Saturday, January 10, 2009
101 Google Hits: Male Model
“nude male model” 204,000 hits
“Asian male model” 154,000 hits
“gay male model” 101,000 hits
“black male model” 76,500 hits
“straight male model” 60,400 hits
“shirtless male model” 42,100 hits
“Indian male model” 34,100 hits
“sexy male model” 33,000 hits
“Brazilian male model” 26,300 hits
“blond male model” 21,500 hits
“athletic male model” 21,400 hits
“muscular male model” 18,600 hits
“porn male model” 15,400 hits
“white male model” 15,400 hits
“American male model” 13,200 hits
“handsome male model” 11,800 hits
“heterosexual male model” 10,800 hits
“Argentinian male model” 10,050 hits
“Italian male model” 8,710 hits
“beautiful male model” 8,330 hits
“European male model” 6,840 hits
“Russian male model” 5,490 hits
“hairy male model” 5,470 hits
“Chinese male model” 5,000 hits
“Australian male model” 4,970 hits
“Austrian male model” 4,740 hits
“Japanese male model” 3,910 hits
“African male model” 3,850 hits
“Canadian male model” 3,670 hits
“deaf male model” 3,210 hits
“British male model” 3,120 hits
“Greek male model” 2,510 hits
“Thai male model” 2,220 hits
“Czech male model” 2,210 hits
“French male model” 1,970 hits
“50-year-old male model” 1,950 hits
“fat male model” 1,870 hits
“brunette male model” 1,570 hits
“homosexual male model” 1,530 hits
“Scottish male model” 1,170 hits
“dressed male model” 1,160 hits
“Spanish male model” 1,150 hits
“Korean male model” 1,080 hits
“clothed male model” 838 hits
“Turkish male model” 758 hits
“bisexual male model” 741 hits
“German male model” 682 hits
“Portuguese male model” 649 hits
“20-year-old male model” 647 hits
“Irish male model” 640 hits
“Indonesian male model” 584 hits
“thin male model” 556 hits
“tall male model” 487 hits
“Venezuelan male model” 423 hits
“mean male model” 422 hits
“dumb male model” 286 hits
“Swiss male model” 264 hits
“Pakistani male model” 226 hits
“English male model” 225 hits
“Mexican male model” 215 hits
“Swedish male model” 203 hits
“ugly male model” 198 hits
“Christian male model” 197 hits
“Welsh male model” 193 hits
“Norwegian male model” 164 hits
“short male model” 144 hits
“Jewish male model” 142 hits
“Iranian male model” 123 hits
“beefcake male model” 110 hits
“Cuban male model” 109 hits
“red-haired male model” 100 hits
“intelligent male model” 30 hits
“Afghani male model” 29 hits
“Arabic male model” 9 hits
“bald male model” 9 hits
“blind male model” 9 hits
“Persian male model” 9 hits
“Native American male model” 8 hits
“smooth male model” 8 hits
“Croatian male model” 7 hits
“mixed race male model” 7 hits
“kind male model” 6 hits
“balding male model” 5 hits
“Moroccan male model” 5 hits
“Ukrainian male model” 5 hits
“30-year-old male model” 4 hits
“Chilean male model” 4 hits
“Egyptian male model” 4 hits
“Hindi male model” 3 hits
“Iraqi male model” 3 hits
“Mormon male model” 3 hits
“paraplegic male model” 3 hits
“transgender male model” 2 hits
“40-year-old male model” 1 hit
“anarchist male model” 1 hit
“Democratic male model” 1 hit
“Muslim male model” 1 hit
“Palestinian male model” 1 hit
“Republican male model” 1 hit
“Somali male model” 1 hit
“toothless male model” 1 hit
As of 10 January 2009
“Asian male model” 154,000 hits
“gay male model” 101,000 hits
“black male model” 76,500 hits
“straight male model” 60,400 hits
“shirtless male model” 42,100 hits
“Indian male model” 34,100 hits
“sexy male model” 33,000 hits
“Brazilian male model” 26,300 hits
“blond male model” 21,500 hits
“athletic male model” 21,400 hits
“muscular male model” 18,600 hits
“porn male model” 15,400 hits
“white male model” 15,400 hits
“American male model” 13,200 hits
“handsome male model” 11,800 hits
“heterosexual male model” 10,800 hits
“Argentinian male model” 10,050 hits
“Italian male model” 8,710 hits
“beautiful male model” 8,330 hits
“European male model” 6,840 hits
“Russian male model” 5,490 hits
“hairy male model” 5,470 hits
“Chinese male model” 5,000 hits
“Australian male model” 4,970 hits
“Austrian male model” 4,740 hits
“Japanese male model” 3,910 hits
“African male model” 3,850 hits
“Canadian male model” 3,670 hits
“deaf male model” 3,210 hits
“British male model” 3,120 hits
“Greek male model” 2,510 hits
“Thai male model” 2,220 hits
“Czech male model” 2,210 hits
“French male model” 1,970 hits
“50-year-old male model” 1,950 hits
“fat male model” 1,870 hits
“brunette male model” 1,570 hits
“homosexual male model” 1,530 hits
“Scottish male model” 1,170 hits
“dressed male model” 1,160 hits
“Spanish male model” 1,150 hits
“Korean male model” 1,080 hits
“clothed male model” 838 hits
“Turkish male model” 758 hits
“bisexual male model” 741 hits
“German male model” 682 hits
“Portuguese male model” 649 hits
“20-year-old male model” 647 hits
“Irish male model” 640 hits
“Indonesian male model” 584 hits
“thin male model” 556 hits
“tall male model” 487 hits
“Venezuelan male model” 423 hits
“mean male model” 422 hits
“dumb male model” 286 hits
“Swiss male model” 264 hits
“Pakistani male model” 226 hits
“English male model” 225 hits
“Mexican male model” 215 hits
“Swedish male model” 203 hits
“ugly male model” 198 hits
“Christian male model” 197 hits
“Welsh male model” 193 hits
“Norwegian male model” 164 hits
“short male model” 144 hits
“Jewish male model” 142 hits
“Iranian male model” 123 hits
“beefcake male model” 110 hits
“Cuban male model” 109 hits
“red-haired male model” 100 hits
“intelligent male model” 30 hits
“Afghani male model” 29 hits
“Arabic male model” 9 hits
“bald male model” 9 hits
“blind male model” 9 hits
“Persian male model” 9 hits
“Native American male model” 8 hits
“smooth male model” 8 hits
“Croatian male model” 7 hits
“mixed race male model” 7 hits
“kind male model” 6 hits
“balding male model” 5 hits
“Moroccan male model” 5 hits
“Ukrainian male model” 5 hits
“30-year-old male model” 4 hits
“Chilean male model” 4 hits
“Egyptian male model” 4 hits
“Hindi male model” 3 hits
“Iraqi male model” 3 hits
“Mormon male model” 3 hits
“paraplegic male model” 3 hits
“transgender male model” 2 hits
“40-year-old male model” 1 hit
“anarchist male model” 1 hit
“Democratic male model” 1 hit
“Muslim male model” 1 hit
“Palestinian male model” 1 hit
“Republican male model” 1 hit
“Somali male model” 1 hit
“toothless male model” 1 hit
As of 10 January 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Misfortune 500
Barack Obama’s proposed stimulus package promises me, a single man earning less than $200,000 a year, a tax break of Five Hundred Dollars. That’s $41.66 per paycheck.
The phrase “stimulus package” makes me think of sex toys, and $41.66 falls $3.33 short of what a jelly vibe strap-on dildo costs.
Now, if I were a business I could get $3000 tax credit for every new employee I hired—at whatever wages a new employee could expect in 2009. Imagine my joy if, in addition to my $500, I would get a minimum-wage job with a company that pays less in taxes than I do.
Nancy Pelosi reports that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the current Bush tax cuts, which mainly benefit the rich, is largely responsible for the great big deficit that appeared out of nowhere in the past eight years. That depends on whether you think having a $450,000 minimum annual income makes a person rich (from where I stand, I’d say I do) … and whether $10.6 trillion strikes you as great big.
Obama’s people are considering not pulling the plug on the Bush tax cuts, but rather let them expire naturally, in 2011. Pelosi wants them repealed “as early as possible”—whatever “as possible” means.
Every indication is that Barack “So Help Me God” Obama puts a lot of faith in both God and Reagan-era “trickle-down” economics. The truth is the money never did manage to trickle down … not under Reagan, not under Clinton or the Bushes, and probably not under Obama.
Somewhere high up there’s a clog. Perhaps Obama can unclog it, perhaps all we need is to dribble some Drano at Dick Cheney’s armpits—might work, might be good for laughs anyway.
Pumping government money into American corporations is not the answer—especially in the absence of adequate oversight to where the money’s going and how it’s being used. Every attempt so far to resolve the world financial crisis has been motivated more by panic than by thoughtful analysis leading to sound judgment.
The state where I live and work is currently experiencing its own financial crisis, and states, unlike corporations, are promised nothing in the package, so, forgive my lack of optimism here, I don’t think the $500 the federal government is willing to let me keep this year will go unclaimed for long.
The phrase “stimulus package” makes me think of sex toys, and $41.66 falls $3.33 short of what a jelly vibe strap-on dildo costs.
Now, if I were a business I could get $3000 tax credit for every new employee I hired—at whatever wages a new employee could expect in 2009. Imagine my joy if, in addition to my $500, I would get a minimum-wage job with a company that pays less in taxes than I do.
Nancy Pelosi reports that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the current Bush tax cuts, which mainly benefit the rich, is largely responsible for the great big deficit that appeared out of nowhere in the past eight years. That depends on whether you think having a $450,000 minimum annual income makes a person rich (from where I stand, I’d say I do) … and whether $10.6 trillion strikes you as great big.
Obama’s people are considering not pulling the plug on the Bush tax cuts, but rather let them expire naturally, in 2011. Pelosi wants them repealed “as early as possible”—whatever “as possible” means.
Every indication is that Barack “So Help Me God” Obama puts a lot of faith in both God and Reagan-era “trickle-down” economics. The truth is the money never did manage to trickle down … not under Reagan, not under Clinton or the Bushes, and probably not under Obama.
Somewhere high up there’s a clog. Perhaps Obama can unclog it, perhaps all we need is to dribble some Drano at Dick Cheney’s armpits—might work, might be good for laughs anyway.
Pumping government money into American corporations is not the answer—especially in the absence of adequate oversight to where the money’s going and how it’s being used. Every attempt so far to resolve the world financial crisis has been motivated more by panic than by thoughtful analysis leading to sound judgment.
The state where I live and work is currently experiencing its own financial crisis, and states, unlike corporations, are promised nothing in the package, so, forgive my lack of optimism here, I don’t think the $500 the federal government is willing to let me keep this year will go unclaimed for long.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
"The universe … makes rather an indifferent parent, I am afraid." Bleak House, by Charles Dickens (1852)
Baby Doll with Syringe (my first photograph, ca. 1958, taken with a Kodak Brownie camera)
I think I may be ready for whatever 2009 has to offer because I’ve been living like there’s no tomorrow for most of my life.
Periodically shamed by my own lack of providence, I find myself now in nearly the same boat as my peers who day by day put something by for a rainy day—all of us are soaked now, umbrella-less in the cold showers. Their investments are disappearing; mine, such as they ever were, went kaput at the end of the 1990s.
I’m OK with this. I’m used to it. It may even be my element. I’ve always had a fondness for inclement weather. Clement weather’s for wusses.
I’d like to say my amused pessimism is the product of a hard, tragic life. But it isn’t. Most Somalis would envy my childhood, but by post-WW2 US standards, it was no great shakes. I was brought up an only child in a working class environment (i.e. US military bases) by emotionally stunted parents (asocial, uncommunicative, distant, occasionally berserk) and from time to time, when the folks were strapped for cash, I had not-quite-Dickensian holidays: once I got just an orange and some unshelled pecans for Christmas, and in the eighteen years, give or take, of childhood, I had precisely one (modest and cheerless) birthday party. I was different (i.e. gay) and raised in a series of hellfire-and-brimstone churches we usually fled once my mother decided they were too liberal.
I suspect it was in my nature to be bleak from early childhood. This was brought home to me recently when I happened to pay attention to a large framed picture of me at age seven or, at most, eight. My eyes stare placidly ahead, not even a shred of a smile on my lips, not miserable, though, more matter of fact. Maybe too much phlegm, as Hippocrates might have diagnosed my appearance.
Even as a child, I looked a bit like a character in Charles Addams cartoons—macabre New Yorker drawings republished in books through the 1960s, and I checked out every one of them multiple times from the base library. By the way, “macabre” was my favorite word as a child—and I’m fairly certain that I was the only seventh grader at my school who knew what “black comedy” is.
In adolescence I was Harold without Maude. I was convinced that I would die before age eighteen, so now, 37 years later, it’s all gravy. Thin, flavorless gravy. But gravy.
So today I live in a world where the government is bailing out once intimidatingly successful corporations so the CEOs can go home with nothing less than the full $28 million they were led to believe they deserve. As little as I watch the news on television, I’m struck by the number of gray, drawn faces under $500 haircuts, flickering in the cathode rays, terrified that their gross worth may soon fall short of a million.
Did you see The Big Chill? The 1983 comedy of alienated idealism in the Reagan years. I loved that movie, but I haven’t seen it in ages. One part I remember fairly vividly was Richard, the character played by TV actor Don Galloway, who, commenting on a friend who’s taken his own life, says, “The thing is... no one ever said it would be fun. At least... no one ever said it to me.” Of course, in the story’s context, Richard is a philistine, a reject among the radicals-turned-yuppies whom the film glorifies.
But I say, “Well said, Richard. Well said.”
I live in a culture that fights terrorism by shopping and visiting Disney World. A culture where six figures is the cutting-off point of the middle class. Even Richard was a successful Republican businessman, whose stoic values were out of step with the new brand of conservatism epitomized by Ronald Reagan.
My frame of reference is several floors down from this. My favorite movie of all time is Robert Altman’s 1975 Nashville, in which a song, written by actor Keith Carradine*, recurs as a kind of motif. The song is tongue in cheek, but it does reflect an existential truth about our society’s little people. It goes like this:
“The price of bread may worry some, / But it don’t worry me. / Tax relief may never come, / But it don’t worry me. / The economy’s depressed, not me. / My spirit’s high, as it can be, / You may say that I ain’t free, / But it don’t worry me / …. / Y’say this train don’t give out rides / Well, it don’t worry me. / All the world is taking sides, / But it don’t worry me / Cause in my empire life is sweet / Just ask any ’bo you meet. / And life may be a one-way street, / But it don’t worry me.”
*It’s worth a side note to add that Carradine’s father, John Carradine, played Jim Casy, the “lousy-with-the-spirit” vagabond preacher in John Ford’s 1940 film of The Grapes of Wrath. And Keith’s brother, David, played the hobo minstrel Woody Guthrie in Hal Ashby’s 1976 biopic Bound for Glory.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Frost/Nixon (Movie Review)
Director Ron Howard’s film based on Peter Morgan’s 2007 stage play Frost/Nixon (Morgan wrote the screenplay also) makes a compelling case for television as a medium for truth-telling without over-simplification (as is often charged—by, among others, me, to be frank).
The movie has the usual Hollywood idea of “balance,” but I guess the slash in the title is fair warning of that. Frank Langella plays Nixon as human, haunted, and smart, while taking nothing away from his being crooked. He’s also handsomer than the real Nixon (or any of his subsequent impersonators) ever looked.
The plot centers on the conflict between Nixon and television interviewer David Frost (played charismatically by Michael Sheen—both Sheen and Langella acted in the original London stage production).
Nixon and Frost are represented as alpha-dog competitors who pulled themselves up from humble, working-class backgrounds, tasted great success, and, in 1977, the time setting of this story, hit upon the idea of an epic four-part television interview as a way perhaps to regain the limelight—at a time when both stink of failure, Nixon in disgrace, Frost as a laughingstock.
One small point of interest (to me, anyway) is that Pat Nixon is played by Patty McCormick (who, 52 years ago, played Rhoda Penmark—another Type A personality gone wild—in The Bad Seed). I have to wonder if that’s a bit of trick casting—if so, I got it and enjoyed the hommage, and even if not, McCormick conveys a lot in a very small role.
We see a team of writers and researchers who assist the former President—but his firmest support appears to be former Marine Lt. Col. Jack Brennan (played by Kevin Bacon), a man of respect and stoic loyalty. Bacon’s performance is understated, with nuances of reserved emotion that Bacon has become a master of.
The film more fully develops Frost ‘s support team, as that is where the drama lies—we have the show-biz professional in producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen), the pragmatist in journalist Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt), the idealist in academic researcher James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell), and the unconditional support of girlfriend Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall).
The film is riveting—tightly directed by Howard, with smart, insightful dialogue by Morgan, engrossing character work by all the players. At several points the movie had me near tears—though this is not a tearjerker—notably when Reston states his zeal for seeing Nixon brought to justice and, later, when Frost, not a particularly deep man, but spending money out of his own pocket to produce the interviews, while hammered by his own team for producing schlock television, simply wants to celebrate his birthday.
As I said, the film makes a compelling case for television—its ability to convey nuance, the truthfulness of its “eye” (which “never blinks,” as TV newsman Dan Rather once famously noted). In my view, the film more convincingly supports a claim for television’s cathartic power, to exercise and purge painful emotions—particularly through the use of the close-up shot.
Ultimately, Frost/Nixon argues for the importance of feeling in reportage, an aspect of understanding that television is uniquely able to provide. I think this much is unarguable—as the film proves with horrific real footage of the Vietnam conflict, the sort of heartbreaking pictures that have been disallowed for every other conflict the United States has been involved in since then.
In the end, however, catharsis is not really enough, is it? We must accept that the real Nixon went unpunished for his crimes, that the Frost interviews sped up the rehabilitation of the scandal-ridden Republican Party, and that Nixon’s concept that, when the President does something, it is thus not illegal, an unpopular idea in the 1970s, has become accepted truth for subsequent US Presidents.
I think Frost/Nixon is a brilliant and timely film. I only hope it does not provide audiences with a false sense of closure for our latest scandal-ridden Presidency.
The movie has the usual Hollywood idea of “balance,” but I guess the slash in the title is fair warning of that. Frank Langella plays Nixon as human, haunted, and smart, while taking nothing away from his being crooked. He’s also handsomer than the real Nixon (or any of his subsequent impersonators) ever looked.
The plot centers on the conflict between Nixon and television interviewer David Frost (played charismatically by Michael Sheen—both Sheen and Langella acted in the original London stage production).
Nixon and Frost are represented as alpha-dog competitors who pulled themselves up from humble, working-class backgrounds, tasted great success, and, in 1977, the time setting of this story, hit upon the idea of an epic four-part television interview as a way perhaps to regain the limelight—at a time when both stink of failure, Nixon in disgrace, Frost as a laughingstock.
One small point of interest (to me, anyway) is that Pat Nixon is played by Patty McCormick (who, 52 years ago, played Rhoda Penmark—another Type A personality gone wild—in The Bad Seed). I have to wonder if that’s a bit of trick casting—if so, I got it and enjoyed the hommage, and even if not, McCormick conveys a lot in a very small role.
We see a team of writers and researchers who assist the former President—but his firmest support appears to be former Marine Lt. Col. Jack Brennan (played by Kevin Bacon), a man of respect and stoic loyalty. Bacon’s performance is understated, with nuances of reserved emotion that Bacon has become a master of.
The film more fully develops Frost ‘s support team, as that is where the drama lies—we have the show-biz professional in producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen), the pragmatist in journalist Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt), the idealist in academic researcher James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell), and the unconditional support of girlfriend Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall).
The film is riveting—tightly directed by Howard, with smart, insightful dialogue by Morgan, engrossing character work by all the players. At several points the movie had me near tears—though this is not a tearjerker—notably when Reston states his zeal for seeing Nixon brought to justice and, later, when Frost, not a particularly deep man, but spending money out of his own pocket to produce the interviews, while hammered by his own team for producing schlock television, simply wants to celebrate his birthday.
As I said, the film makes a compelling case for television—its ability to convey nuance, the truthfulness of its “eye” (which “never blinks,” as TV newsman Dan Rather once famously noted). In my view, the film more convincingly supports a claim for television’s cathartic power, to exercise and purge painful emotions—particularly through the use of the close-up shot.
Ultimately, Frost/Nixon argues for the importance of feeling in reportage, an aspect of understanding that television is uniquely able to provide. I think this much is unarguable—as the film proves with horrific real footage of the Vietnam conflict, the sort of heartbreaking pictures that have been disallowed for every other conflict the United States has been involved in since then.
In the end, however, catharsis is not really enough, is it? We must accept that the real Nixon went unpunished for his crimes, that the Frost interviews sped up the rehabilitation of the scandal-ridden Republican Party, and that Nixon’s concept that, when the President does something, it is thus not illegal, an unpopular idea in the 1970s, has become accepted truth for subsequent US Presidents.
I think Frost/Nixon is a brilliant and timely film. I only hope it does not provide audiences with a false sense of closure for our latest scandal-ridden Presidency.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Sheer Terror
I’ve been stumped ever since the United States decided to defeat terrorism by using “shock and awe.”
“Shock and awe” is the phrase the Bush administration presented to refer to spectacular displays of military force in order to paralyze the will of the enemy. Like terrorism, it relies on spectacle, specifically the spectacle of destruction and violence, to psychologically traumatize (i.e. “terrorize”) an entire population to get the people to capitulate to the will of the aggressors.
The main point of difference between terrorism and shock and awe is the difference between “military”—the defense mechanism of recognized and approved states—and “paramilitary”—an unofficial, criminal, or makeshift military.
One might also question who or what the targets of shock and awe are, vis-à-vis terrorism. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War endorses a strategy of “instant decapitation” of “military and societal” targets. The 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, large urban centers, which were, apart from their occasional usefulness as army depots, of no strategic military importance, is an example of American use of the strategy to cut short the war with Japan. But, then, can the argument be made that the Pentagon and White House as targets in 2001 were likewise military and societal targets—or, for that matter, the World Trade Center?
Were the American colonial minutemen terrorists? I suppose that depends on whom in the late eighteenth century you asked. Was Geronimo a terrorist? Oliver North?
Zionist paramilitary units were “terrorists,” so called in the early twentieth century—first against the Palestinians who lived on the land the Zionists believed God had given to them alone, and then, following the Second World War, against the British, who attempted to block the immigration of European Jews to Palestine, in principle to protect the balance of Palestinian Jews and Arabs.
With the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, supported by the United Kingdom and the United States, Zionist terrorism became nationalized and, dropping the “para-“ prefix, militarized—and then, for the most part, nobody called it terrorism. Longstanding friction between Jews and Arabs heated up—as, after the post-war influx of European Jews, Palestinian Arabs found themselves minorities on their own land, not unlike white settlers’ encroachment on Native American lands in the nineteenth century—and the heat’s been up ever since.
Hamas or the Islamic Resistance Movement is a paramilitary and political organization that the United States and other Western powers now label as “terrorist.” Like the early Zionists, Hamas believes God gave the land to them alone.
Unfortunately, God has kept mum on the matter while millions of Jews and Arabs have slaughtered each other and each other’s children with the kind of zeal only possible when religion and politics mix. If you can look up to a parent who gives a present to two children and sits by and watches while the kids fight each other to the death over it, have we got the Heavenly Father for you!
In 2006, in response to the demands of the US government, Palestinians held democratic elections and thus empowered the political wing of Hamas, who gained a parliamentary majority. However, the United States refuses to accept the legitimacy of this government and has sought to negate the election that brought it to power.
Hamas displaced a rival group, Fatah, a faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization founded in 1954 by Yasser Arafat and others, all of whom used to be called “terrorists,” but now the United States and Israel claim Fatah as a friend and ally. Who could have guessed?
And as the US government has embraced torture, too, albeit under the name of “enhanced interrogation,” I think the distinction between what WE do and THEY do has become even blurrier.
Even once Bush is out of office, the “war on terror,” which has proved such a successful manipulative (and pliable) piece of propagandistic cant, can go on indefinitely, since the locus of terrorism shifts with each new change in alliance—and from different points of view.
Quick, tell me: Libya, terrorist or antiterrorist state? Pakistan? Iran? China? Cuba? Forget that the expression “terrorist state” appears to contradict some part of the fundamental definition of terrorism—unless, of course, terrorist state refers to nations who engage in shock and awe or whose civilian intelligence agencies engage in “black ops”—secret political actions outside ethics, law, and agreed-upon conventions of fair and just war.
Is the United States a terrorist state? Who’s asking?
“Shock and awe” is the phrase the Bush administration presented to refer to spectacular displays of military force in order to paralyze the will of the enemy. Like terrorism, it relies on spectacle, specifically the spectacle of destruction and violence, to psychologically traumatize (i.e. “terrorize”) an entire population to get the people to capitulate to the will of the aggressors.
The main point of difference between terrorism and shock and awe is the difference between “military”—the defense mechanism of recognized and approved states—and “paramilitary”—an unofficial, criminal, or makeshift military.
One might also question who or what the targets of shock and awe are, vis-à-vis terrorism. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War endorses a strategy of “instant decapitation” of “military and societal” targets. The 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, large urban centers, which were, apart from their occasional usefulness as army depots, of no strategic military importance, is an example of American use of the strategy to cut short the war with Japan. But, then, can the argument be made that the Pentagon and White House as targets in 2001 were likewise military and societal targets—or, for that matter, the World Trade Center?
Were the American colonial minutemen terrorists? I suppose that depends on whom in the late eighteenth century you asked. Was Geronimo a terrorist? Oliver North?
Zionist paramilitary units were “terrorists,” so called in the early twentieth century—first against the Palestinians who lived on the land the Zionists believed God had given to them alone, and then, following the Second World War, against the British, who attempted to block the immigration of European Jews to Palestine, in principle to protect the balance of Palestinian Jews and Arabs.
With the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, supported by the United Kingdom and the United States, Zionist terrorism became nationalized and, dropping the “para-“ prefix, militarized—and then, for the most part, nobody called it terrorism. Longstanding friction between Jews and Arabs heated up—as, after the post-war influx of European Jews, Palestinian Arabs found themselves minorities on their own land, not unlike white settlers’ encroachment on Native American lands in the nineteenth century—and the heat’s been up ever since.
Hamas or the Islamic Resistance Movement is a paramilitary and political organization that the United States and other Western powers now label as “terrorist.” Like the early Zionists, Hamas believes God gave the land to them alone.
Unfortunately, God has kept mum on the matter while millions of Jews and Arabs have slaughtered each other and each other’s children with the kind of zeal only possible when religion and politics mix. If you can look up to a parent who gives a present to two children and sits by and watches while the kids fight each other to the death over it, have we got the Heavenly Father for you!
In 2006, in response to the demands of the US government, Palestinians held democratic elections and thus empowered the political wing of Hamas, who gained a parliamentary majority. However, the United States refuses to accept the legitimacy of this government and has sought to negate the election that brought it to power.
Hamas displaced a rival group, Fatah, a faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization founded in 1954 by Yasser Arafat and others, all of whom used to be called “terrorists,” but now the United States and Israel claim Fatah as a friend and ally. Who could have guessed?
And as the US government has embraced torture, too, albeit under the name of “enhanced interrogation,” I think the distinction between what WE do and THEY do has become even blurrier.
Even once Bush is out of office, the “war on terror,” which has proved such a successful manipulative (and pliable) piece of propagandistic cant, can go on indefinitely, since the locus of terrorism shifts with each new change in alliance—and from different points of view.
Quick, tell me: Libya, terrorist or antiterrorist state? Pakistan? Iran? China? Cuba? Forget that the expression “terrorist state” appears to contradict some part of the fundamental definition of terrorism—unless, of course, terrorist state refers to nations who engage in shock and awe or whose civilian intelligence agencies engage in “black ops”—secret political actions outside ethics, law, and agreed-upon conventions of fair and just war.
Is the United States a terrorist state? Who’s asking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
