We were so impressed with his audition that we offered him the position on the spot. He was awkward, towered over the piano table and looked out of place sitting behind such a delicate instrument. When he began playing, though, you could loose yourself in his style, in his level of performance. Wherever Brett was when he was playing the piano, wherever he allowed his mind to wonder was anyone’s guess.
Brett sits behind the piano and waits for a cue from Marcus. “Alright man, go ahead.” Marcus and the other three members of the band look on intently. Big Brett removes a steel flask from his inside front jacket pocket and takes three large gulps of vodka.
As he begins striking the keys, rather than hearing the notes radiating from the piano’s interior, Brett hears only the sounds of typewriter keys being struck. He imagines himself as a secretary for the military, writing a letter to an unsuspecting mother, informing her of her son’s death.
Dear Ms. Smith,
It is with great regret that I inform you of your son’s untimely death while serving his beloved nation…
Brett pictures the young man’s mother reading only the first sentence of the letter before falling to her knees, crying in despair. He uses no sheet music. He plays the entire song with his eyes closed, breathing heavily, sighing, smelling of vodka. As she cries, he cries. Marcus and the others look on in bewilderment.
Brett folds an American flag into sections. He presents the flag to the unnamed mother of the unnamed soldier. She is dress in black. There are only a handful of people at the funeral. It is raining. The casket is slowly lowered into the ground. The soldier’s mother is grief-stricken.
Brett opens his eyes as he hits the last note.
There is no noise. There are no applauds. Big Brett Calhoun dries his cheek. So lost in his own lie, he opens his eyes to the bitter reality of his own desperation.
Brett composes himself, which is difficult because of the alcohol coursing through his veins. “That’s a piece I call soldier-boy,” said Brett. “When will I know if I got the gig?” he asks.
---------------------------------------------
This section of the story was inspired by an episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender where Iroh sings a song for his son who died in battle. Here’s the link to the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6i9kGpTaj8
I’ve decided to try something new. I’ve always been a creative writer and the process is one done in isolation. I wrote this piece while listening to John Zorn – Gevurah on a constant loop. This time, however, I’m going to try the process in public. I’m also not promising that I’ll finish the story, never know where it’ll take me or if it’ll take me. Note, there is profanity in the narrative. So without further ado:
The Birth of the Jazzman
Big Brett had a cool like none other. He was draped in black, I mean black, wore black, black hats, black shoes too—and he wore it everyday. He was an impeccable dresser.
His mother was from Nigeria and his daddy from Macon, Georgia. He spent most of his adolescence in Louisiana before his daddy got the dream job in the city. I met him much later in his life on East 25th street in the dead of winter.
He always smelled like a jazz bar on a Saturday night, mixed perfumes, vodka and cigarettes. The baddest muthafucker I ever met, and I know a-lot-of bad muthafuckers. But Big Brett, shit, he was the baddest of the bad.
He was the pianist and I strummed the bass. We started palyin’ together in the winter of ’53. I was 25 and he was much older than me. I was in a group called Diablo’s Vanguard and we were holding an audition for a new pianist. It had been snowing for three consecutive days but this was the only time we could coordinate our schedules, so this was the day for the audition.
Brett stumbled into the jazz club, almost tripping over the large rug.
“God damn man!” yelled Brett as he quickly rebounded from his awkward entrance.
“Yall ain’t see that shit all bunched up in ‘da front of the club?” he asked rhetorically.
“I’m surprised no one bussed their head already!”
Brett was big, real big. None of us were brave enough to ask him to close the door. The bitter New York winter pierced the warmth of the club, but no one said a word. Brett’s presence silenced the usual chatter. He looked more like a hit man than someone auditioning for a jazz band.
“Can he play piano?” I thought to myself. “He’s too big, fingers too fat to be a good piano player.” I learned that night that appearances can be deceiving.
I stood and greeted him. “I’m Marcus, but everybody calls me horse.” Marcus extends his hand and Big Brett immediately notices the track scars on Marcus’ forearm.
Marcus smells vodka with every word Brett utters.
“What’s happenin’ man? Everybody call’s me Big Brett Calhoun—pianist.”
I am pleased to announce, after many many months of paperwork and planning, I have finally launched IGAAR, the Institute for Genocide Awareness and Applied Research. I would recommend that you click the image above to visit the site, which is a continual work in progress. IGAAR is currently issuing a call for papers for its first annual IGAAR Conference, which is to be held at Nova Southeastern University on April 9-10, 2010. If you are a graduate student or a newly credentialed PhD, i.e., you received your PhD within the last 5 years, and are interested in submitting a paper for our conference, you can click here to visit the call for papers page. Submissions are especially welcomed from international students and newly credentialed PhDs from around the globe. Please visit the site and display the yellow ribbon of solidarity on your blog or site to help raise awareness of genocide.
In briefing the Department of Defense (DoD) the then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld stated, “Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.” (citation).
Irrespective of your feelings about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of ‘78 (FISA) or the U.S. Patriot Act, I would argue that the most misunderstood concepts in discussing FISA and the Patriot Act concerns the idea of the “lone wolf” that is, the nongovernmental, non-affiliated, independent, international terrorist, waging a “personal war” against the United States.
To begin, I’m a theorist so I’m not going to get bogged down in the legalistic jargon and bore you to death by complicating the discussion. However, it’s important to recognize, in attempting to understand the connection between the lone wolf and Rumsfeld’s notion of the unknown unknowns, is to understand that much of the debate surrounds the conflict between implementing FISA or a traditional title iii criminal warrant in pursuing an alleged independent international terrorist, aka the lone wolf.
If, after attaining a federal judge’s approval, a terrorist investigation unit decides to begin electronic surveillance of a possible terrorist, the laws governing how that investigation should be conducted are stipulated within the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expands judicial oversight in those matters concerning the acquisition of foreign intelligence.
Simple enough.
Now, the goal is to, “ensure that procedures established in FISA are reasonable and in relation to legitimate foreign counterintelligence requirements and the protective rights of individuals. Their reasonableness depends, in part, upon an assessment of the difficulties of investigating activities planned, directed and supported from abroad by foreign intelligence services and foreign-based international terrorist groups” (emphasis added) (citation). Note, probable affiliation is sufficient and proof of actual affiliation is not required.
Here’s what all the fuss is about…if, after there is just cause to seek federal approval to initiate electronic surveillance under FISA, which is then granted by a federal judge, the investigative unit links a particular terrorist to the “group” all the better, evidence is gathered, a case is made and hopefully arrests are made. If, however, based on the assumption that the potential terrorist is connected to a larger terrorist organization, in collecting their evidence, the investigators fail to associate the individual potential terrorist with a group of terrorists, then many argue simply to arrest the individual under a title iii criminal warrant and all is good.
The argument, then, becomes if he (the potential terrorist) is affiliated with a group the FISA order will govern how that evidence will be collected. Once additional members are exposed and cells identified, infiltration becomes increasingly possible. However, if no connection is established, the argument is to simply arrest him as usual. In either case, a lone wolf amendment to the ’78 FISA is superfluous.
As a justification in denying the validity of the lone wolf amendment, Suzanne E. Spaulding stated, “Individuals acting entirely on their own simply do not implicate the level of ''foreign and military affairs'' that justify the use of this extraordinary foreign intelligence tool.” (citation).
Here’s where it gets complicated, if in an attempt to obtain a FISA order the investigative unit has probable cause to believe that the individual is connected to an international terrorist group, only to discover that the individual is not, it is not simply that a title iii criminal warrant can be used to arrest the individual, the question surrounding the lone wolf provision speaks more to the condition with which the investigative unit acquired federal approval in granting FISA electronic surveillance orders, than it does to the individuals arrest.
If the merit for surveillance is based on the probable association with an international terrorist group and it is later discovered that that connection cannot be empirically established, then as the old adage goes, “it is the theory that conforms to the facts and not the facts to the theory.” The fact is there are instances in which probable cause, which lead to the FISA order is undermined by the fact that the probable cause was misguided. The target has no connections to any international terrorist bodies.
Clearly, this is not so much a discussion about the warrantableness of using “extraordinary foreign intelligence” with reference to an individual terrorist, as it is a discussion about safeguarding the rights of individuals alleged to have been engaged with international terrorist groups. I do not view the lone wolf provision as superfluous or as giving the individual as much credit as a sovereign body, rather, at least in my understanding of the amendment, I view the provision as a nod to caution. Individual rights should be protected, even the rights of alleged terrorists. The lone wolf amendment does not hamper FISA’s effectiveness and discussing title iii criminal warrants misses the discussion entirely, as the discussion about the lone wolf and FISA pertains to the justificatory mechanisms in place to breach privacy, especially in relation to electronic surveillance and foreign intelligence. Thus, all discussions about title iii criminal warrants are completely off base since privacy has already been breached and we should instead focus on the issue at hand, namely, answering the following question:
“What are the justificatory mechanisms in place to warrant the issuance of a FISA order on the basis of probable international terrorist affiliation, when after gathering empirical evidence, no connections to others have been established?” That is the question.
Thus, to use Rumsfeld’s phrase, the unknown unknown manifests in this discussion of FISA and the lone wolf amendment because we do not know, at least I haven’t clearly heard anyone articulate, what the justificatory mechanisms are to account for this gap between probability and actuality, and we also don’t know how one justifies the issuance of a FISA order, which is substantiated by probable links to international terrorism once investigative units fail to establish the necessary links. Thus, on what basis were those links originally sufficient to warrant the FISA order but insufficient to prove terrorist group activity?
I decided to design this logo when, to my horror, I realized that I maybe the only person on the internet that loves unions. I couldn’t find another logo like this on the internet, so please feel free to bootleg the image :-)
The truth is, though many would hate to admit it, the middleclass is shrinking and the disparity between the filthiest of the rich and the poorest of the poor is widening by the second. And in the process, a ravenous greed devours the middleclass.
… because greed feasts on the middleclass.
There will always be those with obscene wealth. There will always be those so impoverished that their labor will barely sustain their lives. And the wealthy will always exploit the poorest of the poor. BUT the middleclass is, to be quite frank – Superfluous –
Their resources and quest for education present a very real threat to those with wealth, those with real power, those with real agendas. The middleclass is the biggest threat to Greed. And surprisingly enough, they too are consumed by greed.
But unlike those with generational wealth, once the economy nosedived in the toilet, greed had to take a backseat to the sobering reality that though we may have distanced ourselves from the reality of poverty –it’s just around the corner.
How many of us can afford to miss a few weeks of work? How many of us can afford to get sick, or even worse, for our children to get sick? How many of us still think that we’re middle class?
If your spouse were to die, could you support your family? Could you ensure the health of your children, yourself? Greed ate that assurance. Greed consumed that possibility. And the only way for the middleclass to fight back, to prevent itself from being consumed, is to organize.
THE 21ST CENTURY MUST BE MARKED BY A RESURGENCE OF UNIONS.
We have to get unionized!!! Why not? Why not mobilize? Why are the biggest corporations in the world so scared to even utter the word union? Why is no one talking about UNIONS? Because they’re too busy making money, money at your expense. Unions are a means of protecting the middleclass. Unions exist to defend workers, because without workers there are no unions. So if only for the preservation of itself, if someone argues that unions are only out to get your money, just remember that unions need to defend the rights of workers IN ORDER TO EXIST.
JOIN a UNION.
INVITE UNION REPS TO COME TO YOUR JOB.
DEMAND REPRESENTATION.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Big business HATES unions and I hate big business. So I love unions. And you should too. Join a Union.
At the core of President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was the notion of hope. I remember Hilary Clinton mocking the then Senator Obama about his lofty ideas of hope, saying, “I could stand up here and say, Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect” (reference).
Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton made a rather profound point by stating, “…and everyone will know we should do the right thing.” What is the right thing for a war on the other side of the globe? Do we really feel that Palestinian security forces maybe jeopardized? That they maybe compromised by the Taliban? Are we really in fear of further destabilizing the Middle East by extracting troops from the region?
The vast majority of us will never have access to the substantive intelligence necessary to make an informed decision on the war in Afghanistan. So all the pundits and radio host, all the TV stations and bloggers proclaiming the “TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN” are nothing more than cogs in the marketing machine, because there is no truth about the war in Afghanistan.
This semester I’m teaching a graduate seminar called International War at Nova Southeastern University and we review various strategies to war, the implications of war, and just war theory. In reviewing the literature, and discussing the current events in American warfare, it dawned on me that since the Vietnam war, American presidents have been playing from the same playbook, year after year after year.
Imagine that you are a football coach and you know that your opponents study your plays after each game by meticulously reviewing the game footage. You would like to ensure that they wouldn’t be able to use this knowledge against you in future games by alternating your playbooks. You would have multiple approaches to executing effective plays. Hopefully, then, this would secure the future success of the team.
Since the Vietnam war, and arguably even before that, the American government has been running plays out of the same playbook and our enemies have know this for decades. Most concisely stated, incrementalism is an approach to the politics of war, which is based on analyzing the success and failures of policies most relevant to the nature of the war at hand. Given the current level of intelligence combined with the most precise data, expected casualties and so forth a decision is made on the level of engagement.
I’m no bureaucrat but I’d say we’re precisely at this point in the game. If it is true, and I think it is, that the U.S. government is taking an incrementalist approach to the war in Afghanistan, and our enemies know that that’s what we always do, shouldn’t we change the game? What, then, is the game? The game is to shape public opinion around an already predetermined level of military engagement.
“This use of intelligence has been a source of considerable debate. Speeches given
by senior Administration leaders did not describe in detail the disparate sources or the
complex analytical reasoning that lay behind the intelligence judgments that were cited.
Some observers believe that intelligence was simplified to the point of distortion in order
to shape the public debate. A former National Intelligence Officer, Paul Pillar, argues that
the “Administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a
decision already made.” He further criticizes the Administration for “aggressively using
intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war.”
The idea of “containing” the trouble makers is an oversimplified means of describing what we do as Americans, but during the Clinton era, President Bill Clinton attempted the “dual containment” of Iran and Iraq. (reference). Now, if I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d put all my chips in and bet that President Obama’s military advisors, using the same old playbook, based on an incrementalist approach to warfare are still talking about containment.
So, not only are we trying to “contain Iran” from seeking nuclear capabilities, we are trying to “contain” the war in Iraq and now, I guarantee, it is being suggested that we should “contain Afghanistan” But what the hell does that mean? I sure don’t know. What I do know is that the more those with power try to “contain” those without power, especially those without power living on relatively the same latitudinal line, the more likely those without power are to mobilize their forces and resist containment.
The enemy is expecting to hear us talk about containment. They are eagerly waiting for us to invoke the burden of having to contain them from the rest of us. It’s like the quarantine scene in any apocalyptic movie where those infected have to be kept from stepping out of bounds.
The HUGE problem with this strategy, even as a means of preventing war is that it (1) disassociates their interest from ours (2) it actually reinforces and facilitates anti-West sentiments (3) it make gathering intelligence all the more difficult because outsiders are so easily recognized (4) it forces those with power to arbitrarily justify their “duty” to enforce rules of containment through the restriction of travel, the restriction of trade, the restriction of informational exchange and so on.
In short, it’s the same old playbook and the same plays are being called. Our enemies know this and are unifying around a common enemy. We do not have the right to “contain” and if we begin to use this language of containment we better explain exactly what it is that’s being contained.
I hope that Obama’s discourse on hope wasn’t just another exercise in delivering a great speech, as Clinton may have said during the primaries. I hope he has hope for the Middle East. I hope that he won’t make the same errors of his predecessors by invoking the notion of containment and a protectionist stance. I hope that he’ll initiate diplomatic relations with Hamid Karzai and seriously consider his need to protect his people. I hope that if we do go to war in Afghanistan we’ll take serious note of the protest to the use of UAVs in minimizing civilian casualties. All of these things have already been said, but now is not the time for speaking. Now it’s time for action, but how that action will unfold is yet to be seen.
I’ve missed the electricity in the air since the November elections of 2008. There was a buzz of excitement in the prospect of electing the nation’s first African American, but there was an even greater buzz in electing a man so committed to Hope, Change and Peace.
President Obama’s a bit too humble for my liking. Without question I think the merits of his accomplishments and the not the prospect of future diplomacy served as the motivating factor in him winning the award.
Obama has galvanized the nation and even the globe to address this call to action. In so many speeches President Obama speaks in term of “this time” and “this moment.” He so desperately wants each of us to understand the importance of the now, of seizing the day and taking full advantage of the possibilities that await.
In engaging an international community in efforts to bolster diplomacy, in speaking with the Muslim world as a friend and not an adversary, in fostering recognition of the other between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, in attempting to reduce nuclear proliferation, President Barack Obama has unequivocally won the award based on his merit.
I am so extremely proud of President Obama and his commitment to peace and diplomacy. His obligations are extensive and his role as Commander in Chief may be at odds with efforts toward a more peaceful world, but until now his commitment to make the world better and safer for future generations is certain.
President Obama, however, faces a huge decision, a decision that will surely shape his legacy and the possibility of a more peaceful world. If President Obama caves to the warmongers, if he views the conflict in Afghanistan as another battle to be fought and won through violence, though he will still have done so much for peace he will have also undermined his very work.
I could not imagine the conflicting nature inherent in the presidency. On the one hand, it requires President Obama to be a proponent of peace, yet, on the other, he has to defend the nation from attack. The question, then, is just how much of a threat is Afghanistan to the United States. It would be good for our government, rather, President Obama to inform the American people of just how grave the situation really is.
If he were to deliver that speech, it may persuade Americans to escalate our efforts in Afghanistan. I don’t see President Obama selling this war. This moment, this time, is for President Obama as it was for General Colon Powell. Will he sell the big war and be forever viewed as another warmonger or will he try others methods of resolving this conflict? His is a burden larger than any I could bear.
Between working 40 hour weeks, raising a family and attending school, how do adults find time for themselves? In a chaotic world, how can we find internal stability and peace?
There has been so much written on global peace and nonviolence, but equally import for each of us is a calm and peace brought about by internal harmony. There are many methods for attain this balance and many who claim that they hold the key to your happiness. The truth is, however, only you can bring about your own peace.
1. Meditation
When I’m feeling stressed I find some quite time. Over the years I’ve found that meditation helps in calming my frustrations and anxiety. There are many methods to meditation. When I meditate I listen to myself breath. I don’t chant and I try not to think about anything. I find the silence, if for only 5 minutes, and allow it to calm and ease my anxiety.
2. Journaling
We are social beings. Unfortunately not all of our feelings are easily expressed to other people. Like meditation, there are many different approaches to journaling. Some people write in their journals everyday or even several times a day. I keep a small pocket sized notepad in my back pocket and document things I want to accomplish and levels of stress that I need to get under control. Recognizing where sources of stress lie and try to defuses those sources through alternative approaches to stress.
3. Projection
See yourself on the beach, receiving an award, accomplishing a difficult task. Professional athletes use projection regularly in an attempt to visualize themselves performing well. I think of the satisfaction I’ll gain in performing a difficult task. If, during the task, I find that it’s a bit too difficult, I think of how I’ll feel once it’s done.
4. Exercise
I love running. After a long day’s work there’s nothing more gratifying than physically purging the day’s stress through my pores. The energy required to exercise forces the body to rest and recuperate. Exercise is a great way to revitalize your mind, body, and spirit.
5. Mind-Body-Spirit
Whether you’re religious or not, we can all seek to maintain a balance between our mind, body and our spirit. If you’re not into formal religion, our connection to the environment or a great cause can serves as a source of satisfaction and involvement. Balancing the mind, body and spirit can lead to a full sense of being and satisfaction.
Some would argue that Ahmadinejad, in rare form, has attempted to enter into a cooperative agreement with the United States. When asked of his willingness to work alongside the United States, Ahmadinejad said, “Peace and security and friendship. These are principles which cannot happen without sincere cooperation. Everyone should enter into a sincere cooperation. And work together.” (MSNBC)
The political language represented by the President Obama’s rhetoric, however, has had little impact on Ahmadinejad’s campaign to attain nuclear capabilities. Rather than viewing international attempts to curb the spread of nuclear capabilities as a global process, Ahmadinejad suggests that “…for a state to think that it is the sole maker of decisions and others should follow in its footsteps, that is wrong, they are mistaken.” (MSNBC) Some would argue that the fundamental error in his logic is the assumption that the United States is seeking to regulate the world’s nuclear capabilities, which is incorrect.
As I have written in my discussion of the A.Q. Khan Network, dual-use technologies with nuclear capabilities can present grave problems for international regulators seeking to hamper the spread of potential nuclear weapons. As President Obama said in his address, the world cannot sit by and wait for the United States to fix its problems. Dual-use technologies present a very real threat to international peace and the peacekeeping process.
Ahmadinejad’s primary argument rests on what he considers a double standard, wherein “…the danger lies – in the warheads, which have been stockpiled in Britain, in the U.S., in a handful of other countries. And some states announce that this is where their power rests. And based on these arsenals, they want to rule the world. We think that if we are fair and just everything will be resolved.” (MSNBC)
The difficulty in mitigating the tensions in perception between the United States and Iran lies in addressing the use of nuclear capabilities, which is easier said than done. If the West views a nuclear capable Iran as a potential threat to the peace process and potentially destabilizing the region, and Iran views U.S. involvement and attempts to suppress its nuclear capabilities as an abuse of power, there is a very dangerous tension building below the surface.
Just the concept of a nuclear capable Iran cannot and should not lead to military actions; such was the error of the last president and Gen. Powell in attacking Iraq on the basis of WMD, which after later inquires turned out to be fallacious. No military actions should be taken against Iran until they have clearly demonstrated a potential to weaponize whatever nuclear technologies they have or may develop. Preemptive attacks have only tarnished our international reputation and respectability. We have spiraled into an economic depression as a result of or commitments in Iraq, and with an existing war in Afghanistan, there should be absolutely no talks of military involvement in Iran.
lgbt
activists
globalization
philosophy
grassroots
evil
federal reserve
civil rights
war
bailout
ethics
impeachment
genocide
torture
nato
war crimes
holocaust
peace
united nations
new world order
americana
community
exploitation
capitalism
foreign policy
poverty
violence
terrorism
racism
pedagogy