Obama's Kettle of Hawks, an email conversation.

Danny Valdes

---

Obama's Kettle of Hawks
3 messages

---

Danny Valdes

Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Hi all, This is really an excellent piece by journalist Jeremy Scahill (Erica, you'll remember him from the book fair - he spoke with Naomi Klein aka Luli Lali) about how with 130 members of the House and 23 in the Senate who voted against the war, Obama chose to hire Democrats who made the same judgment as Bush and McCain on the Iraq War. This is a team, as Scahill points out, that will more than likely continue the U.S.'s Hawkish stance on foreign policy and rather than the patient diplomacy Obama spoke so vehemently about in his campaign. I think we can officially declare Obama-phoria over. As always, opinion/feedback is encouraged Obama's Kettle of Hawks By JEREMY SCAHILL Barack Obama has assembled a team of rivals to implement his foreign policy. But while pundits and journalists speculate endlessly on the potential for drama with Hillary Clinton at the state department and Bill Clinton's network of shady funders, the real rivalry that will play out goes virtually unmentioned. The main battles will not be between Obama's staff, but rather against those who actually want a change in US foreign policy, not just a staff change in the war room. When announcing his foreign policy team on Monday, Obama said: "I didn't go around checking their voter registration." That is a bit hard to believe, given the 63-question application to work in his White House. But Obama clearly did check their credentials, and the disturbing truth is that he liked what he saw. The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe Biden is a kettle of hawks with a proven track record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neoliberal economic policies and a worldview consistent with the foreign policy arch that stretches from George HW Bush's time in office to the present. Obama has dismissed suggestions that the public records of hisappointees bear much relevance to future policy. "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," Obama said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing." It is a line the president-elect's defenders echo often. The reality, though, is that their records do matter. We were told repeatedly during the campaign that Obama was right on the premiere foreign policy issue of our day – the Iraq war. "Six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so," Obama said in his September debate against John McCain. "Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment." What does it say that, with 130 members of the House and 23 in the Senate who voted against the war, Obama chooses to hire Democrats who made the same judgement as Bush and McCain? On Iraq, the issue that the Obama campaign described as "the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation", Biden and Clinton not only supported the invasion, but pushed the Bush administration's propaganda and lies about Iraqi WMDs and fictitious connections to al-Qaida. Clinton and Obama's hawkish, pro-Israel chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, still refuse to renounce their votes in favour of the war. Rice, who claims she opposed the Iraq war, didn't hold elected office and was not confronted with voting for or against it. But she did publicly promote the myth of Iraq's possession of WMDs, saying in the lead up to the war that the "major threat" must "be dealt with forcefully". Rice has also been hawkish on Darfur, calling for "strik[ing] Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets". It is also deeply telling that, of his own free will, Obama selected President Bush's choice for defence secretary, a man with a very disturbing and lengthy history at the CIA during the cold war, as his own. While General James Jones, Obama's nominee for national security adviser, reportedly opposed the Iraq invasion and is said to have stood up to the neocons in Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, he did not do so publicly when it would have carried weight. Time magazine described him as "the man who led the Marines during the run-up to the war – and failed to publicly criticise the operation's flawed planning". Moreover, Jones, who is a friend of McCain's, has said a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, "would be against our national interest". But the problem with Obama's appointments is hardly just a matter of bad vision on Iraq. What ultimately ties Obama's team together is their unified support for the classic US foreign policy recipe: the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of US militarism to defend the America First doctrine. Obama's starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain", called Obama's cabinet selections, "reassuring", which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain," Boot wrote. The appointment of General Jones and the retention of Gates at defence "all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign." Boot added that Hillary Clinton will be a "powerful" voice "for 'neoliberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neoconservativism.'" Boot's buddy, Michael Goldfarb, wrote in The Weekly Standard, the official organ of the neoconservative movement, that he sees "certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush in his second term." There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US foreign policy. He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan Washington insiders are gushing over Obama's new team. At the same time, it is also disingenuous to act as though Obama is engaging in some epic betrayal. Of course these appointments contradict his campaign rhetoric of change. But move past the speeches and Obama's selections are very much in sync with his record and the foreign policy vision he articulated on the campaign trail, from his pledge to escalate the war in Afghanistan to his "residual force" plan in Iraq to his vow to use unilateral force in Pakistan to defend US interests to his posturing on Iran. "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel," Obama said in his famed speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last summer. "Sometimes, there are no alternatives to confrontation." Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies. He is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. --  - Danny Valdes "Not all who wander are lost..."

---

Frank M. Merino

Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:45 AM

So Danny, Do you really feel that Obama is going to follow the same steps as Bush did about this war? And is that to any surprise? He campaign made it clear that he was taking the troops out of Iraq, however he did not say anything about not putting them some where else. I.e. Afghanistan.   I don't know this Article doesn't surprise me to be honest and when I hear about Clinton being on Obama's staff I knew that was going to happen just wanted to see what position he would give her that would give her power but not enough to ride him all the time.   Let me get your thoughts, I find this all funny because I thought you were Pro Obama. Del Riego, Enis G. Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM Hi everyone!          How to leave a nest of wasps without being stung OR without triggering a chain of events leading to more violence?  This is the HARD reality of what needs to occur in Iraq and the Near East.  Unfortunately, our comfort zone misleads us into thinking that all Obama has to do is "change policy" and that will be the end of the violence and terror.  Just in time to bring us back to reality are the attacks in Mumbai, India - well organized, strategically PLANNED, and yes full of hatred for anything that resembles the WEST.  I'm afraid that we need more than a change of policy to face the chaos and hatred that confronts the western world.      War is not the answer, but since we are in the MUD already it would be best to come out as clean as possible - for that we might need a few hawks to plan the exit without leaving it all in chaos (VERY DIFFICULT indeed - visions of Vietnam come to my mind).    From the BBC coverage on Mumbai's attacks:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7758930.stm Danny Valdes Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM Frank: For the record I voted for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party and have ALWAYS expressed a cautious optimism for Obama. That being said, I can't really say these nominations are a "surprise," but rather a disappointment and an early confirmation of many of the doubts I had with Obama's promises of change... Enis/all: Were these attacks (both in Mumbai and other places including 9/11) the product of hatred for the West? Yes. But we must keep in mind always that foreign policy is cyclical. They (and by 'they' I mean the minority of populations in the Near & Middle East that take violent action) do not 'hate' us for no reason - nor do they hate us for our 'freedom' or because of our technological advancements or because they're  inferior...they hate us in short for our AIR STRIKES. Whatever hatred there is for the west has been birthed and carefully nurtured by decades of hawkish and interventionist foreign policy that has unfortunately come back to bite us in form of violent retaliation labeled as terrorism. Many people in these countries consider our foreign policy stances as terrorism in it's own right, and I can't really disagree with them.  This is precisely the reason why Obama's choices for his FP team are so disheartening. Many saw his election as the promise of ending the "America First" foreign policy that has devastated so many in the countries which we invade, exploit, and plunder. As Scahill puts it, "What ultimately ties Obama's team together is their unified support for the classic US foreign policy recipe: the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of US militarism to defend the America First doctrine." [Quoted text hidden] Del Riego, Enis G. Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:52 PM     I am not disheartened; I think that for Obama to implement a 360 degree change in policy is very unrealistic, given (and I agree) out history of intervention and on many occasions of half-way interventions.  I think Mr. Obama knows that the kettle is HOT and he will need a heat-protective glove to pick up this kettle.  I am glad that we are not repeating the Carter approach to foreign policy which would lead to further chaos and confusion.      Personally, I am praying this Advent for Mr. Obama and his family because the road ahead is very difficult; and let's face it ... I consider myself a western woman, albeit conservative, US citizen, Cuban-born, freedom/salsa lover - and none of these attributes quite match the Islamic fundamental movement; so instead of being disappointed, I am quite encouraged, indeed!      -ciao carisimi, have to WORK (another western attribute ;-) Danny Valdes Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM (Sorry in advance if this comes on a bit strong...just my humble opinion!) Hey I like being from the West as much as the next guy, but I don't feel that it gives us any kind of moral  high-ground or for that matter any kind of justification to bomb other countries in the name of "spreading democracy" (or as it's known to those on the other end of U.S. foreign policy: conquering, pillaging, looting, etc.). The people in the Islamic Fundamentalist movement are NOT by any means representative of Islam as a religion in general. Just like I'm sure your own views don't "quite match" with those in the Christian Fundamentalist movement here in the U.S. and abroad. Most of the people effected by this 'war on terror' are WORKING people (yes, people not from the West work too) who are making their day-to-day lives as manageable as possible with fully armed U.S. Humvee's charging up and down their streets. Ironically, the Muslim fundamentalists we are supposed to be targeting in the war have all but GROWN in numbers! What I'm getting at here is that the policies advocated by those newly appointed to Obama's cabinet are NOT conducive to the kind of  diplomacy Obama spoke of throughout his campaign. We need to take an honest look at how these Hawkish policies effect people who live innocently in these countries and realize that what is needed is not further militarization of foreign policy, but rather a comprehensive diplomatic agenda that will effect positive change in these regions. Yes, 9/11 was a despicable act which which took the lives of many, many innocent people; but if 9/11 is the rubric we are using to judge what is a terrorist act and what is not, the U.S. has committed not only terrorist acts in the region where the 9/11 hijackers lived, but true ATROCITIES. Committing atrocities in the name of truth, justice, and democracy doesn't exactly set an incredible example, does it? Again, when it comes to foreign policy, it is a mistake to think we can act on the world and not expect the (often very dire) consequences. I was never expecting a 360 degree change in foreign policy, but at the VERY at least a step in a better direction, so for Obama to not even consider ONE anti-war voice in his cabinet IS disheartening.... Anyone else care to chime in? [Quoted text hidden] Beverly Thompson Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM Here, here! Sounds great and I support you and agree with you Danny, 100%!   Beverly Thompson, Ph.D. Texas Woman’s University    Barbara Weitz Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM And I agree with you about 90%!  Yes, I labelled Hillary "a Hawk" during the primaries but she did retreat a bit.  I think  Barack is in such a tenuous position that he has no choice AT THE MOMENT.  Cut him some slack!  He does not favor the war or any for that matter.  He will get us out, and soon!  I 'm hopeful I'm not wrong...

The need for a virulent, independent grassroots movement.

I want to begin this post with this article from Amy Goodman, which highlights some of the points I want make here in a concise, articulate way. (You can find it @ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081105_unchaining_history/)

--------------------------

-------

Organizer in Chief

Posted on Nov 5, 2008

By Amy Goodman

You could almost hear the world’s collective sigh of relief. This year’s U.S. presidential election was a global event in every sense. Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, represents to so many a living bridge—between continents and cultures. Perhaps the job that qualified him most for the presidency was not senator or lawyer, but the one most vilified by his opponents: community organizer, on the South Side of Chicago. As Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin mocked: “This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn’t just need an organizer.”

But perhaps that’s just what it needs. Obama achieved his decisive electoral victory through mass community organizing, on the ground and online, and an unheard-of amount of money. It was an indisputably historic victory: the first African-American elected to the highest office in the United States. Yet community organizing is inherently at crosscurrents with the massive infusion of campaign cash, despite the number of small donations that the Obama campaign received.

Sen. Obama rejected public campaign financing (sealing that policy’s fate) and was flooded with cash, much of it from corporate donors. Those powerful, moneyed interests will want a return on their investment.

A century and a half earlier, another renowned African-American orator, Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave and leading abolitionist, spoke these words that have become an essential precept of community organizing: “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. ... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

There are two key camps that feel invested in the Obama presidency: the millions who each gave a little, and the few who gave millions. The big-money interests have means to gain access. They know how to get meetings in the White House, and they know what lobbyists to hire. But the millions who donated, who volunteered, who were inspired to vote for the first time actually have more power, when organized.

Before heading over to Grant Park in Chicago, Sen. Obama sent a note (texted and e-mailed) to millions of supporters. It read, in part: “We just made history. And I don’t want you to forget how we did it. ... We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I’ll be in touch soon about what comes next.” But it isn’t enough for people now to sit back and wait for instructions from on high. It was 40 years ago in that very same place, Grant Park, that thousands of anti-war protesters gathered during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, demanding an end to the Vietnam War. Many from that generation now celebrate the election of an African-American president as a victory for the civil rights movement that first inspired them to action decades ago. And they celebrate the man who, early on, opposed the Iraq war, the pivotal position that won him the nomination, that ultimately led to his presidential victory.

Another son of Chicago, who died just days before the election, was oral historian and legendary broadcaster Studs Terkel. I visited him last year in their shared city. “The American public itself has no memory of the past,” he told me. “We forgot what happened yesterday ... why are we there in Iraq? And they say, when you attack our policy, you’re attacking the boys. On the contrary ... we want them back home with their families, doing their work and not a war that we know is built upon an obscene lie. ... It’s this lack of history that’s been denied us.”

The Obama campaign benefited from the participation of millions. They and millions more see that the current direction of the country is not sustainable. From the global economic meltdown to war, we have to find a new way. This is a rare moment when party lines are breaking down. Yet if Obama buckles to the corporate lobbyists, how will his passionate supporters pressure him? They have built a historic campaign operation—but they don’t control it. People need strong, independent grass-roots organizations to effect genuine, long-term change. This is how movements are built. As Obama heads to the White House, his campaign organization needs to be returned to the people who built it, to continue the community organizing that made history.


---------------------------------
Now that Obama is head-of-state, we cannot allow the grassroots movements that got him elected to be co-opted by the state and disintegrate into wishy-washy Washington politics. Now more than ever, we need a virulent social movement that is independent of Washington and Obama to ensure that Obama delivers on the many promises of his campaign.

Already, one could argue we are seeing the first steps in the wrong direction. The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel, one of the most staunchly pro-Israel members of the House, as Secretary of State is a bit unnerving. By definition of his designated position, Emanuel now has a dominate role in who is given Obama's ear. Obama could paint himself into a corner by appealing to the most hard-line pro-Israel elements in Washington and around the country, and by distancing himself from all advisers, even very mainstream establishment figures like Zbigniew Brzezinski & Robert Malley (a member of Clinton cabinet like Emanuel), considered by the pro-Israel lobby to be too pro-Palestinian. The will undoubtedly limit his effectiveness in reaching a just conclusion to this conflict because it virtually makes it impossible for him to talk to a wider range of views; those excluded voices that could give him advice that could actually get us out of this mess in Israel-Palestine.

Obama is also expected to soon choose his Treasury Secretary, and the two names reportedly at the top of the list are Timothy Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and Lawrence Summers, who held the post during the Clinton administration. Two more Wall St. and Washington hard-liners. Yes, their experience will be valuable, but they are experienced not in the practice of fundamentally different ideas about the economy and social justice, but in the politics and finances-as-usual that has steered us to where we are now.

Additionally, in one of his first orders of public business since the election, Obama has convened an economic advisory board to meet today in Chicago. The group includes billionaire investor Warren Buffett, former presidential cabinet officials, and executives from various corporations, including Xerox, Time Warner, Google and the Hyatt hotel company. And while there are labor activists also attending, it is hard to imagine that they will receive the same amount of attention as those corporations who contributed to Obama's campaign. Although, admittedly, Obama did receive a large amount of his contributions through "small contributions," his campaign did resort to the tried and true method of raising big money - the formation of “joint fundraising committees,” in which the presidential candidate partners with his party to form a fundraising organization which can change the cap on campaign contributions and allow big donors to give anonymously. McCain and the Republican National Committee’s is called McCain Victory 2008 and can receive donations as high as $70,000, which then get distributed to the presidential campaign, the national party and to key state parties. Obama and the Democratic National Committee created the Obama Victory Fund, to which donors could give $28,500. As The Washington Post just reported, the Democrats found that sum too limiting, so they created the Committee for Change, which allows donors to give up to $65,500. Again, this amounts to a lot of politics-as-usual.

But, enough raining on the post-election parade. I too am pretty ecstatic about Obama's victory and not only it's historical significance but also the opportunity it presents for some steps toward the just end of the moral arc described by Martin Luther King, Jr. But we must NOT let our elation over this election be a hindrance. The election is over. The time for campaign slogans and vague appeals to 'hope' and ‘change’ are over. We must keep a close eye on what transgresses from here on out, and be mindful of the fact that Obama on his own will not bring the change he so vehemently spoke of during his campaign. We as a movement must begin turning our country around now, or the opportunity may not come again. An organized citizenry, ready to put pressure on the new White House and Congress is the key. We can make single-payer healthcare, a living wage, and a less militaristic society and victory in other struggles a long-term reality. But, much like Obama's election, this will not happen from the top to the bottom. It will not happen in the federal buildings of Washington, DC. It will happen in communities and in a burgeoning social movement which cannot allow itself to become a tool of the state or of Washington pundits.

That is all! Oh, and go to november5.org!!

Why the debates don't fucking matter.

Wake up.

The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed secret contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate, as well as the topics raised during the debates.

Wake up.

We used to have a fantastic, genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor: the League of Women Voters. From 1976 until 1984, the League of Women Voters hosted our most important public forums, and they made sure the debates served the public interest rather than the interest of any political party. And they had the guts to stand up to the two major parties. 

In 1980, former Republican Congressman John Anderson ran as an Independent for the president of the United States. President Jimmy Carter adamantly refused to debate him, but the League said, "Too bad.” And they hosted a presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and John Anderson that was watched by over 40 million people. 

The Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan campaigns actually vetoed sixty-eight of the moderators that the League of Women Voters had proposed for the three debates. In response, The League issued a scathing public press release castigating the candidates for abusing the process, and the Reagan and Mondale campaigns were forced to accept aggressive moderators.

Again, four years later, the League of Women Voters were refusing to implement any contract that was negotiated by the George Bush and Dukakis campaigns. They had negotiated the first secret contract, a twelve-page memoranda of understanding, that dictated who would participate and how the format would be structured. The League said, “This is an outrage!” 

Well, guess what? The parties did not like the fact that an uppity women’s organization, pro-democracy, was telling their boys who could participate in their debates and under what condition. And so, in 1987, they created this private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It sounds like a government agency; IT'S NOT. And every four years, it awards absolute control to the Republican and Democratic parties over our political forums. 

Wake up.

Much of the money that finances the presidential debates that are hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates are private corporations that have regulatory interests before Congress. Anheuser-Busch has spent the most money of any company in the United States on presidential debates, which is partly why every four years we get a debate in St. Louis, and we don’t have a debate this year in New Orleans, which is dying for a debate, and massive civic groups were demanding that a debate be held there to highlight some of Katrina’s problems. 

Wake up.

You know, we're supposed to have limitations in this country. Corporations can’t give direct contributions to the candidates. Well, the Commission provides an end-run around. When a corporation gives money to the Commission on Presidential Debates, it knows it is giving money to both the Republican and Democratic parties, supporting their duopoly over our political process and excluding third party voices that may be hostile to corporate power. And all four third party candidates that are on ballots this year are sharply critical of growing corporate power. Yet, not one was included in these debates despite massive campaigns to open up the debates (http://opendebates.com/).

Wake up.

There is no doubt that often the Republican and Democratic parties take positions, in large part due to the corporate interests that finance their campaigns, that are directly at odds with the opinions of either the majority of Americans or tens of millions of Americans. And these debates, which are designed to inform voters so they can make substantive decisions, should be airing the ideas that are supported by the vast majority of Americans that the two major parties are excluding. 

And historically, that is the role that third parties have played. Historically, it has been third parties, not the major parties, that have supported and are responsible for the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, public schools, public power, unemployment compensation, minimum wage, child labor laws. The list goes on and on. The two parties fail to address a particular issue; a third party rises up, and it’s supported by tens of millions of Americans, forcing the Republican and Democratic parties to co-opt that issue, or the third party rises and succeeds, which is why the Republican Party jumped from being a third party to being a major party of the United States of America. 

When you exclude third parties from the election process, third parties that the vast majority of Americans would like to see in the presidential debates, you’re not only denying those people the right to choose who they want to run for president and who they want to vote for, but you’re denying the very fundamental and critical issues that, in a generative democracy, we need to have aired in from of tens of millions of voters. 

Until this happens, the debates don't fucking matter. Until this happens, our entire political process, what we so proudly call a 'democracy' is null and void. 

Wake up.

The New York Times
Damages Cut Against Exxon in Valdez Case

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: June 26, 2008

The Supreme Court reduced what had once been a $5 billion punitive damages award to about $500 million.

This is really unbelievable. With Exxon's (ever increasing) profits, they could pay off the $500 million in just 4 days. While this is certainly horrible in light of the environmental effects this particular spill had (after all, it was the largest one in history), in the grand scheme of the ruling by the Supreme Court it is a huge win for irresponsible corporations.

Exxon-Mobile is one of the most unethical and irresponsible U.S. companies. In order to assure its continued financial success, for example, Exxon (and other oil companies) openly denounce global warming and other environmental problems through supposed 'environmental research groups' that they fund. What this ruling means for Exxon and companies like it, is that punitive damages are essentially no longer a bother.

The Court imposed a standard saying that, at least in maritime cases, a ratio of one-to-one for the two types of damages that can be sought by plaintiffs (that is, "punitive damages, which are meant to punish and deter, and compensatory damages, which aim to make plaintiffs whole") is appropriate and just both for the plaintiffs and the defendants. In other words, the amount of damages paid to compensate the plaintiffs (in this case, Alaska Natives, landowners and commercial fishermen) and the amount paid in punitive damages are now equal with this new standard. Exxon has paid $507 million (again, an amount they make in four days) to compensate the people this spill affected to the tune of $15,000 each. Hence, based on the new ratio standard, Exxon should have to pay no more than $507 million in punitive damages.

If these companies are ever going to behave in a responsible and ethical fashion we need to hit them in the only language they understand - dollars and cents. Without the threat of a potentially large sum of punitive damages in light of their actions, companies are essentially free to behave in whatever ways they want - free to pollute, to destroy, and to propagate whatever lies and propaganda serves their interest.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in dissent, put it this way: “In light of Exxon’s decision to permit a lapsed alcoholic to command a supertanker carrying tens of millions of gallons of crude oil through the treacherous waters of Prince William Sound, thereby endangering all of the individuals who depended upon the sound for their livelihoods the jury could reasonably have given expression to its moral condemnation of Exxon’s conduct in the form of this award.” And it really is this simple. Companies that extort the environment and behave as Exxon-Mobil does do so for profit. Nothing more, nothing less. 5 billion was the appropriate amount to fine Exxon simply to keep the company ethically in check and to set an example to others that this kind of irresponsibility is simply unacceptable. Without this ethical check, corporations have gained yet another advantage in that they are now even less accountable for their actions.

Five Albums that Changed My Life, Vol. 1

These albums have all had an impact in not only how I play and write music, but also in what and how I think. They are the most important cultural experiences of my life, and here's why:

Tool – Ænima (1996)
This album defined and in many ways facilitated my musical ‘coming-of-age.' It is Tool at their most intense - full of the driving bass lines, heavy guitars, and thrashing drums that define so much of mid-90s, post-hardcore metal. This album, though, is strikingly unique because amidst all the heaviness lay intricate moments of sheer melodic bliss. The influence of bands like Rush and King Crimson are undeniable here, and they add a layer of complexity not often found in music of the genre and era. H., the album’s third track, is the perfect example: it starts with a pounding three note bass line and slowly progresses to moments of utter rhythmic beauty. Maynard draws a deep breathe before he sings softly over clean guitar scales and the ticking of drum rims, and suddenly bursts into a high-pitched scream, careening the song back into it’s heavy beginnings. This album taught me to listen less for the next heavy riff and more for MUSICANSHIP, and in that respect, is probably the most important album I’ve ever listened to.


Rage against the Machine – Evil Empire (1996)
In terms of influencing my own style of playing guitar, this album is the absolute paradigm. I stole this album from an unbeknownst acquaintance a few years after its release, simply because I had heard of Rage against the Machine and wanted to check it out – talk about P2P sharing. Actually, he lent it to me…permanently. Anyway, the album immediately changed the way I play and write music. Tom Morello taught me how to effectively infuse hip-hop and funk with rock, and to this day those ‘lessons’ are reflected in the way I play and structure the music I write. I listened to this album for 4 or 5 months straight, and soaked up every minute of Morello’s inventiveness, Tim2k’s amazing bass licks, and De La Rocha’s incredible flexibility. In hindsight and context of Rage’s other releases, this album is a bit tedious and drawn-out in places, but that doesn’t change the immense influence it had on me as musician.


Radiohead – Kid A (2000)
My second ‘musical coming-of-age,’ specifically because it’s one of the most atmospheric albums ever recorded, and also an absolute masterpiece. It’s a slick, multi-layered, and beautifully structured mixture of rock and electronica that reveals an entirely new dimension of Radiohead's capabilities and talent: starting with the piano driven Everything in Its Right Place, to the dreamlike Motion Picture Soundtrack, the band cycles through various styles and combinations, and does that quite successfully, if not perfectly. This album is especially significant for me because it’s about subtleties; the excruciating amount of detail I heard on each and every track on this album completely blew my mind. There isn’t any particular moment of distinctiveness; everything meshes delicately into one experience. This album is smart and well crafted, and it forever changed the spectrum of music I listened to. Everything loud suddenly turned to everything subtle, heavy riffs turned to delicate melodies, and my definition of music became something simpler to listen to, and infinitely more difficult to write.


The Mars Volta – De-loused in the Comatorium (2003)
This is arguably the most successful musical experiment ever. Get this: This band manages to mix jazz, funk, punk, prog metal, electronica, and a whole bunch of white noise into one cohesive experience. Pretty impressive, if you ask me. Ironically, I remember thinking of this album as a surpeme cacophonous mess when I first picked it up. Even after years of listening to odd rhythms and dissonant progressions in other bands, the music on De-loused just didn't sit well with me at first. It was a radical departure from the metal I had come to know inside and out - a gateway into a musical universe in which I knew next to nothing. There is a spirit of careless experimentation and improvisation that leaps from the music and grates on the ears. But, like the best music out there, after several listens, I was hooked.

After Tom Morello (mentioned above), the influence of Omar Rodriguez-Lopez on my own play style is undeniable. The frantic pace of his playing, the sloppy yet undeniably cool tone, had me hooked and doing something which, frankly, I had never done before - looking back. I researched his influences and listened to them like mad. Everyone from Mahavishnu Orchestra, to early Santana, to more modern bands like Can. This band, and especially this album, gave me an appreciation for roots and, consequently, for the music of the 60's & 70's which is now a much valued part of my library.

Candiria – 300 Percent Density (2001)
This music is challenging, engrossing, and enthralling - probably to more of an extent than anything else I've heard. Much like The Mars Volta, Candiria switches in-and-out of generes freely, except not with Volta's careless spirit. This is as precise as it comes. A serene jazz melody will suddenly erupt into a math-metal frenzy of complicated time signatures and staccato guitar riffs, then into a precariously timed hip-hop segment and back into a frenzy. While this may sound like a recipe for disaster, this band has the incredible talent of being able to do all this, and still manage to keep the music at a cohesive fever pitch, and with a reasonable amount of listenability.

Metaphysical agnosticism.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

I just got back from an amazing debate at UM. It dealt primarily with evolution and intelligent creation, the age-old argument that’s been burning up the proverbial charts for decades. Events like this always lead to interesting chains of thought post and pre-event, but I’ll get to those later.

The debate featured a microbiologist who believes in intelligent design, Paul Nelson, and an evolutionist, Michael Ruse, from good old Great Britain who is…well…an evolutionist (what more is there to say?) The basic arguments broke down like this:

The microbiologist argued that if we trace the history and composition of what we’ve come to know and conceptualize as life, we know that its most basic component is a molecule called RNA. RNA is involved in the transfer of information from DNA, programming protein synthesis and maintaining ribosome structure, and a plethora of other functions that make it absolutely essential for life to even begin. Nelson argued that in the lab, RNA is an extremely fragile molecule – it breaks apart easily under the microscope and during testing. One of Nelson’s points is that because RNA is so fragile, it would’ve been impossible for it to survive on prehistoric Earth long enough to create any kind of life, therefore creating the need for intelligent design.
He also brought up some really complicated microbiology in ORFan genes. ORFans are in essence hypothetical genes. They show no sequence similarity to those in any other organisms. They exist for no apparent reason, but are in some way essential to the composition of a DNA strand, because without the ORFan genes, the cell dies. The point? Because of this complexity, there very simply HAS to be an intelligent entity that created the natural laws that eventually created these genomic complexities.

These arguments, while they are well thought out, seem to me to be a throwing-up of hands in surrender. It's basically admitting to the limit of the potential of science to discover and uncover properties of the phenomenal world that as of now are mysteries. To so quickly attribute an ORFan gene or the fragility of RNA to an intelligent creator is just plain giving up. But there is a problem with this logically speaking that goes beyond any surface biological issues.

In the same way that the origin or function of ORFan genes are unknown, or unproven, the existence of an intelligent entity as the creative force behind the universe is UNPROVEN. However, the specific function of ORFan genes can be and will be tested and re-tested – probably until we find sound scientific evidence that justifies their existence in the human genome. Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific explanation for ORFan genes – or anything, for that matter – because it is and always will be un-testable, and therefore UNPROVEN.
The science behind the testing of these genes is not seeking to make any metaphysical claims about the origin of the universe. It has one clear objective: to gain scientific knowledge about the role of ORFan genes or to gain scientific knowledge about how RNA could survive in such a harsh pre-historical environment. To so quickly wave the scientific white-flag when it comes to these issues not only violates the traditional quest for knowledge of the sciences, but also inherently involves making a very metaphysical claim that the genealogists who study this problem are simply not making.

Making these metaphysical claims is problematic in the scientific sense because, again, they are not testable. However, for me, they also present a philosophical and epistemological problem: the origin of the universe and the metaphysical questions surrounding it are inherently unknowable - cognitively closed - in an objective sense. This, of course, is right from the pages of Kant. He stressed, more than anything, the subjectivity of what we experience on a daily basis, and refutes that can we can use these subjective experiences to define and describe metaphysical notions. Kant puts it better: "That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt... But... it by no means follows that all arises out of experience."

As an example - there can only, thinks Kant, be one explanation of our a priori (independent of experience) knowledge of the properties of space: the spatial properties of the world must be contributed by the knowing subject. That is, the world as it is in itself is not made up of objects arranged in space. Only the world as it appears to us is spatial, and this is precisely because space is nothing more than our way of representing the world to ourselves. I know it sounds complicated, but its actually quite simple. In Kant's own terminology, space is nothing more than a 'form of intuition [i.e., perception]'. Kant employs a similar argument to conclude that time, too, is a mere form of intuition. Space and time are features of the phenomenal world - the world as it appears to us - only. The noumenal world - the world of things as they are in themselves - is aspatial and atemporal.

The knowledge of these things or rather, the extent to which we can know about these things-in-themselves (as Kant called them) is bound by the limits of human conceptual frameworks and schemas. Aims to gain knowledge of the world as it is in itself is a futile engagement because theoretical knowledge can only be of the world as it appears to humans. If there is an intelligent being that created the universe, that being would undoubtedly fall into the group of metaphysical concepts like that of space and time, which claims to go “beyond” the appearance of experience (the phenomenonal) to grasp the essence of things-in-themselves (the noumenonal), which are not subject to experience. Knowledge of God becomes, in a Kantian scheme, a knowledge that has no object, and therefore cannot claim to be a well-founded knowledge. Kant provides an interesting image: metaphysics appears outside the realm of experience as a dove that seeks to fly without air beneath its wings. For this reason, when metaphysics asks questions about the existence of God, of the soul, of the world, of freedom – all realities that escape from a phenomenal type of experience – it falls into insurmountable antinomies.

Science, however, in its insatiable quest for objective truth, isn't spared from these faults. After all, there is plenty of science that seeks to understand an idealized universal truth. However, there's a convenient trick happening behind the scenes. Whether it acknowledges it or not, science is always studying the phenomenonal because it is studying the observable and testable - that which does fit into the concepts and schemas we derive from phenomenal experience. Religion, or at the very least the ideas espoused by the microbiologist, seeks the answers to something which not observable, not testable, in human experience. It is important to note that Kant's epistemology stands as a critique of both empiricism and rationalism. The empiricist view is wrong, since the mind is not a mere tabula rasa which passively receives knowledge of the world through the senses. The rationalist model of knowledge is just as mistaken, as reason alone can never give rise to knowledge, since knowledge demands both concepts and the raw data supplied by the senses. What we can relay on is science's ability to test the world-as-perceived and interpreted by human beings. That being said, to say that our current lack of knowledge about microbiology is direct evidence of a greater power is giving up. One of science’s key traits is its persistence. And like Ruse (the evolutionist) said in his argument, scientific persistence is impossible if we begin to include the notion of God and creation in and as a theory, because its simply not science!

Religion, for me, is the embodiment of the false metaphysical pursuit Kant warns of. In much the same way as it was invoked by the microbiologist in the debate, religion it is a human interpretation of something that is inherently beyond human comprehension. It tries to form the universe and its mysteries into something tangible, something explainable - and the result is, to no surprise, something ultimately mythical. Again, one could argue that science essentially struggles for the same answers; but again, one must remember the trick of science - its search for truth is inherently framed and bounded by the phenomenal. Religion's search for truth is framed in the noumenonal. That is the fundamental difference between the two. I, for one, don’t think that we as humans will ever have a clear understanding of the universe and its true beginnings and endings in an objective sense. Its just too vast, too uncategorized to fit into the realm of human understanding. As humans, the best we can do is describe the world as bound by the limits of our perceptions - define and understand reality as our reality and stop using vauge metaphysical explanations which, as Kant shows, have a huge epistemological flaw.

There is hope, though. What happens over time is science (and, therefore, as argued, observations based inherently off of phenomenal knowledge) turns many religious concepts on their heads. The sun doesn’t rise and set because of the Sun God’s will, it does so because of the Earth’s axis of rotation; a sacrifice to the Gods doesn’t bring about the rainy season, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun determines it. I think we’re reaching a new age of enlightenment about religious thought – we’re reaching that point, the glorious tipping point that has brought about so many revolutionary changes in the past, where science is catching up to and finally turning many contemporary metaphysical & religious ideas into old, crackpot myths and legends.

"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." - Nicolas Copernicus

Ghosts of New York City.

I know it's the ultimate post-college cliché, but I'm doing it: I'm moving to New York City.

The glass and steel of Manhattan, while appealing in it's own right, isn't why I want to move. Nor is it the frantic pace on the street. I won't be there because I want a high-paying, high-ranking job in some gleaming office tower or to fulfill some goal of personal "success." I'm going because of the City. There's something about the Citiness of New York - all 5 boroughs - that is absolutely enthralling. The neighborhoods are the important prospect for me. Not the banal rows of single-family homes I'm accustomed to in the suburbs of Miami, where everyone keeps to themselves, where there's no real need to make any kind of connection with the people in your neighborhood. New York, especially the outer boroughs, is all about neighbors and neighborhoods. It's about connections and interactions - almost forcibly so.

When I look at downtown Miami, with the cranes erecting huge structures that are slowly conquering the skyline, I can't help but think of the effects those soulless buildings have on the culture that thrived below. On the street, people interacted. They went to corner coffee shops, met people, got on trains, and exchanged something vital, they exchanged a culture that was vibrantly unique in Miami. A people culture. With downtown Miami quickly becoming a Midtown Manhattan, with buildings acting as great overseers, I'm concerned that in many respects, Miami (or at least downtown and it's surroundings) is loosing what it already only minimally had. It's loosing an essential component that was robbed from most of Manhattan decades ago. It's ceasing to be a cultural city, and becoming a corporate city. So, I'm going to New York - the real New York, New York City, to experience city culture first-hand. Far from the strip malls and single-family houses of the suburban Miami. Far from a Miami that is shallow and utterly deprived of a city.

In going though, I realize the inherent contradictions. New York, especially Manhattan is the epicenter of this great loss of the cultural city. Maybe, I fear, I'm chasing the ghost of New York City, rather than something that still exists. For a long time, I've racked my brain (and craiglist's servers) searching and searching on where to live. For a while, I had my heart settled on somewhere on the Upper West Side, only to read about the ridiculous rents and the closing of many mom-and-pop stores (the real institutions of cultures) in the area. Somewhere in Brooklyn, I thought - Fort Greene is beautiful - only to find out about the proposed Brooklyn Nets Arena coming to nearby Bed-Stuy that will hugely contribute to the area's already problematic gentrification.

My sentiments about these things are rooted in, basely, my strong sense of what gentrification and corpratization does to the essence of makes New York City, and other great American cities, cultural places. From Wikipedia: "Gentrification, or urban gentrification, is a phenomenon in which low-cost, physically deteriorated neighborhoods undergo physical renovation and an increase in property values, along with an influx of wealthier residents who may displace the prior residents."

While an increase in neighborhood affluence may initially seem appealing, the human cost to the neighborhood's lower-income residents is often staggering. The increases in property value, and subsequently in rent, make previously affordable neighborhoods expensive and, quite frankly, turn them in bourgeois, homogeneous neighborhoods. Aside from the massive displacement of lower income families, the architecture of gentrified areas often changes radically; eradicating beautiful brownstones and low-rises and replacing them soulless monstrosities that utterly sever the cultural artery of any area. That's exactly what I don't want - to move somewhere with no culture, no real New York essence. I like the dirty urbanisms, the crazy people you meet, the quintessential (maybe romantic) New York of Goodfellas, not the bourgeois of You've Got Mail. It's blatantly apparent in Manhattan. The Village, once an area almost burdened with culture, is a vestige of what's happening not just in New York City, but in major urban centers across the globe, all shining examples of the corporate world making hollow something that should be hallowed. Commercializing, stereo typifying, gentrifying an area until it is essentially dead.

"By the early 1960s, the Beat's enclave of Greenwich Village had
been... commercialized by middle-class onlookers... Between 1964 and 1968,
dozens of specialty shops that catered to the hippies had opened along St.
Mark's Place... In addition to students and hippies, the neighborhood's
countercultural atmosphere attracted copywriters, editorial workers, fashion
designers, and commercial artists... Although the youthful movement criticized
middle-class values and lifestyles, its members, nonetheless, were of largely
middle-class origin living in one of the poorest working-class districts in the
city." (Mele, 159-169)

I used to blame the hipsters and bohemians, but I really can't. They're after what I'm after - somewhere affordable, with the authentic city vibe. Unfortunately, and seemingly without fail, the commercial infrastructure that follows the appeal these people bring to neighborhoods results in a boring, homogeneous place that may be physically nicer, but is culturally more run-down. Which of the two is valued more? The answer is there in every high-rise luxury condo.

Don't get me wrong. I like a safe, nice looking neighborhood as much as the next guy. I'm not saying I want to live somewhere rat-infested or crime ridden for the sake of culture. What I want, like the hippies of yore, is somewhere that is culturally authentic. Somewhere that feels like a neighborhood, where real people interact and converse and where there is a shared sense of "this place is the shit and there's no other place like it." I want to feel connected to the place I live, to walk outside and encounter it in a very real way. This essence, what has made cities like New York so great for so long, is slowly (or rapidly in some places) dying. what's being put there in it's stead is essentially a gated city, one in which only a select few have access and those that do not are pushed to the fringe of.

This is happening in New York as we speak, that is undeniable. And perhaps the ultimate irony of this is that by moving to New York, I will be contributing to the very things I've just railed against. The only I can do, I think, (after long considerations) whether in New York or in my native Miami is fight it. Be more a cause of the reversing of this trend than a cause of it. No matter what part of the city I end up in - the only thing I can do is fight the developers and other corporate forces that are robbing New York of....well...being New York. Maybe, just maybe, I shouldn't be so concerned but the where of New York, but of the how. How am I going to make the best of this move? How can I get involved to fight these seemingly overwhelming forces? How can I (to quote a famous anarchist phrase) 'create the world I want to live in?' These questions, the how, I've realized, are the only real concerns I should have.

And so, the search continues......

"I moved to New York City for my health. I'm paranoid and it was the only place
where my fears were justified.” - Anita Weiss

The Mars Volta's "The Bedlam in Goliath" -- A Review.

This is the best The Mars Volta has released in a long time. Much like their other works (and possibly more so), this album will take a few listens for full appreciation. With it, though, comes the intensity that has been lacking on some of their recent stuff, and a sound that is on the whole less polished and more on the side of raw, tenacious music - in a good way. The reason why this album works is largely because of group's blending of the styles and methods that they've employed on their other 3 albums into one, (mostly) cohesive work. The mish-mash segmentation of songs present on Amputechture is here ('Metatron', 'Cavalletes'), as well as the more ethereal, drawn-out fusing of tracks and song sections found in Deloused and Fraces the Mute (Ouruborous, Iyllena). Thankfully, though, its handled with care this time, sparing us 4 minute segments of white noise between tracks.

Drummer Thomas Pridgen, new to the band, shows himself to be as much a badass as previous drummer John Theodore, although at times he seems to be overplaying, lacking some of the dynamic subtlety that Theodore brought to the band's sound. This is a minor thing, though, as it is not overtly present and, frankly, there are few moments in the album where such subtlety is really required. ('Soothsayer' is probably the biggest example of this critique.)

Every song on here is solid, and the album, as I said, is Volta's best release in a while - probably since their brilliant debut. If you're at all a fan, or want some music thats going to kick you in the face, Check it out!

Radiohead's In Rainbows -- A Review

The last we heard anything new from Radiohead was 2001's Hail to the Thief. The six year wait, the longest in their career, paid off - big time. The musicianship on this album is simply mind-blowing, and not in a technical way. This album is full of beautifully arranged and passionately performed music that tugs at those heart-strings without relying on stylistic bullshit or superficial complications. The songs are clean, simple, as Thom Yorke put it "embarrassingly minimal." Rather than using dense solos or diluted riffs, simple arpeggios create interesting harmonies ("Weird Fishes," "Jigsaw Falling into Place") and Yorke's famously expressive falsetto is as sharp as ever, soaring through the music and puncturing it at the just right moments ("Nude," "House of Cards") But don't be fooled though, the album does have it's harder moments. "Body Snatchers" and "Reckoner" are sometimes jagged, sometimes serene songs that accentuate this band's song-writing talent. Every note is handled with care - carefully placed and beautifully arranged, making for a masterful album.

One could gripe that there isn't really anything new happening here, but what I would argue is that this album is really a synthesis of the sound Radiohead has been crafting for the length of their long career. The straightforward, guitar-heavy songs of their older efforts The Bends and Ok Computer is present really throughout the album. The more derivative, abstract Radiohead of Kid A and beyond is present, though in the background on In Rainbows. "House of Cards," with it's beautiful guitar riffs and strange reverberations embodies what the band has achieved on this record: a quiet collaboration with it's own uniquely esoteric sound.

Because of this, I feel that this is really Radiohead's best release - although I even hesitate to make such a contentious statement. Nevertheless, whether you're an old fan or a first-time listener, this album is sure to blow your mind. I know it did to me.

Cultural Learnings, indeed.

This is a copy-and-paste from a previous blog of mine (hence the post date), but I rather like it and think it makes some still relevant points. Therefore, here it is, along with some editing!

Saturday night I went, accompanied by a certain someone (who for my own sake will remain unnamed) to see Borat. I loved it, while my "certain someone" was less than amused. This certain someone was greatly offended by the movie, and in this person's words, was 'disappointed in me for stooping to the ignorant levels of the movie and actually laughing'. Why not? I can certainly see this person's point. I mean, it's full of wild racism, leering sexism, all-around grotesque intolerance. Or is it?

The movie introduces us to a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic crazy Kazakh, but what a lot of people failed to realize is that that Kazakh is us. Borat is more than an offensive spoof on middle-eastern culture - it is a brilliantly unapologetic commentary on all thing Americana. Sacha Baron Cohen, creator of this character on a TV show he regularly spears on, is a Cambridge-educated writer who wrote his thesis on Jewish involvement in the American civil rights movement. He's no intellectual pushover. This film, and in essence the show that spawned it, is his vehicle for commenting and exposing intolerance, even if crudeness is his secret weapon. There is no question that Borat is spectacularly lowbrow— but the film stoops to conquer, blowing the lid off people's secret prejudices and hidden resentments and airing out the rancid stupidity that breeds them. Cohen makes a farce out of things we're not supposed to joke about, cutting ugly hatred off at the knees and robbing it of its power by offering it up for ridicule. As this reckless innocent abroad travels to a gun store, a rodeo, a Pentecostal church service, the "Magnolia Mansion Dining Society" in Birmingham, Ala., and even a Pamela Anderson book-signing in California, something incredible happens, something that reveals the audaciousness and really, the genius of this film: Borat becomes less shocking than the real-life folks he encounters. Is it crude? Yes. It is over-the-top? Yes. But its piss-in-your-pants funny and incredibly provocative, and that's the point people are missing.

Case-in-point. I recently got into one of my famous political scuffles with several members of my family. I'll spare you the mundane details, but the long-and-short of it is that I happened to mentioned the fact that the democrats now had control of the house and senate and, well, to put it lightly, fireworks ensued. Somehow the conversation progressed to my grandmother claimed that Muslims had already killed "100,000 Americanos innocentes" and they would now have the opportunity to killed many more because of…blah blah blah. Of course, I retorted with the tried-and-true Bush-bashing. The battle ensued for no more than few minutes and ended on generally friendly terms. However, upon laughing hysterically at Borat's antics, I was accused of being a hypocrite. How could I stand up to my grandmother's ignorance so furiously and yet laugh at a movie which stoops to such "ignorant" levels? Well, there are several answers to this question.

The first answer is plain-and-simple: seriousness. When my grandmother speaks of the hundreds of thousands of people killed in 9/11, something which is blatantly nonfactual, she is being absolutely and concretely serious. When she chooses to ignore the obvious fact that Saddam Hussein had no connections with 9/11 and that there are reasons for the current invasion of Iraq that have yet to be discussed by the U.S. Government, she is being unmistakably unyielding. When Borat tells me that his Kazakh town is populated by a man designated as the 'town rapist' and that his sister is the 'fourth-best prostitute in all of Kazakhstan,' common sense tells me that Borat, who is fictitious character to begin with, is kidding. The prospect of these things, which the movie succeeds greatly on expounding, is drop-dead hilarious. The movie never attempts to be anything but a comedy, even in its most 'dramatic' moments. It doesn't take itself seriously, and establishes that mood even from its very first frames. That allows movie geeks like me to forgive the movie for its lack of cinematic prowess and just sit back and laugh. It's a well-made comedic satire and it is nearly flawless in its execution. Period. If you decide to view this movie any more seriously than it views itself, then you're missing the whole damn point.

Countless people are offended and shocked, I say LIGHTEN THE HELL UP! The government of Kazakhstan is very unhappy with this film and hired two Western public relations firms to counter Borat's claims, running a four-page advertisement in The New York Times. Sorry, but the musings of a British comedian on the big-screen is not going to convince me that Kazakhstan is actually anything like what it is depicted in movie. In fact, it won't convince anyone with half a brain. "The male nudity is so offensive! It's like watching porn!" First off, its not porn. It's a freakin' hilarious naked fight scene between an extremely obese man and his skinny counterpart which leads them to run naked through hotel elevators and a business conference. Granted, the scene is hilariously grotesque, but hey, its all for the sake of an awkward, uncomfortable comedic moment and its works brilliantly. After all, its you who watches this scene and thinks: Oh my god, its gay porn! "This movie is so anti-Semitic and racist!" The genius behind Cohen's humor is how he's able to make people believe with a simple accent and a few grammatical antics that he comes from a world so "primitve" that he doesn't even know how to use a toilet. In fact, it can be argued that Cohen specifically targets racists, anti-Semites, and homophobes and exposes them not only through the interactions with the people his character meets in film, but also by using the character himself. Although he had the police called on him 91 times during the making of the film, he was never once exposed as being a fraud or as putting on some kind of act. Hell, people are even suing him because they had no idea they were even in a movie. Apparently, its very easy to confuse someone with a middle eastern accent in this country as either "primitive" (i.e, Magnolia Mansion Dining Society) or as a terrorist (i.e the leader of the Rodeo who actually tells him to shave his mustache to look like an I-talian.) Hm, who's the racist now? Don't you see? The joke is ultimately not about Borat, but about us. That is the ultimate point the movie is making.

The brilliance of Borat is that its comedy is as pitiless as its social satire, and as brainy. Yes, that's right, brainy. So please, try not to take Borat's seemingly offensive antics to heart. Just go to the theater, accept that it's just satire, and laugh. After all, it's pretty damn funny.

High Five!