Sunday, December 28, 2008

Israel's 'Dove'


Olmert's would-be replacement, Tzipi Livni, the so-called 'moderate' of Israel threatens Hamas leaders:

"Hamas is a terrorist organization and nobody is immune".

Actually, Livni, Hamas is Gaza's democratically-elected party, regardless of their outlandish policies against Israel.

It's bad enough that ordinary civilians are killed in the fallout of "shock and awe" air strikes, but now the future Prime Minister is creating a policy that accounts for any and all casualties? Is this a threat against ordinary civilians?

Friday, December 5, 2008

Why I Pray

because you never know
with that wheeze in between
coughs

that song
ascending

out of a vacuum
like a petal
curling out of a stillborn blossom

whether
the great nothing
is coming
or going.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Google Earth - Registan Desert, Afghanistan


Located south of the city of Kandahar, overlapping the Helmand and Kandahar provinces. A drought in 1998 caused the displacement of 100,000 nomads from the region. Today, Taliban militants are said to traverse the desert in order to cross the border into Pakistan.

It is also supposedly the site of the first substantial archaeological research conducted using Google Earth, where PHD student David Thomas found evidence of villages and other structures hundreds, if not thousands of years old. In a region too volatile to actually allow on-site excavations, Thomas' team have been forced to conduct research halfway across the world.

Here we see a satellite photograph that could just as easily be a square metre, but is closer in scale to what you might see from an airplane passing over. A potent reminder of a war in which every village and camp is taken and re-taken in a desperate back-and-forth. Or the ideological vacuum in which this fighting exists.

But of course, deserts don't move like armies and insurgencies, but outwards in all directions at once. Ironically, with nothing allowed to take root and flourish to curb its spread, it may be the war's only victor.

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

This is the first in what will hopefully be a lengthy photo-essay column using satellite images from Google Earth. The project is not a photojournal but an examination of the intersection between geographical and ideological terrain. I intend to provide an alternative to mainstream news sources that focus on the immediate object of catastrophe by giving attention to broader historical/geographical movements as well as that which exists on the fringes of conflict and political intrigue.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Obama's Fake Empire

There's a history of conflicted concerns, betrayal of intent and unlikely bedfellows when it comes to using popular music for political campaigns. The most obvious case was Reagan's use of “Born in the U.S.A.” for his campaign for second term in 1984; Bruce Springsteen mocked him by pointing out at a concert that the President had probably never heard Nebraska.


It set a precedent for presidential and primary nominees, typically Republicans, using or appropriating rock stars and their music without asking. George W. Bush's first campaign found him almost sued by Tom Petty for trying to use his song “I Won't Back Down”, and in the last election both John Mellencamp (whose “Our Country” was used by John McCain) and Tom Scholz of Boston (whose “More Than A Feeling” was used by Mike Huckabee) kindly asked the Republican candidates to stop using their music. This from artists never known for outspoken politics.


But it also set a precedent for politicians not really paying attention to where these would-be campaign songs' sentiment lay. The gulf between what Reagan thought “Born in the U.S.A.” represented and the story it told lyrically -- “Born down in a dead man's town/The first kick I took was when I hit the ground” -- is enormous in a way satire could only hint at. In Obama's case, he didn't jack the song – The National, along with a slew of other indie and mainstream artists, actively supported his campaign – but did he really intend to empathize with the conceit of “Fake Empire”? What exactly is he trying to say using a song with that title anyway?


Of course, just as Reagan was only interested in taking that fist-pumping chorus from “Born in the U.S.A.” -- a passionate but vague repetition of the title, whose irony could easily be recontextualized as xenophobia/un-complicated patriotism – Obama's heart-wrenching campaign video used a purely instrumental version of “Fake Empire”. Like much of Obama's campaign, it emphasizes his grassroots support, showing people across America holding signs reading “Hope” and “Change”, and probably most encouragingly, a party member saying “I don't want a nation just for me, I want a nation for everybody”. In its instrumental form “Fake Empire” really does seem to take on these almost absurdly optimistic connotations; with its sustained full piano chords and sharp drum fills it perfectly captures a nation brimming with expectation. In this context, it's hard to ignore the similar taut snare and piano that opens “Born in the U.S.A.”.

You can't blame Obama for altering the song: no doubt even the most radical politican would shy away from lyrics like “We're half awake in our fake empire”. But just because the lyrics aren't used explicitly, doesn't mean they're not there, especially if we're to believe that Indie Rock and all its affiliates had a substantial part in getting Obama into the White House. In this sense, Obama isn't just using a song but (consciously or not) everything that it represents.


The National also designed a t-shirt with a picture of Obama's face and the words “Mr. November” -- another of the band's songs heavy on irony. In fact, both “Mr. November” and “Fake Empire” perfectly encapsulate the band's lyrical themes of fighting alienation with a forced sense of self-importance and command over one's environment, and the insincerity of wearing the costume of respect and middle-class sucess (“Showered and blue blazered/Fill yourself with quarters; “In my best clothes/This is when I need you”).

But if both “Fake Empire” and “Born in the U.S.A.” are emblematic of songs whose cynical point of view can be downplayed by shifting the focus towards their sense of urgency, there's also a huge difference between what they represent. Springsteen equally rejected Reagan's Democratic challenger Walter Mondale in his attempts to claim Springsteen's endorsement. The reality may have had less to do with Springsteen's political affiliations and more to do with the underhanded way both parties tried to ride the coattails of his massive success, but the point is that the song was an expression of working class angst. Its seething bitterness hardly belongs in any political campaign with an ounce of integrity.


In contrast, The National were active in the election, and on closer inspection their music is less from the perspective of an outsider than a somewhat reluctant participant. The song also features the line “Let's not try to figure out everything at once”, an admirably pragmatic philosophy. In reference to The National's “Mr. November” t-shirts, one writer pointed out that the narrator to the song is “searching for an identity”, and that the shirt is a “subtle way of insinuating that Obama’s [sic] provides a haven for such searchers”.


The idea that Obama has stirred up voters who were previously apathetic towards politics is an overused maxim. It might be more accurate to say that he's the first presidential candidate in some time that many people inside and outside of America feel could actually affect change. Here it's less an issue of apathy than it is complacency: while the former suggests un-educated Americans who are unaware of the stakes of their vote, the latter suggests people who are keen enough to notice America's two-sides-of-the-same-coin-politics. Whether or not Obama is actually primed to be that alternative is up for debate, but the point seems to be -- as many reviewers have noted over and over again -- that people believe him to be.


Here we have a rather interesting conundrum, though one rather suited for American politics: does a President automatically become what the public expects him to be? It would obviously be naive to expect that he does entirely, considering the degree to which advisors and lobbyists form a buffer zone between the administration and the general public, but there's no doubt that grassroots organizations play a more important role in American politics than say, Canadian politics; a distinction that has less to do with left-wing versus right-wing than top-down versus bottom-up.


Furthermore, this concept is ingrained into Obama's campaign, particularly with his encouragement of advisors who “disagree with him”. When we get past the whole messianic, “Great Man” theory aspect of Obama, it's apparent that his existence as the next president has almost been willed into being by America's (and the world's) exasperation with impenetrable, self-serving regimes (and yes, “regime” is the right word). Fittingly, in an age of shifting, uncertain identities, Obama is the first American president who exists in the abstract. This can be seen from two very different perspectives: one which suggests Obama embraces lofty concepts like “hope” and “change” as a way of avoiding concrete political issues (a hard sell considering Obama seemed to have a more specific platform than McCain) or of emotionally manipulating the voting public (cynical but slightly more credible), the other which sees these concepts as evidence of his shifting the playing field away from the moral and political scruples of an elite minority.


Either way, if there's cause for hope it's in the fact that Obama seems to present a great deal of malleability; one that, with any luck, goes beyond the self-interest of the political pundits closest to him. George W. Bush has spent so much of his second term systematically destroying his reputation that it's easy to forget that he was elected twice based on exuding confidence, certainty, even bravado. Obama will take his place just at a time when his blind policies have failed not only abroad, but finally at home. The mess left Obama is far from lost on the president-elect, and so his confidence is of a very different sort; tentative, pragmatic. While Bush commanded just the kind of respect that The National question in their lyrics, Obama commands attention and participation. From this perspective it's not hard to see how the narrator of “Fake Empire”'s declaration of “Let's not try to figure out everything at once” could actually provide a realistic aphorism for the new administration.

At the climax of the “Fake Empire” campaign video, we hear Obama's voice declaring the start of the “next chapter of American history”, with “words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: yes we can”. It's easy to be cynical of the speech, especially as a non-American, but there's almost a sense of desperation in his voice; pushing himself to say the words because he knows the country will only change if people feel empowered. Whether he likes it or not, Obama speaks for everyone, including the reluctant, the cynical and the disenchanted.

Dungen - 4


Read my review here

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

The Controversy Entrepreneurs

I thought this was a really good article. A good example of how free speech is made into an all-or-nothing argument.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Do the Right Thing, Obama

It's a poem about Michelle Obama. Fitting to post now, I guess.

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

Do the Right Thing, Obama


On their first date he took her to the cinema.
Flames from that fateful night
Blazing,
As if that summer day
had to take one more black life with it,
While suicide-bombing itself off the planet and sparing
the rest of Brooklyn
as well as the audience
for one more night.

like the ambitions of a noble man,
Immolating good intentions

the flame that would burn up Saddam Hussein
when the time came
for someone else to take responsibility for the day.


He said:

'This is a country of firsts.
First black president.
First female president.
First Lady.
First man on the moon.
And no one ever gets it right the first time'.

She said:

'Vivra sa Vie'
And made her choice.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Passchendaele (Paul Gross, 2008)

Paul Gross' Passchendaele occupies an odd place: on the one hand, it's a romantic WWI epic that contains so many familiar narrative touchstones that it's hard to believe the script wasn't penned decades ago. On the other hand, it's a certifiably “important” film, and not just because it taps out a larger budget than any other Canadian production. Rather, the massive loss of life for Canadians at the Third Battle of Ypres is a story that's been sorely unrepresented, even within our own country. But if it's true that stories of marginalized history need to be told with their own distinct voice, then Passchendaele's shortcomings go beyond awkward over-stylization and the usual limitations of doing a Hollywood genre with a (still, at only $20 million) sub-Hollywood budget. By staging the narrative around Gross' shell-shocked, cynical Sergeant Dunne, the film is hardly endorsing the war as a meaningful venture, but it's hard to think of a lot of films that do since All Quiet on the Western Front (1930).


The film obviously sets out to illuminate Canada's specific role in the war, and to this end it can be informative. Certainly a number of Canadians are still unaware of the prejudice against anyone in the country with German descent, an ugly stain in our history that seems to have paved the way for the imprisonment of Japanese-Canadians in World War II. In the film this prejudice comes to the fore when it's revealed the nurse (Caroline Dhavernas) whom Dunne is in love with is of German descent and that her father joined the war on the side of the Central Powers. What could be a more thorough investigation of irrational prejudice turns out to be as much a plot device as anything however, with the nurse's naive, asthmatic younger brother David (Joe Dinicol), stirred by hatred of their father and a desire to prove himself to the wealthy father of his fiancee (Meredith Bailey), manages to wrangle himself a spot in the war. In one of the most contrived plot turns – a genuine concern given the story was based on Gross' own grandfather's experiences, and the historical burden the film has as a cinematic watershed – Dunne decides to re-enslit to be the milquetoast's personal babysitter.

The decision to return to the frontline is played as a priviledging of personal valor and dignity over patriotism, which would be a fine prospect had it not already become the last desperate grasp of nationalism in the face of a war whose rational justifications have long dried up. In fact, the only elements of the film to distinguish it from British or American war stories is a handful of awkwardly-placed diatribes on the perceived chutzpah of Canadian soldiers. While on an international level the sacrifice of Canadians in WWI has no doubt been unfairly blanketed under the contributions of the British Empire as a whole, anyone who's taken a high school history course in this country has been fed the “young nation comes of age” story ad nauseum. That the Canadian Corps managed to secure Passchendaele is an historical fact; more dubious is the implicit suggestion that this can be chalked up as a facet of our bravery and fighting skill at an individual level (as if that were something that could be measured anyway) as opposed to the decisions of higher-ups who rarely saw the frontline in the first place. The reality is probably a mixture of top-down and bottom-up organization, but wherein lies the origin of smugness on the part of Canadians? In the fact that our generals were heartless enough to send our soldiers into the trenches until every last one of them perished, or in the fact that our soldiers were willing to follow orders unconditionally for a war whose benefits were so drastically removed from their own lives?


Passchendaele wants it both ways: the final caption before the end credits is quick to point out that the town was recaptured only a week after Canada lost 16,000 men securing it, and yet still seems content suggesting that the individual sacrifices made were what caused Canadians to take newfound pride in their accomplishments. Whether or not the war gave Canadians a sense of identity distinct from Britain, it's still a confounding paradox that a “young” nation (as a side note, when America reached its 50th year of independence they had already doubled the area of the country and waged war against their former colonizers, which goes lengths towards showing how “independence” is a measure of perceived rights and freedoms rather than actual ones) apparently gained its stripes by showing they were still willing to fight unequivocally for British interests. The burgeoning negative attitudes towards Brits is summed up in the ludicrous comic-book villainy of British recruiting officer Dobson-Hughes (Jim Mezon) whose one-dimensionality is best summed up in his sudden un-dramatic death that recalls the unaffected reactions to Kenny's episodic deaths after several seasons in the show South Park.

Finally (spoiler alert), Passchendaele is a war film about the virtues of personal sacrifice, with an ending so inevitable you could get 100% of the sentiment of Dunne's dying words even with the sound off. Much has been made about the film's Christian symbolism in the ending: a shell sends David careening out of the enemy's trench and entangles him on a piece of wood in an exact image of the Crucifixion, after which Dunne braves No Man's Land and drags him back to safety, cross and all. It's absurdity is palpable, but it also has a narrative purpose: earlier in the film a lot is said about how Germans supposedly nailed a Canadian soldier to a cross, which Dunne defiantly insists is propaganda. This final scene is presumably meant to substantiate this, since it's readily obvious that David is thrown onto the “cross” by freak accident. But it's an odd cinematic move that doesn't exactly work: the preposterousness of the claim that Germans crucified a Canadian soldier has already been established as part of the reigning Ally myth of Germans as “godless”. Gross' insistence on driving the point home not only strains credulity, but it also shifts the image's meaning from that of irrational anti-German prejudice to the actual deification of Canadian soldiers – whether or not it's the Allys own shells or the Germans that throw David's body up there.

Passchendaele's most redeeming quality may be that as it makes its rounds across the country, it's accompanied by a Legion presentation on Canada's war effort, specifically geared towards the contributions from each area in which it's being shown. Gross has admirable intentions in mind: illustrating the horrors of war

in a way which upcoming Remembrance Day ceremonies will only hint at. These horrors are obviously quite close to Gross, who witnessed the psychological damage in his own grandfather; it's too bad he was unable to fully disentangle the nightmare from the glory, the reality from the myths we tell ourselves to cushion the blow.


Monday, November 3, 2008

By way of introduction

This is my new blog.

I'm giving up on the livejournal account, mostly as a way of opening up my writing beyond the realm of online diary entries.

You can view the old page here
All the entries came from my six months in South Korea. I left the country about six weeks ago and am back in Ontario.

As a result this will probably look a lot less like a travelogue (especially since I'm not really traveling right now) and more just a running commentary on politics, art, film etc. Possibly music as well, although at this point my music writing is primarily concentrated at Cokemachineglow. I will however provide links to my articles through here.

cheers.
j