Monday, April 27, 2009
Taking Pics with a DICTATOR?! (GASP) And SMILING?!?
There's an old joke in political circles that starts out "What's the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'? a 'terrorist' is someone who kills, loots, rapes, plunders and pillages for a cause we don't like. A 'FREEDOM FIGHTER' on the other hand is someone who loots, rapes, plunders and pillages for a cause we DO like."
Over simplified? Perhaps. Black humor? Of course, but it does illustrate an interesting point. How we define geopolitics in the 70's and 80's was relatively simple. We had one litmus test. Is he/she communist? If the answer to that question was yes then it was accepted that they were evil and all of their citizens were either:
a. mindless drones
b. brain washed idiots
c. godless atheist
or my personal favorite
d. oppressed people who long to breath the sweet air of freedom but are suffering under the brutal regime of an evil totalitarian.
If one WASN'T a communist the wholesale butchery of your populace, rigging of elections and having political dissidents "eliminated" by your secret police were completely ignored by your friend of friends the United States of America. It's the reason why Pol Pot and Daniel Ortega will burn in hell, but we ignored Agusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Manuel Norriega and Saddam Hussein for the bulk of his reign.
President Barack Obama was recently photographed shaking hands with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and the bulk of American conservatives had a collective heart attack and immediately went on the offensive. He was called everything from "naive" to "socialist" to flat out "communist." Why because he met the leader of another country, shook the man's hand and smiled while exchanging pleasantries.
Initially I couldn't see what the big deal was, but a conservative whom I work with as well as a friend of mine informed me that shaking hands with a dictator like Chavez undermined both Obama AND the authority of the United States. Something about that didn't seem quite right. Being a student of history I knew this couldn't have been the first time an American president shook hands with a dictator. To jump start my memory I found some old photographs which backed up something which my gut had been telling me and sure enough I found pictures of former American presidents shaking hands with dictators.
I found a treasure trove of former presidents shaking hands with men who were the poster boys for dictatorship. There were multiple shots of Reagan shaking hands with former Russian premier Gorbachev. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Reagan call Russia an "Evil Empire?" I could have sworn that during the cold war the Russians had intercontinental ballistic missiles pointed at every major city in the United States poised to wipe us off the map. Gorbachev's Russian oversaw a Gulag system that still sent political dissidents to Siberia and funded wars in Central America and Southeast Asia. Where was the conservative anger when "Ronnie" shook hands with this 'evil' commie? I guess George Will was busy that day.
I saw pictures of Bill Clinton George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan AND Jimmy Carter with Yassar Arafat leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The United States has LONG considered the PLO a terrorist organization. Where was the uproar?
When Nixon recognized China and made his historic trip with Secretary of State Kissinger and took a now famous photo with Chairman Mao Tse Tung. pardon me, but wasn't Mao the guy who sent Chinese troops at American troops in human waves on the 38th parallel at the Yalu River during the Korean war? Didn't he also start the "cultural revolution" and send millions to death and work camps? I could have sworn he did yet there was no uproar when Nixon shook hands with him.
And Franklin Delano Roosevelt not only shook hands with Josef Stalin, but brought the Soviets into World War Two as our allies. Josef Stalin was possibly one of the worst totalitarian butchers in the history of the world. Stalin killed tens of millions MORE of his own people than Hitler and the 3rd Reich. His secret police rounded his enemies up in the middle of the night to be executed or shipped to Siberia. He ruled his country with an iron hand, reduced human life to numbers on a chart and had history books rewritten to cover the full extent of his crimes against the world.
Do I mean to minimize any wrong that Hugo Chavez may have done or may STILL be doing? Of course not. Do I think Mr. Chavez to be relatively sane? Not really. But in the grand scheme of things, Chavez isn't funding terrorist to attack us and isn't pointing thermonuclear weapons at us, hence I don't see him as a threat? What I find puzzling is that despite George W. Bush declaring that Chavez was an evil dictator we didn't cease buying oil from Venezuela or impose an embargo on products from them. Chavez nationalized his country's oil supply and effectively angered foreign oil companies who were making a fortune in his country and the 2% of Venezuela's population who control all of it's wealth. Translation? This crazy guy wants to control his country's natural resources, build schools, roads and hospitals and stop the poor in his country from taking to the streets with guns to over throw whomever's in charge. HOW DARE HE!?!
Chavez routinely sends brutal police to attack demonstrators and is far from being the "man of the people" he would like to be seen as. He censors newspapers and imprisons those who disagree with him. He IS a dictator and should be seen and treated as such, but on that same token, an American president should NOT be unfairly demonized for simply extending a social pleasantry. I wager that had President Obama openly criticized Chavez or punched him in the face the same conservatives who are still in an uproar about this handshake would be chastising him for being "uncouth" and "un presidential." If one is determined to see something with enough zeal, eventually he or she will see it.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Susan can sing...AND?!
Last week several people bothered me (as they are want to do as I'm an admitted misanthrope) that I simply HAD to watch a video on You-Tube of a British show called "Brittan's Got Talent". Being that iconoclastic fool who takes pride in taking a left when everyone else takes a right I initially refused but having grown weary of hearing the masses bleating I eventually gave in.
I went to YouTube and saw a large, ordinary looking woman who looked as if she'd just walked out of a supermarket who announced to two grinning panelist and a stone faced Simon Cowell that she was going to sing a song from Les Miserables. I sat there thinking how much I didn't like musicals but decided that her voice was what she was being judged on and my personal musical taste had no real bearing.
The music started and Ms. Susan Boyle of Scotland sang like an angel. A smile crossed my face as I was quite impressed with her vocal talent. Having gone to High school and college with some people with extraordinary vocal talent, it was not the first time I'd heard someone with a classically trained sounding voice rising to challenging material. I was fortunate enough to have gone on a couple of dates with an Opera student at one point and was privileged enough to have been briefly serenaded, but that's neither here nor there. Susan Boyle received a standing ovation and impressed me with her talent but I couldn't see what the big deal was...until she stopped singing and the comments started.
One of the judges said "We expected you to fail." I was puzzled. I then saw clips of various entertainment news programs where they announced that Susan was now an " internet sensation" and many of the talking heads and hair farms (who should avoid the gene pool at all cost) on these various programs said how people didn't expect such an incredible voice to come from such an "unattractive" person.
I would say I was insulted, but as Richard Nixon once said "One can only be insulted by those he respects." I sat there and listened as many weighed in on this talented woman and used adjectives like "unattractive," "Ugly", "Frumpy" and a myriad of others to describe this woman who only wanted to sing to them. Am I the ONLY person who (If I might paraphrase George Michael) listened without prejudice? If so then I have to say you people make me sick.
I have to ask what the HELL does ones appearance have to do with one's talents and abilities? Are we as a society so superficial and UNBELIEVABLY STUPID that we correlate beauty with talent? Is Charleze Theiron a better actress than Cathy Bates because she's younger, thinner and some migh argue prettier? Is Brad Pitt a better actor than Ed Norton simply because he's better looking? Having grown up in the days when MTV was in it's infancy I remember listening to the radio in the late 70's. When radio stations played all types of music we judged all of it simply on rather or not we actually liked either, the beat, the lyrics or simply the singers voice. MTV changed the game. Musical taste shifted. People who were fun to look at became stars seemingly overnight and established acts faded into oblivion as many proved to either not know how to make good music videos or simply proved physically unappealing to those watching. When I spent three years as a DJ I was AMAZED at how much INCREDIBLE music never made it to commercial radio stations because of how political the music industry is, and just how visually oriented much of it has become. Did we learn NOTHING from the Milli Vanilli debacle of the late 80's/early 90s?
Susan Boyle deserves the recognition she's receiving as a talented singer, but we as a society need to hang our heads for exalting talentless bimbos and effeminte, tone-deaf, pretty boys while talented people like Susan are lucky to sing in their own showers.
I went to YouTube and saw a large, ordinary looking woman who looked as if she'd just walked out of a supermarket who announced to two grinning panelist and a stone faced Simon Cowell that she was going to sing a song from Les Miserables. I sat there thinking how much I didn't like musicals but decided that her voice was what she was being judged on and my personal musical taste had no real bearing.
The music started and Ms. Susan Boyle of Scotland sang like an angel. A smile crossed my face as I was quite impressed with her vocal talent. Having gone to High school and college with some people with extraordinary vocal talent, it was not the first time I'd heard someone with a classically trained sounding voice rising to challenging material. I was fortunate enough to have gone on a couple of dates with an Opera student at one point and was privileged enough to have been briefly serenaded, but that's neither here nor there. Susan Boyle received a standing ovation and impressed me with her talent but I couldn't see what the big deal was...until she stopped singing and the comments started.
One of the judges said "We expected you to fail." I was puzzled. I then saw clips of various entertainment news programs where they announced that Susan was now an " internet sensation" and many of the talking heads and hair farms (who should avoid the gene pool at all cost) on these various programs said how people didn't expect such an incredible voice to come from such an "unattractive" person.
I would say I was insulted, but as Richard Nixon once said "One can only be insulted by those he respects." I sat there and listened as many weighed in on this talented woman and used adjectives like "unattractive," "Ugly", "Frumpy" and a myriad of others to describe this woman who only wanted to sing to them. Am I the ONLY person who (If I might paraphrase George Michael) listened without prejudice? If so then I have to say you people make me sick.
I have to ask what the HELL does ones appearance have to do with one's talents and abilities? Are we as a society so superficial and UNBELIEVABLY STUPID that we correlate beauty with talent? Is Charleze Theiron a better actress than Cathy Bates because she's younger, thinner and some migh argue prettier? Is Brad Pitt a better actor than Ed Norton simply because he's better looking? Having grown up in the days when MTV was in it's infancy I remember listening to the radio in the late 70's. When radio stations played all types of music we judged all of it simply on rather or not we actually liked either, the beat, the lyrics or simply the singers voice. MTV changed the game. Musical taste shifted. People who were fun to look at became stars seemingly overnight and established acts faded into oblivion as many proved to either not know how to make good music videos or simply proved physically unappealing to those watching. When I spent three years as a DJ I was AMAZED at how much INCREDIBLE music never made it to commercial radio stations because of how political the music industry is, and just how visually oriented much of it has become. Did we learn NOTHING from the Milli Vanilli debacle of the late 80's/early 90s?
Susan Boyle deserves the recognition she's receiving as a talented singer, but we as a society need to hang our heads for exalting talentless bimbos and effeminte, tone-deaf, pretty boys while talented people like Susan are lucky to sing in their own showers.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Hey Madonna...still looking to adopt?
American entertainer Josephine Baker had to undergo a radical emergency hysterectomy and was told she couldn't have any children. Baker's response was to adopt children of seemingly every race, color and creed and label them her "rainbow tribe".
In keeping with the late great Ms. Baker's love for children, many Hollywood types as of late seem to want to spread the love around and are adopting children who might otherwise have grown up in orphanages. Angelina Jolie re popularized it when she sojourned to Cambodia and adopted her oldest son Maddox and years later the one and only Madonna-Louise Veronica Ciccone-Penn-Ritchie followed suit and adopted a cute little African kid...shortly after Ms. Jolie did the same.
Recently Madonna went back to Africa and attempted to adopt a second child and a court has temporarily blocked the adoption. Well, if the courts don't allow Madonna to this child I have a simple solution that would be beneficial to the child, his/her family, the African nation in question, Madonna and myself. I respectfully submit to Ms. Ciccone-Penn-Ritchie she should adopt...ME!
Yes ME! Madonna is 10 years my senior and as older women tend to attempt to "mother" younger men...it's a win/win situation. There would be no legal fees or tedious adoption paperwork to fill out as I'm sure my family would HAPPILY let Ms. Ciccone simply have me.
Just think of it Madonna (or should I call you "Mom"?):
1. You won't have to get me an entry visa.
2. You wouldn't have to hire a nanny or an aupere to take care of me..but if you want to hire a hot college student to tend to me I'd be in a good place with it.
3. You wouldn't have to toilet train me.
4. I don't eat much
5. You wouldn't have to pay my way through school...unless you really wanted to... a brotha could use a masters or a PhD.
But wait there's more, you could take me on the road with you on tours. I'd love to tour Europe with you! It'd be a great chance to meet Robyn (You know the little blonde Swede who does R&B who was your opening act for the "sticky and sweet" tour in Europe?) I'd be better than a press agent and would make sure that good press about your work with various charities made it to press.
In all seriousness however, I applaud Madonna, Angelina Jolie and other actors and actresses who adopt. You are giving a child a family and that is just beautiful. My only criticism would be this: there are starving children here in the United States (Ms. Jolie) and in England (Madonna) who need families as well and could also benefit from your obvious good will and philantrhophy. It's great to give to those who most need your help, but true charity should always begin at home.
In keeping with the late great Ms. Baker's love for children, many Hollywood types as of late seem to want to spread the love around and are adopting children who might otherwise have grown up in orphanages. Angelina Jolie re popularized it when she sojourned to Cambodia and adopted her oldest son Maddox and years later the one and only Madonna-Louise Veronica Ciccone-Penn-Ritchie followed suit and adopted a cute little African kid...shortly after Ms. Jolie did the same.
Recently Madonna went back to Africa and attempted to adopt a second child and a court has temporarily blocked the adoption. Well, if the courts don't allow Madonna to this child I have a simple solution that would be beneficial to the child, his/her family, the African nation in question, Madonna and myself. I respectfully submit to Ms. Ciccone-Penn-Ritchie she should adopt...ME!
Yes ME! Madonna is 10 years my senior and as older women tend to attempt to "mother" younger men...it's a win/win situation. There would be no legal fees or tedious adoption paperwork to fill out as I'm sure my family would HAPPILY let Ms. Ciccone simply have me.
Just think of it Madonna (or should I call you "Mom"?):
1. You won't have to get me an entry visa.
2. You wouldn't have to hire a nanny or an aupere to take care of me..but if you want to hire a hot college student to tend to me I'd be in a good place with it.
3. You wouldn't have to toilet train me.
4. I don't eat much
5. You wouldn't have to pay my way through school...unless you really wanted to... a brotha could use a masters or a PhD.
But wait there's more, you could take me on the road with you on tours. I'd love to tour Europe with you! It'd be a great chance to meet Robyn (You know the little blonde Swede who does R&B who was your opening act for the "sticky and sweet" tour in Europe?) I'd be better than a press agent and would make sure that good press about your work with various charities made it to press.
In all seriousness however, I applaud Madonna, Angelina Jolie and other actors and actresses who adopt. You are giving a child a family and that is just beautiful. My only criticism would be this: there are starving children here in the United States (Ms. Jolie) and in England (Madonna) who need families as well and could also benefit from your obvious good will and philantrhophy. It's great to give to those who most need your help, but true charity should always begin at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
