If you think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein rattling his sword in the middle of the desert, try asking someone who has lost a family member in Iraq if they think it was worth it. Ask yourself if you feel safer getting on a plane now that they tore down that statue in Baghdad, but Osama is still running around.

You asked what causes I believe in, and care about, and I care about taking care of Americans in America. I am not worried about taking care of the rest of the world. That’s not our problem! We can provide leadership, which we should do because we’re currently the toughest guy on the block, but this idea that we can go out and engage in nation-building and shoving Democracy down the throats of people who don’t want it — look, our economy is falling apart. People are losing their jobs and their homes, while CEOs buy more yachts. Some Americans may have gotten a few hundred dollars from the Bush tax cut, but their health care costs have soared by thousands. Gasoline is nearing three bucks a gallon, and we are facing the biggest outbreak of herpes since the 70s, because the Republicans won’t let us teach safe sex to teenagers. Our country is in danger of collapsing under the weight of the hubris of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Tom DeLay, and the rest of them. We are in serious trouble. You don’t go cleaning up your neighbor’s garage when your own house is falling apart. And during the 2000 campaign, Bush said, “America shouldn’t be policing the world.” Well, what are you doing then, you fucking liar? There was a time when I could honestly say, “I don’t hate George W. Bush. I strongly disagree with him, but I don’t hate him.” Well, I sure hate him now. And with each soldier and innocent Iraqi civilian who is killed, because of his incompetence and hubris, I hate him a little bit more.

Nothing I can add to that…

Speaking of Fetishes…

There was an interesting article originally published in the Boston Globe recently, called “Cruel Science: The Long Shadow of CIA Torture Research.” It is an analysis of the recent torture photos coming out of Iraq.

Basically, the story is that such torture by Americans is nothing new. This will not be news to anyone who has not brainwashed by American mass media.

There are, however, a few relevant passages. The first is an analysis of “no touch torture,” in which “interrogators use two essential methods, disorientation and self-inflicted pain, to make victims feel responsible for their own suffering.” The effects of “no touch torture” spread to both perpetrators and victims:

Although seemingly less brutal, “no touch” torture leaves deep psychological scars on both victims and interrogators. The victims often need long treatment to recover from trauma far more crippling than physical pain. The perpetrators can suffer a dangerous expansion of ego, leading to escalating cruelty and lasting emotional problems.

I agree with this analysis; my quasi-Buddhist, compassionate side knows that everyone involved with torture suffers on some level, and are therefore worthy of compassion. I just can’t imagine being in a situation where torturing another human being is the best choice that can be made.

Regarding these specific perps from the Iraq photos, and who is to blame for the atrocities, McCoy says the following:

these seven MPs are neither “creeps” nor weaklings who succumbed to the prison pressure-cooker. They are ordinary American soldiers following orders within a standard interrogation procedure. Whatever their guilt, the court martial of these soldiers should be just a first step up the chain of command and beyond to far-reaching reforms.

That’s perhaps the most relevant statement regarding the systematic American torture of its prisoners I’ve seen.

I can’t believe this is an issue. Any credibility for American imperialism somehow “helping” or “freeing” whatever occupied territory they are in is gone.

The Ultimate Fetish

OK, my political commentary in this personal forum has been much lighter as of late. There are many reasons for this. In general, all activists have to take time to recharge. One cannot be an activist, full-time, for years at a time without completely draining themselves. In addition, my creative output has been totally focused on music recently. I just don’t have enough energy to focus on political ranting. Besides, putting energy into my music is probably the most effective way I can enact change in my reality. Music has a power that is undeniable to change public consciousness.

Having said that, I just read the following in Time magazine:

When Saddam Hussein was rousted from his spider hole in Dawr, a town near Tikrit, by U.S. soldiers last December, Iraq’s fallen dictator was clutching a pistol. He is now in detention at an undisclosed location, being questioned by American authorities and awaiting charges for war atrocities and crimes against humanity. But what ever happened to the pistol?

The sidearm has made its way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Sources say that the military had the pistol mounted after the soldiers seized it from Saddam and that it was then presented to the President privately by some of the troops who played a key role in ferreting out the old tyrant. Though it was widely reported at the time that the pistol was loaded when they grabbed Saddam, Bush has told visitors that the gun was empty–and that it is still empty and safe to touch. “He really liked showing it off,” says a recent visitor to the White House who has seen the gun. “He was really proud of it.”

Now, how can an intelligent, psychologically aware person take this? It is, in many ways, the perfect symbol for what is wrong with this administration. This is an object of violence, that GWB is fetishizing. Moreover, it is a symbol of his obsession with Saddam Hussein. One wonders that if Saddam somehow is killed “resisting” the guards (wherever he is now, who knows…), that GWB would have Saddam’s penis cut off and stuffed. I wonder if he’d be as proud of that, showing it off.

I wonder if GWB has a bigger pistol than Saddam?