Codepink, Leftist Blues, Political Theater, "Annoying" Cops, and Cyber Wars
by Gary Corseri / June 10th, 2013
Jack Random is a fine writer whose works pay handsome dividends to those investing a bit of time and energy in their perusal.
That said, I note that a recent Web article of his, “
The Struggle for Relevance: Obama, McCain, and Medea Benjamin,”
especially piqued my interest, and even more so after its opening
paragraph: “There is no shortage of rhetoric in American politics but as
for real world consequences it begins to resemble the Bard’s immortal
lament: ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing.’
Now, I can readily understand characterizing Obama’s and McCain’s
“rhetoric” in terms of Macbeth’s doleful cri de coeur, but how to
include Medea Benjamin in such a “weird sisters” coven?
I read on. …
Mr. Random centers his argument on Obama’s May 24th speech about his
wish/intention to end the Global War On Terror (or, as I prefer, the
guttural, stuck-in-the-stick-in-the-mud-of-the-throat, GWOT!). Mr.
Random avers: “President Obama’s declaration is significant but only if
it can be believed. Within a week of his speech, promising a shift in
policy on targeted assassinations, a CIA directed drone strike killed a
Taliban leader in Pakistan.”
Now, I don’t know about Mr. Random, but, frankly, Obama’s hypocrisy
doesn’t surprise me! I didn’t vote for him, and, frankly again, I
haven’t voted for a Dem or Repugnant since I voted for one of the last
true-blue Dems—Cynthia McKinney—for Senator from Georgia. Obama is too
cucumber-cool for me; too polished, too smiley, too accommodating to
whatever special interest group is pulling his string at the moment.
But… Medea Benjamin? How did she fit in? I read on. …
If O’s hypocrisy on the matter of drones shines through his
bicuspids, “What then,” Mr. Random sagely suggests, “can we expect of
his promise to restore civil liberties sacrificed in the name of the War
on Terror? What then can we expect of his renewed intent to close the
abomination that is Guantanamo Bay?”
Well, now we’re cooking! What, indeed, about sacrificed civil
liberties during GWOT and that “abomination” called Guantanamo? As he
sums up his views on O, I’m wishing I could put it so succinctly, and so
well. I quote liberally, while cheering:
“We begin to wonder if the CIA has gone rogue. We begin to wonder if
the president and commander-in-chief is truly in charge of the nation’s
foreign policy.
“Any impartial observer of American history cannot doubt that our
intelligence community has at times betrayed our elected government.
Beyond the assassinations that turned the nation’s course on its head,
there are the curious affair of the botched Iranian hostage rescue under
Jimmy Carter and the subsequent arms for hostages deal that played a
critical role in bringing Ronald Reagan to power.
“Is it so farfetched to believe that the CIA would have its own
agenda? … If these musings are correct, how would we know? Would any
American president be willing to announce publicly that the CIA is out
of control?”
Pretty good “musings.” And, might I, with some fear and trembling,
suggest that the last president to openly question the power of that
roguish agency was JFK—our bonnie prince of Camelot, the official
narrative of whose assassination I have nary believed nigh on 50 years!
Leg two of Mr. Random’s piece addresses the machinations of that more
ostensible villain, John “bomb-bomb-Iran” McCain. Random writes:
“Senator John McCain engaged in his own struggle for relevance by
starring in a little political theater for the cause of war in
beleaguered Syria.” It seems that McCanine had introduced a photo-op
with “Rebel Commander #9.” Problem is, “One of the men chosen for the
senator’s photo op was quickly identified as the photographer for a
terrorist group that kidnapped a dozen Lebanese pilgrims.” (I wonder:
Shades of that Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter who claimed she had
witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and bashing
their heads against the floor? Reminds me, too, of that quiz show where
Johnny Carson started honing his act: “Who Do You Trust?”) More to the
point, Random gets his leg up on McCain: “Why anyone would still listen
to a man who has been wrong on every issue of any importance for the
last twenty years is beyond understanding.”
Bravo! If only he had left well enough alone right there! But, here’s the rub:
“Rounding out our featured trio in the fight for relevance is veteran
activist and worthy heroine of the left, co-founder of CODEPINK, Medea
Benjamin.” (I’m not positive, but I think the “politically-correct”
term these days is “hero”—“heroine” having been consigned to spunky,
educated ladies in Jane Austen novels, as welcome to the lips and ears
of lady activists as, shall we say, “lady activists” or “actresses.”)
Undaunted, Mr. Random proceeds: “I have long admired Benjamin and
CODEPINK for their constant presence and principled actions on the
streets of protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…” [Me, too!]
“…but when Benamin chose to heckle the president at the moment when his
message was most allied with hers, it looked a little too staged, a
little too desperate, as if all that mattered was getting on the nightly
news.
“Political theater has its time and place but in my humble judgment this was neither.”
In my own humble judgment, I’m always a little suspicious of people
who profess their humility in public! (Yes, that includes moi!)
Here’s the Free Online Dictionary definition of the word “heckle”:
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in
public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.
2. To comb (flax or
hemp) with a hatchel.
I have not recently been combing any hemp with a hatchel, and I
suspect few others have, so let’s concentrate on Definition 1. But
first let’s recall that some of our brightest literary and philosophical
lights—including Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Thoreau and Socrates were
gosh-darn good hecklers! Twain said that there was no permanent
criminal class in America… except the U.S. Congress! And something like
this: that a government, a tyranny, a malicious authority could accept
and manage any kind of criticism except for ridicule! (Which is close
enough to “gibes” for me!). H.L. Mencken observed: “Explanations exist;
they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution
to every human problem—which is neat, plausible, and wrong.”
I believe that Mr. Random’s assertion that “Benjamin chose to heckle
the president at the moment when his message was most allied with hers”
and that “it looked a little too staged, a little too desperate, as if
all that mattered was getting on the nightly news” is, bluntly, “neat,
plausible, and wrong.”
I might also call it part of the current malaise of the
Left—perfectly understandable, regrettable, and to be overcome! This
ain’t no time to be singin’ the Blues! A little before Mr. Random’s
article appeared, we were deluged with news of our unworthy IRS
banditoes (I mean, “officials”) taking a lavish Vulcan holiday from
reason at the schlimazel honest taxpayer’s expense! A little after Mr.
Random’s piece, we’re further inundated with news of a massive NSA
surveillance operation (I mean, “spying”) against the whole-shebang US
population! Is it not past time to “embarrass” and “annoy”—even to
“badger”—our dunces and expostulators “performing in public”?
Mr. Random persists: “Obama did not announce that CIA control of the
drone program would immediately stop or questionable assassinations
would immediately cease and that too was cause for dissatisfaction [for
Medea]. To believe that the president could affect these changes
immediately is more naivety than I am willing to believe Medea Benjamin
possesses. … In the end, as much as I wanted to be with her and to
support her action, the most I could muster was empathy.”
First of all, the question of immediacy: Obama was promising to close
Gitmo during his first Presidential campaign! Enough already!
Further, I believe the word that Mr. Random means to “muster” is not
so much “empathy” as “condescension” or “patronization.” From
Psychology Today
I gather: “Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s
condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and
feel what they are feeling.” Had Mr. Random felt what Medea was
feeling, he would not have taken her to task!
And now we approach Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “It is no
secret that the left is in decline. Since the gradual and perhaps
inevitable disappearance of the Occupy Movement, the culture of
principled protest has suffered.”
I am not at all sure what that means. Just today, as I am writing
this article, the whistle-blower on the NSA spying scandal has stepped
forward and identified himself. Isn’t he an incarnation of “principled
protest”? Aren’t Medea Benjamin, Bradley Manning, Lynne Stewart, Julian
Assange, Cindy Sheehan, Kathy Kelly, Sibel Edmonds, Cynthia McKinney,
Adam Kokesh and millions of others speaking out, acting out, agitating,
heckling all over this hurting globe? This ain’t no time to be singin’
the Blues!
Rather, it’s a time to accept diversity of views and approaches. Not
just our rapacious Empire, but our dear little speck-of-dust planet
appears to be dying before our eyes. The rich get richer and the
complacent and complaisant exchange places.
“Sadly,” Mr. Random writes, “we are not building a movement at the
moment; we are struggling for relevance and ill-timed gestures with an
uncertain message will not help.”
Au contraire, mon frere! We are building a “movement” and
it is happening before our pollution-fogged eyes—even now—with every
word we write, every “gesture” (“ill-timed” and otherwise). It is a
global movement against the tyrannies of the 1 percenters and the 1
percent of the 1 percenters; against the rape of the Earth and the
slaughter, deracination and torture of its sentient beings. There are
bound to be fits and starts! There are bound to be wrong turns,
detours, divarications. We don’t have a lot of time to get things
right, to turn this ship around. We’ve had our Great Collapse and one
might call this age now, the Great Wrenching.
And here’s Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “I believe it is
critical for the left to mobilize its resources to engage the system
directly.” [Good!] He continues: “That means finding candidates to run
for office, finding congressional races that are winnable, and
supporting campaigns with time, organization and money.” [Now we’re not
only singin’ the Blues, we’re singin’ Stephen Foster and old-timey
folk-songs! (“Camptown Races” anyone?)] And now the blood: “If we
cannot do this, if the best we can do is staged disruption, then we will
fall even further into the pit of political irrelevance and the
anarchists are right: Tune out, get off the grid, and refuse to
participate.”
I’m not sure the gentleman has the right slant on “anarchists,” but I
am sure that he’s wrong about “staged disruption” leading to “political
irrelevance.” Perhaps he has not heard of The Boston Tea Party? (I
mean, the original one!)
In this Great Wrenching, the assault on conscience and consciousness
is taking place on all fronts, on all levels, at, literally, break-neck
speed. We can have the Shavian Fabians sit around in their smoking
jackets planning their ineluctable scenarios, but we had better have a
lot of political theater, too. Good political theater! And great
theater a la O’Neil, Odets, Brecht, Ibsen, Lorca, Arthur Miller,
Hansbury. Our awakening, our evolution as a species is ongoing,
challenging, frustrating, fortifying and exhausting. And we definitely
need those who “annoy” and “badger.”
We’re up against this (from
Russia Today): On June 6, 2013,
“The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill… that aims to
classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a crime. … Bill
S. 2402 would make it a felony to ‘harass, annoy, or threaten a police
officer while on duty.”
State Senator Joe Griffo, who sponsored the bill, declared: “Police
officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our
highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them
with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to
injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because
“too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have
for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police
officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that
refusal to comply carries a penalty.”
The wording of the actual bill is even more foreboding. To wit: “A
person is guilty of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace
officer when, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a
person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be a police
officer or peace officer engaged in the course of performing his or her
official duties, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects
such person to physical contact. … Aggravated harassment of a police
officer or peace officer is a Class E Felony.
“This Act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.”
All of which evokes a few questions: Like, what exactly is a “Peace
Officer?” When Cindy Sheehan protested against our murderous and insane
War on Iraq, was she a Peace Officer? Where can I apply for that job?
Also, exactly what does “annoy” mean here? If I say to the kindly
Police (or Peace?) Officer who is twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me, “Sir, why are you twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me?”—am I “annoying” him, and can I be charged with a
felony?
And, what exactly is meant by “physical contact.” If I happen to
breathe my mint-freshened breath upon a “Peace Officer” beating his
truncheon, have I made inadvertent “physical contact”?
For that matter, what exactly does “reasonably should know” mean?
Isn’t that a rather elastic concept? (No doubt skull-pyramiding Genghis
Khan behaved “reasonably” according to his way of thinking!)
We’re also up against this (as of today’s news):
“President Barack Obama ordered national security leaders to compile a
list of potential overseas “adversaries” for US cyber-attacks which
could be targeted with “little or no warning,” a top secret document
reveals.” (–from
Russia Today)
Didn’t there used to be something called The Constitution which
arrogated the power to declare war—any kind of war–to Congress—acting on
behalf of “We the People”?
Willy-nilly, like it or not, squirm as we may, we are in a protracted
life-and-death, twilight struggle—not with some chimerical Soviet “Evil
Empire,” nor an “Axis of Evil”—but, with ourselves, and we just may, we
just may “have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Ain’t no time for singin’ the Blues! Ain’t no time for one-way,
only-way, not even “best-way,” solutions! We need all hands on deck,
pulling the oars, each one contributing as he or she can magnificently
impact the whole.
“If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution,” Emma Goldman said.
Our challenge has never been greater.
Gary Corseri's work has appeared at Dissident
Voice, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, the New York Times, Village Voice
and hundreds of other venues. His dramas have been produced on
PBS-Atlanta and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential
Library and Museum. His books include novels and poetry collections. He
can be reached at: gary_corseri@comcast.net. Read other articles by Gary.
The Question of Relevance in Our Fracked-up World
Codepink, Leftist Blues, Political Theater, "Annoying" Cops, and Cyber Wars
by Gary Corseri / June 10th, 2013
Jack Random is a fine writer whose works pay handsome dividends to those investing a bit of time and energy in their perusal.
That said, I note that a recent Web article of his, “
The Struggle for Relevance: Obama, McCain, and Medea Benjamin,”
especially piqued my interest, and even more so after its opening
paragraph: “There is no shortage of rhetoric in American politics but as
for real world consequences it begins to resemble the Bard’s immortal
lament: ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing.’
Now, I can readily understand characterizing Obama’s and McCain’s
“rhetoric” in terms of Macbeth’s doleful cri de coeur, but how to
include Medea Benjamin in such a “weird sisters” coven?
I read on. …
Mr. Random centers his argument on Obama’s May 24th speech about his
wish/intention to end the Global War On Terror (or, as I prefer, the
guttural, stuck-in-the-stick-in-the-mud-of-the-throat, GWOT!). Mr.
Random avers: “President Obama’s declaration is significant but only if
it can be believed. Within a week of his speech, promising a shift in
policy on targeted assassinations, a CIA directed drone strike killed a
Taliban leader in Pakistan.”
Now, I don’t know about Mr. Random, but, frankly, Obama’s hypocrisy
doesn’t surprise me! I didn’t vote for him, and, frankly again, I
haven’t voted for a Dem or Repugnant since I voted for one of the last
true-blue Dems—Cynthia McKinney—for Senator from Georgia. Obama is too
cucumber-cool for me; too polished, too smiley, too accommodating to
whatever special interest group is pulling his string at the moment.
But… Medea Benjamin? How did she fit in? I read on. …
If O’s hypocrisy on the matter of drones shines through his
bicuspids, “What then,” Mr. Random sagely suggests, “can we expect of
his promise to restore civil liberties sacrificed in the name of the War
on Terror? What then can we expect of his renewed intent to close the
abomination that is Guantanamo Bay?”
Well, now we’re cooking! What, indeed, about sacrificed civil
liberties during GWOT and that “abomination” called Guantanamo? As he
sums up his views on O, I’m wishing I could put it so succinctly, and so
well. I quote liberally, while cheering:
“We begin to wonder if the CIA has gone rogue. We begin to wonder if
the president and commander-in-chief is truly in charge of the nation’s
foreign policy.
“Any impartial observer of American history cannot doubt that our
intelligence community has at times betrayed our elected government.
Beyond the assassinations that turned the nation’s course on its head,
there are the curious affair of the botched Iranian hostage rescue under
Jimmy Carter and the subsequent arms for hostages deal that played a
critical role in bringing Ronald Reagan to power.
“Is it so farfetched to believe that the CIA would have its own
agenda? … If these musings are correct, how would we know? Would any
American president be willing to announce publicly that the CIA is out
of control?”
Pretty good “musings.” And, might I, with some fear and trembling,
suggest that the last president to openly question the power of that
roguish agency was JFK—our bonnie prince of Camelot, the official
narrative of whose assassination I have nary believed nigh on 50 years!
Leg two of Mr. Random’s piece addresses the machinations of that more
ostensible villain, John “bomb-bomb-Iran” McCain. Random writes:
“Senator John McCain engaged in his own struggle for relevance by
starring in a little political theater for the cause of war in
beleaguered Syria.” It seems that McCanine had introduced a photo-op
with “Rebel Commander #9.” Problem is, “One of the men chosen for the
senator’s photo op was quickly identified as the photographer for a
terrorist group that kidnapped a dozen Lebanese pilgrims.” (I wonder:
Shades of that Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter who claimed she had
witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and bashing
their heads against the floor? Reminds me, too, of that quiz show where
Johnny Carson started honing his act: “Who Do You Trust?”) More to the
point, Random gets his leg up on McCain: “Why anyone would still listen
to a man who has been wrong on every issue of any importance for the
last twenty years is beyond understanding.”
Bravo! If only he had left well enough alone right there! But, here’s the rub:
“Rounding out our featured trio in the fight for relevance is veteran
activist and worthy heroine of the left, co-founder of CODEPINK, Medea
Benjamin.” (I’m not positive, but I think the “politically-correct”
term these days is “hero”—“heroine” having been consigned to spunky,
educated ladies in Jane Austen novels, as welcome to the lips and ears
of lady activists as, shall we say, “lady activists” or “actresses.”)
Undaunted, Mr. Random proceeds: “I have long admired Benjamin and
CODEPINK for their constant presence and principled actions on the
streets of protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…” [Me, too!]
“…but when Benamin chose to heckle the president at the moment when his
message was most allied with hers, it looked a little too staged, a
little too desperate, as if all that mattered was getting on the nightly
news.
“Political theater has its time and place but in my humble judgment this was neither.”
In my own humble judgment, I’m always a little suspicious of people
who profess their humility in public! (Yes, that includes moi!)
Here’s the Free Online Dictionary definition of the word “heckle”:
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in
public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger. 2. To comb (flax or
hemp) with a hatchel.
I have not recently been combing any hemp with a hatchel, and I
suspect few others have, so let’s concentrate on Definition 1. But
first let’s recall that some of our brightest literary and philosophical
lights—including Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Thoreau and Socrates were
gosh-darn good hecklers! Twain said that there was no permanent
criminal class in America… except the U.S. Congress! And something like
this: that a government, a tyranny, a malicious authority could accept
and manage any kind of criticism except for ridicule! (Which is close
enough to “gibes” for me!). H.L. Mencken observed: “Explanations exist;
they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution
to every human problem—which is neat, plausible, and wrong.”
I believe that Mr. Random’s assertion that “Benjamin chose to heckle
the president at the moment when his message was most allied with hers”
and that “it looked a little too staged, a little too desperate, as if
all that mattered was getting on the nightly news” is, bluntly, “neat,
plausible, and wrong.”
I might also call it part of the current malaise of the
Left—perfectly understandable, regrettable, and to be overcome! This
ain’t no time to be singin’ the Blues! A little before Mr. Random’s
article appeared, we were deluged with news of our unworthy IRS
banditoes (I mean, “officials”) taking a lavish Vulcan holiday from
reason at the schlimazel honest taxpayer’s expense! A little after Mr.
Random’s piece, we’re further inundated with news of a massive NSA
surveillance operation (I mean, “spying”) against the whole-shebang US
population! Is it not past time to “embarrass” and “annoy”—even to
“badger”—our dunces and expostulators “performing in public”?
Mr. Random persists: “Obama did not announce that CIA control of the
drone program would immediately stop or questionable assassinations
would immediately cease and that too was cause for dissatisfaction [for
Medea]. To believe that the president could affect these changes
immediately is more naivety than I am willing to believe Medea Benjamin
possesses. … In the end, as much as I wanted to be with her and to
support her action, the most I could muster was empathy.”
First of all, the question of immediacy: Obama was promising to close
Gitmo during his first Presidential campaign! Enough already!
Further, I believe the word that Mr. Random means to “muster” is not
so much “empathy” as “condescension” or “patronization.” From
Psychology Today
I gather: “Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s
condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and
feel what they are feeling.” Had Mr. Random felt what Medea was
feeling, he would not have taken her to task!
And now we approach Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “It is no
secret that the left is in decline. Since the gradual and perhaps
inevitable disappearance of the Occupy Movement, the culture of
principled protest has suffered.”
I am not at all sure what that means. Just today, as I am writing
this article, the whistle-blower on the NSA spying scandal has stepped
forward and identified himself. Isn’t he an incarnation of “principled
protest”? Aren’t Medea Benjamin, Bradley Manning, Lynne Stewart, Julian
Assange, Cindy Sheehan, Kathy Kelly, Sibel Edmonds, Cynthia McKinney,
Adam Kokesh and millions of others speaking out, acting out, agitating,
heckling all over this hurting globe? This ain’t no time to be singin’
the Blues!
Rather, it’s a time to accept diversity of views and approaches. Not
just our rapacious Empire, but our dear little speck-of-dust planet
appears to be dying before our eyes. The rich get richer and the
complacent and complaisant exchange places.
“Sadly,” Mr. Random writes, “we are not building a movement at the
moment; we are struggling for relevance and ill-timed gestures with an
uncertain message will not help.”
Au contraire, mon frere! We are building a “movement” and
it is happening before our pollution-fogged eyes—even now—with every
word we write, every “gesture” (“ill-timed” and otherwise). It is a
global movement against the tyrannies of the 1 percenters and the 1
percent of the 1 percenters; against the rape of the Earth and the
slaughter, deracination and torture of its sentient beings. There are
bound to be fits and starts! There are bound to be wrong turns,
detours, divarications. We don’t have a lot of time to get things
right, to turn this ship around. We’ve had our Great Collapse and one
might call this age now, the Great Wrenching.
And here’s Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “I believe it is
critical for the left to mobilize its resources to engage the system
directly.” [Good!] He continues: “That means finding candidates to run
for office, finding congressional races that are winnable, and
supporting campaigns with time, organization and money.” [Now we’re not
only singin’ the Blues, we’re singin’ Stephen Foster and old-timey
folk-songs! (“Camptown Races” anyone?)] And now the blood: “If we
cannot do this, if the best we can do is staged disruption, then we will
fall even further into the pit of political irrelevance and the
anarchists are right: Tune out, get off the grid, and refuse to
participate.”
I’m not sure the gentleman has the right slant on “anarchists,” but I
am sure that he’s wrong about “staged disruption” leading to “political
irrelevance.” Perhaps he has not heard of The Boston Tea Party? (I
mean, the original one!)
In this Great Wrenching, the assault on conscience and consciousness
is taking place on all fronts, on all levels, at, literally, break-neck
speed. We can have the Shavian Fabians sit around in their smoking
jackets planning their ineluctable scenarios, but we had better have a
lot of political theater, too. Good political theater! And great
theater a la O’Neil, Odets, Brecht, Ibsen, Lorca, Arthur Miller,
Hansbury. Our awakening, our evolution as a species is ongoing,
challenging, frustrating, fortifying and exhausting. And we definitely
need those who “annoy” and “badger.”
We’re up against this (from
Russia Today): On June 6, 2013,
“The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill… that aims to
classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a crime. … Bill
S. 2402 would make it a felony to ‘harass, annoy, or threaten a police
officer while on duty.”
State Senator Joe Griffo, who sponsored the bill, declared: “Police
officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our
highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them
with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to
injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because
“too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have
for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police
officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that
refusal to comply carries a penalty.”
The wording of the actual bill is even more foreboding. To wit: “A
person is guilty of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace
officer when, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a
person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be a police
officer or peace officer engaged in the course of performing his or her
official duties, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects
such person to physical contact. … Aggravated harassment of a police
officer or peace officer is a Class E Felony.
“This Act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.”
All of which evokes a few questions: Like, what exactly is a “Peace
Officer?” When Cindy Sheehan protested against our murderous and insane
War on Iraq, was she a Peace Officer? Where can I apply for that job?
Also, exactly what does “annoy” mean here? If I say to the kindly
Police (or Peace?) Officer who is twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me, “Sir, why are you twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me?”—am I “annoying” him, and can I be charged with a
felony?
And, what exactly is meant by “physical contact.” If I happen to
breathe my mint-freshened breath upon a “Peace Officer” beating his
truncheon, have I made inadvertent “physical contact”?
For that matter, what exactly does “reasonably should know” mean?
Isn’t that a rather elastic concept? (No doubt skull-pyramiding Genghis
Khan behaved “reasonably” according to his way of thinking!)
We’re also up against this (as of today’s news):
“President Barack Obama ordered national security leaders to compile a
list of potential overseas “adversaries” for US cyber-attacks which
could be targeted with “little or no warning,” a top secret document
reveals.” (–from
Russia Today)
Didn’t there used to be something called The Constitution which
arrogated the power to declare war—any kind of war–to Congress—acting on
behalf of “We the People”?
Willy-nilly, like it or not, squirm as we may, we are in a protracted
life-and-death, twilight struggle—not with some chimerical Soviet “Evil
Empire,” nor an “Axis of Evil”—but, with ourselves, and we just may, we
just may “have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Ain’t no time for singin’ the Blues! Ain’t no time for one-way,
only-way, not even “best-way,” solutions! We need all hands on deck,
pulling the oars, each one contributing as he or she can magnificently
impact the whole.
“If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution,” Emma Goldman said.
Our challenge has never been greater.
Gary Corseri's work has appeared at Dissident
Voice, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, the New York Times, Village Voice
and hundreds of other venues. His dramas have been produced on
PBS-Atlanta and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential
Library and Museum. His books include novels and poetry collections. He
can be reached at:
gary_corseri@comcast.net.
Read other articles by Gary.
- See more at: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/06/the-question-of-relevance-in-our-fracked-up-world/#more-49204
The Question of Relevance in Our Fracked-up World
Codepink, Leftist Blues, Political Theater, "Annoying" Cops, and Cyber Wars
by Gary Corseri / June 10th, 2013
Jack Random is a fine writer whose works pay handsome dividends to those investing a bit of time and energy in their perusal.
That said, I note that a recent Web article of his, “
The Struggle for Relevance: Obama, McCain, and Medea Benjamin,”
especially piqued my interest, and even more so after its opening
paragraph: “There is no shortage of rhetoric in American politics but as
for real world consequences it begins to resemble the Bard’s immortal
lament: ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing.’
Now, I can readily understand characterizing Obama’s and McCain’s
“rhetoric” in terms of Macbeth’s doleful cri de coeur, but how to
include Medea Benjamin in such a “weird sisters” coven?
I read on. …
Mr. Random centers his argument on Obama’s May 24th speech about his
wish/intention to end the Global War On Terror (or, as I prefer, the
guttural, stuck-in-the-stick-in-the-mud-of-the-throat, GWOT!). Mr.
Random avers: “President Obama’s declaration is significant but only if
it can be believed. Within a week of his speech, promising a shift in
policy on targeted assassinations, a CIA directed drone strike killed a
Taliban leader in Pakistan.”
Now, I don’t know about Mr. Random, but, frankly, Obama’s hypocrisy
doesn’t surprise me! I didn’t vote for him, and, frankly again, I
haven’t voted for a Dem or Repugnant since I voted for one of the last
true-blue Dems—Cynthia McKinney—for Senator from Georgia. Obama is too
cucumber-cool for me; too polished, too smiley, too accommodating to
whatever special interest group is pulling his string at the moment.
But… Medea Benjamin? How did she fit in? I read on. …
If O’s hypocrisy on the matter of drones shines through his
bicuspids, “What then,” Mr. Random sagely suggests, “can we expect of
his promise to restore civil liberties sacrificed in the name of the War
on Terror? What then can we expect of his renewed intent to close the
abomination that is Guantanamo Bay?”
Well, now we’re cooking! What, indeed, about sacrificed civil
liberties during GWOT and that “abomination” called Guantanamo? As he
sums up his views on O, I’m wishing I could put it so succinctly, and so
well. I quote liberally, while cheering:
“We begin to wonder if the CIA has gone rogue. We begin to wonder if
the president and commander-in-chief is truly in charge of the nation’s
foreign policy.
“Any impartial observer of American history cannot doubt that our
intelligence community has at times betrayed our elected government.
Beyond the assassinations that turned the nation’s course on its head,
there are the curious affair of the botched Iranian hostage rescue under
Jimmy Carter and the subsequent arms for hostages deal that played a
critical role in bringing Ronald Reagan to power.
“Is it so farfetched to believe that the CIA would have its own
agenda? … If these musings are correct, how would we know? Would any
American president be willing to announce publicly that the CIA is out
of control?”
Pretty good “musings.” And, might I, with some fear and trembling,
suggest that the last president to openly question the power of that
roguish agency was JFK—our bonnie prince of Camelot, the official
narrative of whose assassination I have nary believed nigh on 50 years!
Leg two of Mr. Random’s piece addresses the machinations of that more
ostensible villain, John “bomb-bomb-Iran” McCain. Random writes:
“Senator John McCain engaged in his own struggle for relevance by
starring in a little political theater for the cause of war in
beleaguered Syria.” It seems that McCanine had introduced a photo-op
with “Rebel Commander #9.” Problem is, “One of the men chosen for the
senator’s photo op was quickly identified as the photographer for a
terrorist group that kidnapped a dozen Lebanese pilgrims.” (I wonder:
Shades of that Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter who claimed she had
witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and bashing
their heads against the floor? Reminds me, too, of that quiz show where
Johnny Carson started honing his act: “Who Do You Trust?”) More to the
point, Random gets his leg up on McCain: “Why anyone would still listen
to a man who has been wrong on every issue of any importance for the
last twenty years is beyond understanding.”
Bravo! If only he had left well enough alone right there! But, here’s the rub:
“Rounding out our featured trio in the fight for relevance is veteran
activist and worthy heroine of the left, co-founder of CODEPINK, Medea
Benjamin.” (I’m not positive, but I think the “politically-correct”
term these days is “hero”—“heroine” having been consigned to spunky,
educated ladies in Jane Austen novels, as welcome to the lips and ears
of lady activists as, shall we say, “lady activists” or “actresses.”)
Undaunted, Mr. Random proceeds: “I have long admired Benjamin and
CODEPINK for their constant presence and principled actions on the
streets of protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…” [Me, too!]
“…but when Benamin chose to heckle the president at the moment when his
message was most allied with hers, it looked a little too staged, a
little too desperate, as if all that mattered was getting on the nightly
news.
“Political theater has its time and place but in my humble judgment this was neither.”
In my own humble judgment, I’m always a little suspicious of people
who profess their humility in public! (Yes, that includes moi!)
Here’s the Free Online Dictionary definition of the word “heckle”:
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in
public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger. 2. To comb (flax or
hemp) with a hatchel.
I have not recently been combing any hemp with a hatchel, and I
suspect few others have, so let’s concentrate on Definition 1. But
first let’s recall that some of our brightest literary and philosophical
lights—including Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Thoreau and Socrates were
gosh-darn good hecklers! Twain said that there was no permanent
criminal class in America… except the U.S. Congress! And something like
this: that a government, a tyranny, a malicious authority could accept
and manage any kind of criticism except for ridicule! (Which is close
enough to “gibes” for me!). H.L. Mencken observed: “Explanations exist;
they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution
to every human problem—which is neat, plausible, and wrong.”
I believe that Mr. Random’s assertion that “Benjamin chose to heckle
the president at the moment when his message was most allied with hers”
and that “it looked a little too staged, a little too desperate, as if
all that mattered was getting on the nightly news” is, bluntly, “neat,
plausible, and wrong.”
I might also call it part of the current malaise of the
Left—perfectly understandable, regrettable, and to be overcome! This
ain’t no time to be singin’ the Blues! A little before Mr. Random’s
article appeared, we were deluged with news of our unworthy IRS
banditoes (I mean, “officials”) taking a lavish Vulcan holiday from
reason at the schlimazel honest taxpayer’s expense! A little after Mr.
Random’s piece, we’re further inundated with news of a massive NSA
surveillance operation (I mean, “spying”) against the whole-shebang US
population! Is it not past time to “embarrass” and “annoy”—even to
“badger”—our dunces and expostulators “performing in public”?
Mr. Random persists: “Obama did not announce that CIA control of the
drone program would immediately stop or questionable assassinations
would immediately cease and that too was cause for dissatisfaction [for
Medea]. To believe that the president could affect these changes
immediately is more naivety than I am willing to believe Medea Benjamin
possesses. … In the end, as much as I wanted to be with her and to
support her action, the most I could muster was empathy.”
First of all, the question of immediacy: Obama was promising to close
Gitmo during his first Presidential campaign! Enough already!
Further, I believe the word that Mr. Random means to “muster” is not
so much “empathy” as “condescension” or “patronization.” From
Psychology Today
I gather: “Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s
condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and
feel what they are feeling.” Had Mr. Random felt what Medea was
feeling, he would not have taken her to task!
And now we approach Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “It is no
secret that the left is in decline. Since the gradual and perhaps
inevitable disappearance of the Occupy Movement, the culture of
principled protest has suffered.”
I am not at all sure what that means. Just today, as I am writing
this article, the whistle-blower on the NSA spying scandal has stepped
forward and identified himself. Isn’t he an incarnation of “principled
protest”? Aren’t Medea Benjamin, Bradley Manning, Lynne Stewart, Julian
Assange, Cindy Sheehan, Kathy Kelly, Sibel Edmonds, Cynthia McKinney,
Adam Kokesh and millions of others speaking out, acting out, agitating,
heckling all over this hurting globe? This ain’t no time to be singin’
the Blues!
Rather, it’s a time to accept diversity of views and approaches. Not
just our rapacious Empire, but our dear little speck-of-dust planet
appears to be dying before our eyes. The rich get richer and the
complacent and complaisant exchange places.
“Sadly,” Mr. Random writes, “we are not building a movement at the
moment; we are struggling for relevance and ill-timed gestures with an
uncertain message will not help.”
Au contraire, mon frere! We are building a “movement” and
it is happening before our pollution-fogged eyes—even now—with every
word we write, every “gesture” (“ill-timed” and otherwise). It is a
global movement against the tyrannies of the 1 percenters and the 1
percent of the 1 percenters; against the rape of the Earth and the
slaughter, deracination and torture of its sentient beings. There are
bound to be fits and starts! There are bound to be wrong turns,
detours, divarications. We don’t have a lot of time to get things
right, to turn this ship around. We’ve had our Great Collapse and one
might call this age now, the Great Wrenching.
And here’s Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “I believe it is
critical for the left to mobilize its resources to engage the system
directly.” [Good!] He continues: “That means finding candidates to run
for office, finding congressional races that are winnable, and
supporting campaigns with time, organization and money.” [Now we’re not
only singin’ the Blues, we’re singin’ Stephen Foster and old-timey
folk-songs! (“Camptown Races” anyone?)] And now the blood: “If we
cannot do this, if the best we can do is staged disruption, then we will
fall even further into the pit of political irrelevance and the
anarchists are right: Tune out, get off the grid, and refuse to
participate.”
I’m not sure the gentleman has the right slant on “anarchists,” but I
am sure that he’s wrong about “staged disruption” leading to “political
irrelevance.” Perhaps he has not heard of The Boston Tea Party? (I
mean, the original one!)
In this Great Wrenching, the assault on conscience and consciousness
is taking place on all fronts, on all levels, at, literally, break-neck
speed. We can have the Shavian Fabians sit around in their smoking
jackets planning their ineluctable scenarios, but we had better have a
lot of political theater, too. Good political theater! And great
theater a la O’Neil, Odets, Brecht, Ibsen, Lorca, Arthur Miller,
Hansbury. Our awakening, our evolution as a species is ongoing,
challenging, frustrating, fortifying and exhausting. And we definitely
need those who “annoy” and “badger.”
We’re up against this (from
Russia Today): On June 6, 2013,
“The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill… that aims to
classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a crime. … Bill
S. 2402 would make it a felony to ‘harass, annoy, or threaten a police
officer while on duty.”
State Senator Joe Griffo, who sponsored the bill, declared: “Police
officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our
highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them
with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to
injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because
“too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have
for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police
officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that
refusal to comply carries a penalty.”
The wording of the actual bill is even more foreboding. To wit: “A
person is guilty of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace
officer when, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a
person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be a police
officer or peace officer engaged in the course of performing his or her
official duties, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects
such person to physical contact. … Aggravated harassment of a police
officer or peace officer is a Class E Felony.
“This Act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.”
All of which evokes a few questions: Like, what exactly is a “Peace
Officer?” When Cindy Sheehan protested against our murderous and insane
War on Iraq, was she a Peace Officer? Where can I apply for that job?
Also, exactly what does “annoy” mean here? If I say to the kindly
Police (or Peace?) Officer who is twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me, “Sir, why are you twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me?”—am I “annoying” him, and can I be charged with a
felony?
And, what exactly is meant by “physical contact.” If I happen to
breathe my mint-freshened breath upon a “Peace Officer” beating his
truncheon, have I made inadvertent “physical contact”?
For that matter, what exactly does “reasonably should know” mean?
Isn’t that a rather elastic concept? (No doubt skull-pyramiding Genghis
Khan behaved “reasonably” according to his way of thinking!)
We’re also up against this (as of today’s news):
“President Barack Obama ordered national security leaders to compile a
list of potential overseas “adversaries” for US cyber-attacks which
could be targeted with “little or no warning,” a top secret document
reveals.” (–from
Russia Today)
Didn’t there used to be something called The Constitution which
arrogated the power to declare war—any kind of war–to Congress—acting on
behalf of “We the People”?
Willy-nilly, like it or not, squirm as we may, we are in a protracted
life-and-death, twilight struggle—not with some chimerical Soviet “Evil
Empire,” nor an “Axis of Evil”—but, with ourselves, and we just may, we
just may “have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Ain’t no time for singin’ the Blues! Ain’t no time for one-way,
only-way, not even “best-way,” solutions! We need all hands on deck,
pulling the oars, each one contributing as he or she can magnificently
impact the whole.
“If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution,” Emma Goldman said.
Our challenge has never been greater.
Gary Corseri's work has appeared at Dissident
Voice, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, the New York Times, Village Voice
and hundreds of other venues. His dramas have been produced on
PBS-Atlanta and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential
Library and Museum. His books include novels and poetry collections. He
can be reached at:
gary_corseri@comcast.net.
Read other articles by Gary.
- See more at: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/06/the-question-of-relevance-in-our-fracked-up-world/#more-49204
The Question of Relevance in Our Fracked-up World
Codepink, Leftist Blues, Political Theater, "Annoying" Cops, and Cyber Wars
by Gary Corseri / June 10th, 2013
Jack Random is a fine writer whose works pay handsome dividends to those investing a bit of time and energy in their perusal.
That said, I note that a recent Web article of his, “
The Struggle for Relevance: Obama, McCain, and Medea Benjamin,”
especially piqued my interest, and even more so after its opening
paragraph: “There is no shortage of rhetoric in American politics but as
for real world consequences it begins to resemble the Bard’s immortal
lament: ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing.’
Now, I can readily understand characterizing Obama’s and McCain’s
“rhetoric” in terms of Macbeth’s doleful cri de coeur, but how to
include Medea Benjamin in such a “weird sisters” coven?
I read on. …
Mr. Random centers his argument on Obama’s May 24th speech about his
wish/intention to end the Global War On Terror (or, as I prefer, the
guttural, stuck-in-the-stick-in-the-mud-of-the-throat, GWOT!). Mr.
Random avers: “President Obama’s declaration is significant but only if
it can be believed. Within a week of his speech, promising a shift in
policy on targeted assassinations, a CIA directed drone strike killed a
Taliban leader in Pakistan.”
Now, I don’t know about Mr. Random, but, frankly, Obama’s hypocrisy
doesn’t surprise me! I didn’t vote for him, and, frankly again, I
haven’t voted for a Dem or Repugnant since I voted for one of the last
true-blue Dems—Cynthia McKinney—for Senator from Georgia. Obama is too
cucumber-cool for me; too polished, too smiley, too accommodating to
whatever special interest group is pulling his string at the moment.
But… Medea Benjamin? How did she fit in? I read on. …
If O’s hypocrisy on the matter of drones shines through his
bicuspids, “What then,” Mr. Random sagely suggests, “can we expect of
his promise to restore civil liberties sacrificed in the name of the War
on Terror? What then can we expect of his renewed intent to close the
abomination that is Guantanamo Bay?”
Well, now we’re cooking! What, indeed, about sacrificed civil
liberties during GWOT and that “abomination” called Guantanamo? As he
sums up his views on O, I’m wishing I could put it so succinctly, and so
well. I quote liberally, while cheering:
“We begin to wonder if the CIA has gone rogue. We begin to wonder if
the president and commander-in-chief is truly in charge of the nation’s
foreign policy.
“Any impartial observer of American history cannot doubt that our
intelligence community has at times betrayed our elected government.
Beyond the assassinations that turned the nation’s course on its head,
there are the curious affair of the botched Iranian hostage rescue under
Jimmy Carter and the subsequent arms for hostages deal that played a
critical role in bringing Ronald Reagan to power.
“Is it so farfetched to believe that the CIA would have its own
agenda? … If these musings are correct, how would we know? Would any
American president be willing to announce publicly that the CIA is out
of control?”
Pretty good “musings.” And, might I, with some fear and trembling,
suggest that the last president to openly question the power of that
roguish agency was JFK—our bonnie prince of Camelot, the official
narrative of whose assassination I have nary believed nigh on 50 years!
Leg two of Mr. Random’s piece addresses the machinations of that more
ostensible villain, John “bomb-bomb-Iran” McCain. Random writes:
“Senator John McCain engaged in his own struggle for relevance by
starring in a little political theater for the cause of war in
beleaguered Syria.” It seems that McCanine had introduced a photo-op
with “Rebel Commander #9.” Problem is, “One of the men chosen for the
senator’s photo op was quickly identified as the photographer for a
terrorist group that kidnapped a dozen Lebanese pilgrims.” (I wonder:
Shades of that Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter who claimed she had
witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and bashing
their heads against the floor? Reminds me, too, of that quiz show where
Johnny Carson started honing his act: “Who Do You Trust?”) More to the
point, Random gets his leg up on McCain: “Why anyone would still listen
to a man who has been wrong on every issue of any importance for the
last twenty years is beyond understanding.”
Bravo! If only he had left well enough alone right there! But, here’s the rub:
“Rounding out our featured trio in the fight for relevance is veteran
activist and worthy heroine of the left, co-founder of CODEPINK, Medea
Benjamin.” (I’m not positive, but I think the “politically-correct”
term these days is “hero”—“heroine” having been consigned to spunky,
educated ladies in Jane Austen novels, as welcome to the lips and ears
of lady activists as, shall we say, “lady activists” or “actresses.”)
Undaunted, Mr. Random proceeds: “I have long admired Benjamin and
CODEPINK for their constant presence and principled actions on the
streets of protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…” [Me, too!]
“…but when Benamin chose to heckle the president at the moment when his
message was most allied with hers, it looked a little too staged, a
little too desperate, as if all that mattered was getting on the nightly
news.
“Political theater has its time and place but in my humble judgment this was neither.”
In my own humble judgment, I’m always a little suspicious of people
who profess their humility in public! (Yes, that includes moi!)
Here’s the Free Online Dictionary definition of the word “heckle”:
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in
public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger. 2. To comb (flax or
hemp) with a hatchel.
I have not recently been combing any hemp with a hatchel, and I
suspect few others have, so let’s concentrate on Definition 1. But
first let’s recall that some of our brightest literary and philosophical
lights—including Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Thoreau and Socrates were
gosh-darn good hecklers! Twain said that there was no permanent
criminal class in America… except the U.S. Congress! And something like
this: that a government, a tyranny, a malicious authority could accept
and manage any kind of criticism except for ridicule! (Which is close
enough to “gibes” for me!). H.L. Mencken observed: “Explanations exist;
they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution
to every human problem—which is neat, plausible, and wrong.”
I believe that Mr. Random’s assertion that “Benjamin chose to heckle
the president at the moment when his message was most allied with hers”
and that “it looked a little too staged, a little too desperate, as if
all that mattered was getting on the nightly news” is, bluntly, “neat,
plausible, and wrong.”
I might also call it part of the current malaise of the
Left—perfectly understandable, regrettable, and to be overcome! This
ain’t no time to be singin’ the Blues! A little before Mr. Random’s
article appeared, we were deluged with news of our unworthy IRS
banditoes (I mean, “officials”) taking a lavish Vulcan holiday from
reason at the schlimazel honest taxpayer’s expense! A little after Mr.
Random’s piece, we’re further inundated with news of a massive NSA
surveillance operation (I mean, “spying”) against the whole-shebang US
population! Is it not past time to “embarrass” and “annoy”—even to
“badger”—our dunces and expostulators “performing in public”?
Mr. Random persists: “Obama did not announce that CIA control of the
drone program would immediately stop or questionable assassinations
would immediately cease and that too was cause for dissatisfaction [for
Medea]. To believe that the president could affect these changes
immediately is more naivety than I am willing to believe Medea Benjamin
possesses. … In the end, as much as I wanted to be with her and to
support her action, the most I could muster was empathy.”
First of all, the question of immediacy: Obama was promising to close
Gitmo during his first Presidential campaign! Enough already!
Further, I believe the word that Mr. Random means to “muster” is not
so much “empathy” as “condescension” or “patronization.” From
Psychology Today
I gather: “Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s
condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and
feel what they are feeling.” Had Mr. Random felt what Medea was
feeling, he would not have taken her to task!
And now we approach Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “It is no
secret that the left is in decline. Since the gradual and perhaps
inevitable disappearance of the Occupy Movement, the culture of
principled protest has suffered.”
I am not at all sure what that means. Just today, as I am writing
this article, the whistle-blower on the NSA spying scandal has stepped
forward and identified himself. Isn’t he an incarnation of “principled
protest”? Aren’t Medea Benjamin, Bradley Manning, Lynne Stewart, Julian
Assange, Cindy Sheehan, Kathy Kelly, Sibel Edmonds, Cynthia McKinney,
Adam Kokesh and millions of others speaking out, acting out, agitating,
heckling all over this hurting globe? This ain’t no time to be singin’
the Blues!
Rather, it’s a time to accept diversity of views and approaches. Not
just our rapacious Empire, but our dear little speck-of-dust planet
appears to be dying before our eyes. The rich get richer and the
complacent and complaisant exchange places.
“Sadly,” Mr. Random writes, “we are not building a movement at the
moment; we are struggling for relevance and ill-timed gestures with an
uncertain message will not help.”
Au contraire, mon frere! We are building a “movement” and
it is happening before our pollution-fogged eyes—even now—with every
word we write, every “gesture” (“ill-timed” and otherwise). It is a
global movement against the tyrannies of the 1 percenters and the 1
percent of the 1 percenters; against the rape of the Earth and the
slaughter, deracination and torture of its sentient beings. There are
bound to be fits and starts! There are bound to be wrong turns,
detours, divarications. We don’t have a lot of time to get things
right, to turn this ship around. We’ve had our Great Collapse and one
might call this age now, the Great Wrenching.
And here’s Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “I believe it is
critical for the left to mobilize its resources to engage the system
directly.” [Good!] He continues: “That means finding candidates to run
for office, finding congressional races that are winnable, and
supporting campaigns with time, organization and money.” [Now we’re not
only singin’ the Blues, we’re singin’ Stephen Foster and old-timey
folk-songs! (“Camptown Races” anyone?)] And now the blood: “If we
cannot do this, if the best we can do is staged disruption, then we will
fall even further into the pit of political irrelevance and the
anarchists are right: Tune out, get off the grid, and refuse to
participate.”
I’m not sure the gentleman has the right slant on “anarchists,” but I
am sure that he’s wrong about “staged disruption” leading to “political
irrelevance.” Perhaps he has not heard of The Boston Tea Party? (I
mean, the original one!)
In this Great Wrenching, the assault on conscience and consciousness
is taking place on all fronts, on all levels, at, literally, break-neck
speed. We can have the Shavian Fabians sit around in their smoking
jackets planning their ineluctable scenarios, but we had better have a
lot of political theater, too. Good political theater! And great
theater a la O’Neil, Odets, Brecht, Ibsen, Lorca, Arthur Miller,
Hansbury. Our awakening, our evolution as a species is ongoing,
challenging, frustrating, fortifying and exhausting. And we definitely
need those who “annoy” and “badger.”
We’re up against this (from
Russia Today): On June 6, 2013,
“The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill… that aims to
classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a crime. … Bill
S. 2402 would make it a felony to ‘harass, annoy, or threaten a police
officer while on duty.”
State Senator Joe Griffo, who sponsored the bill, declared: “Police
officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our
highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them
with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to
injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because
“too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have
for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police
officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that
refusal to comply carries a penalty.”
The wording of the actual bill is even more foreboding. To wit: “A
person is guilty of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace
officer when, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a
person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be a police
officer or peace officer engaged in the course of performing his or her
official duties, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects
such person to physical contact. … Aggravated harassment of a police
officer or peace officer is a Class E Felony.
“This Act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.”
All of which evokes a few questions: Like, what exactly is a “Peace
Officer?” When Cindy Sheehan protested against our murderous and insane
War on Iraq, was she a Peace Officer? Where can I apply for that job?
Also, exactly what does “annoy” mean here? If I say to the kindly
Police (or Peace?) Officer who is twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me, “Sir, why are you twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me?”—am I “annoying” him, and can I be charged with a
felony?
And, what exactly is meant by “physical contact.” If I happen to
breathe my mint-freshened breath upon a “Peace Officer” beating his
truncheon, have I made inadvertent “physical contact”?
For that matter, what exactly does “reasonably should know” mean?
Isn’t that a rather elastic concept? (No doubt skull-pyramiding Genghis
Khan behaved “reasonably” according to his way of thinking!)
We’re also up against this (as of today’s news):
“President Barack Obama ordered national security leaders to compile a
list of potential overseas “adversaries” for US cyber-attacks which
could be targeted with “little or no warning,” a top secret document
reveals.” (–from
Russia Today)
Didn’t there used to be something called The Constitution which
arrogated the power to declare war—any kind of war–to Congress—acting on
behalf of “We the People”?
Willy-nilly, like it or not, squirm as we may, we are in a protracted
life-and-death, twilight struggle—not with some chimerical Soviet “Evil
Empire,” nor an “Axis of Evil”—but, with ourselves, and we just may, we
just may “have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Ain’t no time for singin’ the Blues! Ain’t no time for one-way,
only-way, not even “best-way,” solutions! We need all hands on deck,
pulling the oars, each one contributing as he or she can magnificently
impact the whole.
“If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution,” Emma Goldman said.
Our challenge has never been greater.
Gary Corseri's work has appeared at Dissident
Voice, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, the New York Times, Village Voice
and hundreds of other venues. His dramas have been produced on
PBS-Atlanta and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential
Library and Museum. His books include novels and poetry collections. He
can be reached at:
gary_corseri@comcast.net.
Read other articles by Gary.
- See more at: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/06/the-question-of-relevance-in-our-fracked-up-world/#more-49204
The Question of Relevance in Our Fracked-up World
Codepink, Leftist Blues, Political Theater, "Annoying" Cops, and Cyber Wars
by Gary Corseri / June 10th, 2013
Jack Random is a fine writer whose works pay handsome dividends to those investing a bit of time and energy in their perusal.
That said, I note that a recent Web article of his, “
The Struggle for Relevance: Obama, McCain, and Medea Benjamin,”
especially piqued my interest, and even more so after its opening
paragraph: “There is no shortage of rhetoric in American politics but as
for real world consequences it begins to resemble the Bard’s immortal
lament: ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing.’
Now, I can readily understand characterizing Obama’s and McCain’s
“rhetoric” in terms of Macbeth’s doleful cri de coeur, but how to
include Medea Benjamin in such a “weird sisters” coven?
I read on. …
Mr. Random centers his argument on Obama’s May 24th speech about his
wish/intention to end the Global War On Terror (or, as I prefer, the
guttural, stuck-in-the-stick-in-the-mud-of-the-throat, GWOT!). Mr.
Random avers: “President Obama’s declaration is significant but only if
it can be believed. Within a week of his speech, promising a shift in
policy on targeted assassinations, a CIA directed drone strike killed a
Taliban leader in Pakistan.”
Now, I don’t know about Mr. Random, but, frankly, Obama’s hypocrisy
doesn’t surprise me! I didn’t vote for him, and, frankly again, I
haven’t voted for a Dem or Repugnant since I voted for one of the last
true-blue Dems—Cynthia McKinney—for Senator from Georgia. Obama is too
cucumber-cool for me; too polished, too smiley, too accommodating to
whatever special interest group is pulling his string at the moment.
But… Medea Benjamin? How did she fit in? I read on. …
If O’s hypocrisy on the matter of drones shines through his
bicuspids, “What then,” Mr. Random sagely suggests, “can we expect of
his promise to restore civil liberties sacrificed in the name of the War
on Terror? What then can we expect of his renewed intent to close the
abomination that is Guantanamo Bay?”
Well, now we’re cooking! What, indeed, about sacrificed civil
liberties during GWOT and that “abomination” called Guantanamo? As he
sums up his views on O, I’m wishing I could put it so succinctly, and so
well. I quote liberally, while cheering:
“We begin to wonder if the CIA has gone rogue. We begin to wonder if
the president and commander-in-chief is truly in charge of the nation’s
foreign policy.
“Any impartial observer of American history cannot doubt that our
intelligence community has at times betrayed our elected government.
Beyond the assassinations that turned the nation’s course on its head,
there are the curious affair of the botched Iranian hostage rescue under
Jimmy Carter and the subsequent arms for hostages deal that played a
critical role in bringing Ronald Reagan to power.
“Is it so farfetched to believe that the CIA would have its own
agenda? … If these musings are correct, how would we know? Would any
American president be willing to announce publicly that the CIA is out
of control?”
Pretty good “musings.” And, might I, with some fear and trembling,
suggest that the last president to openly question the power of that
roguish agency was JFK—our bonnie prince of Camelot, the official
narrative of whose assassination I have nary believed nigh on 50 years!
Leg two of Mr. Random’s piece addresses the machinations of that more
ostensible villain, John “bomb-bomb-Iran” McCain. Random writes:
“Senator John McCain engaged in his own struggle for relevance by
starring in a little political theater for the cause of war in
beleaguered Syria.” It seems that McCanine had introduced a photo-op
with “Rebel Commander #9.” Problem is, “One of the men chosen for the
senator’s photo op was quickly identified as the photographer for a
terrorist group that kidnapped a dozen Lebanese pilgrims.” (I wonder:
Shades of that Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter who claimed she had
witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and bashing
their heads against the floor? Reminds me, too, of that quiz show where
Johnny Carson started honing his act: “Who Do You Trust?”) More to the
point, Random gets his leg up on McCain: “Why anyone would still listen
to a man who has been wrong on every issue of any importance for the
last twenty years is beyond understanding.”
Bravo! If only he had left well enough alone right there! But, here’s the rub:
“Rounding out our featured trio in the fight for relevance is veteran
activist and worthy heroine of the left, co-founder of CODEPINK, Medea
Benjamin.” (I’m not positive, but I think the “politically-correct”
term these days is “hero”—“heroine” having been consigned to spunky,
educated ladies in Jane Austen novels, as welcome to the lips and ears
of lady activists as, shall we say, “lady activists” or “actresses.”)
Undaunted, Mr. Random proceeds: “I have long admired Benjamin and
CODEPINK for their constant presence and principled actions on the
streets of protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…” [Me, too!]
“…but when Benamin chose to heckle the president at the moment when his
message was most allied with hers, it looked a little too staged, a
little too desperate, as if all that mattered was getting on the nightly
news.
“Political theater has its time and place but in my humble judgment this was neither.”
In my own humble judgment, I’m always a little suspicious of people
who profess their humility in public! (Yes, that includes moi!)
Here’s the Free Online Dictionary definition of the word “heckle”:
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in
public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger. 2. To comb (flax or
hemp) with a hatchel.
I have not recently been combing any hemp with a hatchel, and I
suspect few others have, so let’s concentrate on Definition 1. But
first let’s recall that some of our brightest literary and philosophical
lights—including Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Thoreau and Socrates were
gosh-darn good hecklers! Twain said that there was no permanent
criminal class in America… except the U.S. Congress! And something like
this: that a government, a tyranny, a malicious authority could accept
and manage any kind of criticism except for ridicule! (Which is close
enough to “gibes” for me!). H.L. Mencken observed: “Explanations exist;
they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution
to every human problem—which is neat, plausible, and wrong.”
I believe that Mr. Random’s assertion that “Benjamin chose to heckle
the president at the moment when his message was most allied with hers”
and that “it looked a little too staged, a little too desperate, as if
all that mattered was getting on the nightly news” is, bluntly, “neat,
plausible, and wrong.”
I might also call it part of the current malaise of the
Left—perfectly understandable, regrettable, and to be overcome! This
ain’t no time to be singin’ the Blues! A little before Mr. Random’s
article appeared, we were deluged with news of our unworthy IRS
banditoes (I mean, “officials”) taking a lavish Vulcan holiday from
reason at the schlimazel honest taxpayer’s expense! A little after Mr.
Random’s piece, we’re further inundated with news of a massive NSA
surveillance operation (I mean, “spying”) against the whole-shebang US
population! Is it not past time to “embarrass” and “annoy”—even to
“badger”—our dunces and expostulators “performing in public”?
Mr. Random persists: “Obama did not announce that CIA control of the
drone program would immediately stop or questionable assassinations
would immediately cease and that too was cause for dissatisfaction [for
Medea]. To believe that the president could affect these changes
immediately is more naivety than I am willing to believe Medea Benjamin
possesses. … In the end, as much as I wanted to be with her and to
support her action, the most I could muster was empathy.”
First of all, the question of immediacy: Obama was promising to close
Gitmo during his first Presidential campaign! Enough already!
Further, I believe the word that Mr. Random means to “muster” is not
so much “empathy” as “condescension” or “patronization.” From
Psychology Today
I gather: “Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s
condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and
feel what they are feeling.” Had Mr. Random felt what Medea was
feeling, he would not have taken her to task!
And now we approach Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “It is no
secret that the left is in decline. Since the gradual and perhaps
inevitable disappearance of the Occupy Movement, the culture of
principled protest has suffered.”
I am not at all sure what that means. Just today, as I am writing
this article, the whistle-blower on the NSA spying scandal has stepped
forward and identified himself. Isn’t he an incarnation of “principled
protest”? Aren’t Medea Benjamin, Bradley Manning, Lynne Stewart, Julian
Assange, Cindy Sheehan, Kathy Kelly, Sibel Edmonds, Cynthia McKinney,
Adam Kokesh and millions of others speaking out, acting out, agitating,
heckling all over this hurting globe? This ain’t no time to be singin’
the Blues!
Rather, it’s a time to accept diversity of views and approaches. Not
just our rapacious Empire, but our dear little speck-of-dust planet
appears to be dying before our eyes. The rich get richer and the
complacent and complaisant exchange places.
“Sadly,” Mr. Random writes, “we are not building a movement at the
moment; we are struggling for relevance and ill-timed gestures with an
uncertain message will not help.”
Au contraire, mon frere! We are building a “movement” and
it is happening before our pollution-fogged eyes—even now—with every
word we write, every “gesture” (“ill-timed” and otherwise). It is a
global movement against the tyrannies of the 1 percenters and the 1
percent of the 1 percenters; against the rape of the Earth and the
slaughter, deracination and torture of its sentient beings. There are
bound to be fits and starts! There are bound to be wrong turns,
detours, divarications. We don’t have a lot of time to get things
right, to turn this ship around. We’ve had our Great Collapse and one
might call this age now, the Great Wrenching.
And here’s Mr. Random’s
coup de gras: “I believe it is
critical for the left to mobilize its resources to engage the system
directly.” [Good!] He continues: “That means finding candidates to run
for office, finding congressional races that are winnable, and
supporting campaigns with time, organization and money.” [Now we’re not
only singin’ the Blues, we’re singin’ Stephen Foster and old-timey
folk-songs! (“Camptown Races” anyone?)] And now the blood: “If we
cannot do this, if the best we can do is staged disruption, then we will
fall even further into the pit of political irrelevance and the
anarchists are right: Tune out, get off the grid, and refuse to
participate.”
I’m not sure the gentleman has the right slant on “anarchists,” but I
am sure that he’s wrong about “staged disruption” leading to “political
irrelevance.” Perhaps he has not heard of The Boston Tea Party? (I
mean, the original one!)
In this Great Wrenching, the assault on conscience and consciousness
is taking place on all fronts, on all levels, at, literally, break-neck
speed. We can have the Shavian Fabians sit around in their smoking
jackets planning their ineluctable scenarios, but we had better have a
lot of political theater, too. Good political theater! And great
theater a la O’Neil, Odets, Brecht, Ibsen, Lorca, Arthur Miller,
Hansbury. Our awakening, our evolution as a species is ongoing,
challenging, frustrating, fortifying and exhausting. And we definitely
need those who “annoy” and “badger.”
We’re up against this (from
Russia Today): On June 6, 2013,
“The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill… that aims to
classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a crime. … Bill
S. 2402 would make it a felony to ‘harass, annoy, or threaten a police
officer while on duty.”
State Senator Joe Griffo, who sponsored the bill, declared: “Police
officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our
highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them
with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to
injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because
“too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have
for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police
officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that
refusal to comply carries a penalty.”
The wording of the actual bill is even more foreboding. To wit: “A
person is guilty of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace
officer when, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a
person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be a police
officer or peace officer engaged in the course of performing his or her
official duties, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects
such person to physical contact. … Aggravated harassment of a police
officer or peace officer is a Class E Felony.
“This Act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.”
All of which evokes a few questions: Like, what exactly is a “Peace
Officer?” When Cindy Sheehan protested against our murderous and insane
War on Iraq, was she a Peace Officer? Where can I apply for that job?
Also, exactly what does “annoy” mean here? If I say to the kindly
Police (or Peace?) Officer who is twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me, “Sir, why are you twisting my arm off and
pepper-spraying me?”—am I “annoying” him, and can I be charged with a
felony?
And, what exactly is meant by “physical contact.” If I happen to
breathe my mint-freshened breath upon a “Peace Officer” beating his
truncheon, have I made inadvertent “physical contact”?
For that matter, what exactly does “reasonably should know” mean?
Isn’t that a rather elastic concept? (No doubt skull-pyramiding Genghis
Khan behaved “reasonably” according to his way of thinking!)
We’re also up against this (as of today’s news):
“President Barack Obama ordered national security leaders to compile a
list of potential overseas “adversaries” for US cyber-attacks which
could be targeted with “little or no warning,” a top secret document
reveals.” (–from
Russia Today)
Didn’t there used to be something called The Constitution which
arrogated the power to declare war—any kind of war–to Congress—acting on
behalf of “We the People”?
Willy-nilly, like it or not, squirm as we may, we are in a protracted
life-and-death, twilight struggle—not with some chimerical Soviet “Evil
Empire,” nor an “Axis of Evil”—but, with ourselves, and we just may, we
just may “have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Ain’t no time for singin’ the Blues! Ain’t no time for one-way,
only-way, not even “best-way,” solutions! We need all hands on deck,
pulling the oars, each one contributing as he or she can magnificently
impact the whole.
“If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution,” Emma Goldman said.
Our challenge has never been greater.
Gary Corseri's work has appeared at Dissident
Voice, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, the New York Times, Village Voice
and hundreds of other venues. His dramas have been produced on
PBS-Atlanta and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential
Library and Museum. His books include novels and poetry collections. He
can be reached at:
gary_corseri@comcast.net.
Read other articles by Gary.
- See more at: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/06/the-question-of-relevance-in-our-fracked-up-world/#more-49204
