The fear of being fragile

I find it ironic that throughout the history of humanity and mankind, there has always been this lingering need for people to feel superior to another object; whether it has been through Gender, Demographics, Orientation, and/or Environment.

I sit here and ponder on why that is so. Is it because we are afraid of being human?
Of what it means to be vulnerable or able to be hurt or have abilities and talents less than that of others? Are we so afraid of being equal to others that we hide behind stereotypes and justify them via our cultures and ''common-knowledges".

In another sense of irony; In America, The women who were once excluded from attending university are now outnumbering the number of men graduating and not only that, but are also getting better grades than them as well.

I bring that up to show that all the 'common-knowledge' of the day was garbage. Common knowledge is merely a way for a certain group (primarily the majority) to tell others how they should 'fit' into society. What is deemed as acceptable behavior for a certain group of people. This is used to control, subjugate.

Common-knowledge is another fancy way to hold prejudice.

The imperialism of the British was fueled under the guise to civilize all of the savage peoples
of the world, of which included Africa, India, China, and America.

The Spanish did the same in Mexico, all of the Central American countries, Guam and Puerto Rico.

Common knowledge or Prejudice instructed others to rape native cultures, steal wealth, claim territories, and enslave people.

Religion justified the cause to 'civilize' native peoples by converting them or killing them.

And while others might proclaim, "Hey, All this happened during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. This is 2007. It doesn’t relate to today's day and age"

Well, we’ve all heard about workplace discrimination and more specifically the stories, when you have a Black male and a White male interview for the same job with the same résumés and similar attire, and see where the white male is lovingly embraced while the black male is told that his résumé will not suffice.

In short, people hide behind their ignorance and stereotypes promoted through the guise of 'common-knowledge' and spread throughout the culture.

This is something that will not go away as long as people roam around on this earth, but one way to curb it, is in our thinking.

First of all, one shouldn’t categorize what they 'should' be able to do and what others 'shouldn’t' be able to do. One should run away from mindsets and labels and engage people as ... well people. And I would be mistaken if I assumed people will do this, most people take the lazy path. And the lazy path is one where you and others around you tell yourselves that you’re better and use news articles to confirm your stereotypes.

Obviously, Alot of people don’t actively categorize and label people, but it’s the inactivity in our 'common-knowledge' that we must beat. 'common-knowledge' in our demographics tells us who belongs where. Who belongs in the board rooms. Who ought to perform certain jobs, who ought to wear suits.

I’m tired of the fact that just because I’ am a particular race that I represent a whole people and that I must justify the actions of the few onto the behavior of the many. I find it ridiculous, arrogant, ignorant and very upsurd that people easily do this, and almost expect you to be a newspaper and recite all of the issues, and concerns within your 'community'. People are not merely races or colors or genders, people are individuals and should be treated as such.

And I would be a fool if I didn’t think that 'common knowledge' affected the type of punishment a person gets based on the crime, and I would also be a fool if I thought that something like this could be changed, it will always be around, and the best that I can do, is understand how it affects me and not fall a victim to is. And the easiest way to do this is to stop worrying about people, leave them the hell alone, and live my own life.

What Makes a Man.

I was listening to Richard Pryor recently and he said something that struck me profoundly, he said, "Men Cannot graduate until a woman breaks your fuckin heart, that is your diploma; it either kills you or makes you fat".

And while that at first seems silly, it later donned on me the type of logic behind this thinking on what it means to be a man.

I think that as men, we don't understand the value and power of emotions. Of how much they affect our humanity and daily lives, we assume we can slough everything off.

But faced with something that we can't deny, we are forced to deal with the fact that we are vulnerable to things unto which we can not readily control or understand.

I think a man graduates because he (hopefully) realizes and ponders on the exact ramifications of his actions. Its so easy for us men to shun other men, and not care but when we deeply care for women and are crushed, we become humble because the power of our heart, centers our actions. It focuses the mind, and it gives us a reference point on how to treat others and how we would like to be treated. But of course, this happens later after we are done, cursing everything and 
taking every step toward blaming other people.

This process just re-affirms for me on the importance of introspection, of looking inside onesself and realizing that we can not force people to love us, we cant make people like us, they just do.

We can't make women love us, we have to earn it. Expectations and assumptions are a stain on the world because we use these to predict and prescribe behavior.

In my own life, It has helped me realize that no matter what you do nor say nor act, it wont make someone care for you if they don't. So instead of changing myself for another person, I simply do nothing and be myself and that seems to work, all the meanwhile, understanding on the importance of subtlety, inferences and on how someone views a relationship intheir own minds affects how they treat others .

Men think that masculinity is vainly measured in the amount of hair, how much bigger and stronger we are compared to others, this is very much for the self-fulfilling prophecies of most men, as it is, the nature of men, that instinct to want to be able to protect and fight, and seem larger than life, men want to be a force that is 
reckoned with, and as we get older that urge fades away as we lost that sense of urgency. 

In this age, We men graduate because once we get our hearts broken, we realize just how 
important emotions are, how they play a role in everything we do, and we begin to respect them.

To me, A man is a man who respects himself and others and is not afraid to admit guilt, wrong-doing, and failure. 

Superficiality is something that we must all break away from, and heart break seems to cause the most abrupt halt of this, but we must be open, honest and reflective on our own lives to fully grasp what it means to be who we are.

3 Types...

I got to thinking recently, And have come to the conclusion that there are basically three types of people. The first type of person controls their situation, the second type lets the situation control them, and the third type of person controls themselves.

I would like to pretend and tell myself that I am the third type but that is not true, for the very act of labeling onesself allows the person to conform to the ideals of what it means to be that thing, that object, that construct.

In life, people always tell themselves and others that they will do this, that they will be that. Why not just be that thing, without placing the false conceptions of rules behind them?

My point being, This society and our cultures define for US what it means to be a thing, what it means to be strong, smart, confident etc.

In life, when something is important, it doesn't need an explanation. Music is magical in that, it requires no words and even when it has them, which could be in any spoken/imagined language in the world, that it requires no thought, no category; its simply music.

I struggle to apply this conception to my own life. I try to move away from the labels and be myself, but by simply trying to be me I realize that I am already that person, so I do not need to search for someone who I already am.

In truth, When a person actively tries to be themselves, when they attach themselves to their own personal pursuit they lose a piece of what they hope to find.

When I try to be myself, I know I end up looking like someone else, instead of simply listening to my heart with no words and treading my own path. A person simply needs to think and reflect about their life, their experiences and how people act and react around them to better see what they seek. And the choice answer is not to seek anything, not to attach onesself to perfection. This requires no fore-thought, no action, no justification.

To search for a soul is not to find one, to not look for a purpose is to discover a life.

So really the path to ones soul is no path, the journey to the understanding of ones life is no journey.

Just simply be, and that will suffice.  

The very act of questioning is closer to being who we are than we could ever imagine. 

Immortal Technique- Land of the Gun

[James Nichols from Bowling for Columbine]
Them people, law enforcement, if you want to call them that
were here and they were shaking in their shoes. They were physically
shaking, scared to death. Because certain people, said I'm a radical
I'm a wild man, I got a gun under every arm, if you say anything
I'll shoot you. If the people find out how they've been
ripped off, and enslaved, they will revolt with the blood
running in the sheets

This is the place where the cops rush in the building???
Paramilitary death squads murder your children
Empty shell of a man rippin shots in the air
Soldiers dying out there, but nobody cares
Prepare for the future but make note of the past
Or be condemned to live it again and get blast
Class warfare kept outta the news
Replaced by a corporation's political views
Cause this is where the guns are manufactured and sold
The land that was stolen stripped of all of its gold
Old timers on the death bed speakin the wisdom
Immigrants crucified by conservative Christians
Now we all got freedom to die in the street
But the difference is more of us die in a week
Than they die in a year I made it clear
Where I stand when the line is drawn
But now the line is gone
And nigga anything goes
The land where the guns don't let anything grow
And what the fuck you niggaz know about living in hell
You not built like me you never lived in a cell
You never gambled with your soul
Fuck the ice on your hand, gun in your palm
But you got a niggaz life in your hand
Young man, just remember that slicing a gram
Is a bloody game, like throwin mice in a fan
My words flow like the rivers thats west of Iran
The fertile crescent moon, with the star in the middle
I reveal the depth of history's scars when I scribble
I gave you the world, and I ain't even charged you a little
The martyr is crippled
The prophets are dead and buried, but the message is simple
And its not written down in holy books as a riddle

Now we running through the streets, starvin
On that guerilla warfare
My people stuck in a guerilla warfare
Innocent children screamin in tears
You actin like the army ain't put hell here
Military industry havin a swell year
Swinging a gat while lying in heaven???
Living off a blank check after 9/11
But I'm have the truth brought back to the source
Fight for my land with physical force
Speak through music, the subliminal course
I need a tek??? and a clip, fuck a jag and a porsche
Land of the gun, land of the gun, land of the gun, land of the gun

-- Im no conspiracy theorist, not socialist or marxist, but I can strongly relate to this song, because the more and more I read up on American political history, policy, and involvement, the more I see examples like in this song that are going on, on a daily basis around me in my own backyard.


 

Iran

I dont know if many of you know about the exact nature of foreign policy of any nation so I will explain it to you. Foreign Policy is about sublety, its about the appearance and perception of a thing rather than the truth to keep oneself afloat, stay seen as serious or to dictate ones' will on others or themselves.

In life, the perception of something is just as strong if not more powerful than the reality of it. That is why when UN inspectors wanted to inspect Iraq, in the run up to the Iraq War Saddam Hussein didn't allow them too. He did this to appear strong to Iran that he could defend his country if they decided to invade. He didn't have the WMDs others said he had, but didnt say anything, to bolster the confusion and further the appearance of solidarity.

So in this sense, and since we are in the Middle East already; I bring Iran to the the spotlight.

Initially, as i was ignorant on Iranian history, culture and affairs, I saw the test firing of missiles as defiant in the face of the UN SecurityCouncil, and the world, of which was true, but upon further consideration I have came to see it as a different type of defiance.

If you look at nations that the US said it would intervene in and did forcefully, the only 2 nations in history that were in direct defiance and didnt get touched were: the USSR and North Korea.

Iran recognizes that to be taken seriously by the US and the world, is through Nuclear Proliferation. They see it as a necessity for their survival as a nation, and will do anything to be seen as force to be reckoned with. Its all economics on that front. And being placed in the 'Axis of Evil' further pushes them to secure arms and keep up the perception of strength, and hostility even if none exists. When a person looks at it from that perspective, the can understand a little bit more about the country.

That's one side, on the other, you see Iran, supporting (financially, arms, training) Hamas and Hizbullah, and one can relate to why the US sees them as a threat, since Ahmadinejad exclaimed about wanting to wipe Israel off the map. The US is obviously skeptical and biased since the AIPAC has helped provide Israel with 3 billion in aid per year, and nuclear secrets (all under the table, of course) We see this too.

But some clarification and understanding of the Middle East is required as well. While we may see such actions as wrong, AND THEY ARE; almost every country involved in the Arab-Israel conflict are doing things to undermine peace. Be it (financially or militarily), so the whole American concept of corruption is different than the one in the region. The concept of justice is different, the concept of equality too. I could name 7 or 8 countries that have a hand in some of the aggression, arms dealing, drug and oil trafficking and violence over there.

I believe their supreme convictions to Allah, has been a source for people readily seeing the differences in others through religious sects that causes the most violence there; especially in an Arab-Israeli sense. Since, the Quran is literally followed to the 'T' in the region.

On Another side, you see the Iranian people, who are generally young, very techno savvy and hip to MTV that are ready for political, and social change and you wonder, how do we appeal to them, to better their society? Economic sanctions only hurt the people not the governments. They dont work.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/12couldsanction.htm

The UN Security Council just issued an additional sanction against Iran on Dec. 23rd, 2006, called Resolution 1737 that says, " The Security Council unanimously imposed sanctions against Iran. The text, calling for steps required by the IAEA, bans trade with Iran of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Tehran’s uranium enrichment program and contains a list of persons and entities, whose assets are subject to a freeze. It also established a new sanctions committee to monitor compliance of the resolution. "

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/resolution1737.pdf

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul317.html


If you read the attached PDF, it seems like a good thing, and wont cause harm to the people, it will inadvertedly, since more money, time and attention is paid to proflierating, and finding trade partners instead of improving services and the economy, such was the example of Russia, North Korea and to an extent Cuba; and makes the country even more dangerous.

No, you accept nations and agree to trade with them, and through that trade, transparency of policy, trust and cooperation greatly increases. And which could become a cultural ally in the region, except for the Hating Israel part, which is another issue in and of itself.

This is by no means, intended to be a pardon, or alignment or sympathy for all things Iranian, but is simply a case study on all thats that are, were and could be.

Democrat take-over

I don't see what all the fuss is about. People are touting that Nancy Pelosi, is the first woman in such a position ever since the inception of the United States as if she will bring changes to the US, congress and the world. She may be a woman but she is a POLITICIAN first, backed by her constituents and lobby buddies, like the rest.

Fighting politics from within only corrupts you, and the problem with politics is not having dissimilar people from all different backgrounds serving on the House and Senate, but is in the similarity of personalities, of interests, and ideals. These people are cookie cutter, because we all know that, today, in the year 2007, it would be political suicide to appear different from the rest. To declare oneself as an athiest, or gay would be a horrendous thing. And that is part of the problem right there. Instead of worrying about the political process, of serving the broad interests of the people, they are concerned with re-election.; which I can understand, but its part of the problem too.

There is always the part of the story that people fail to mention. Like, when republicans say, 'Hey, I supported raising the minimum wage, while, They DIDN'T!!' and thats true but its the half-truth since the bill involving minimum wage increases also included tax breaks and reductions for corporations and businesses as well.

My biggest issue with politicians is the fact that they dance around bills and decide whether or not to support a bill, no matter, how much good it will do for people; as to whether or not their agendas get supported and passed. They trade off and debate portions of bills and such to get what they want.

And, These issues we have seen in the media in the past year, are voted on, irrespective of the knowledge, based on the recommendations and insights of scientists and labor economists.

The politicians vote on the idea of something, instead on the hard science that proclaims the best way to approach the situation. Like Stem Cell Research and Global Warming for example.

Science is seen as skeptical, but what is more skeptical than using faith? Using religion to determine policy, and action is a very misappropriate use of power in America.

Im starting to feel disillusioned with the political process because as I expand my knowledge, insight and experiences with politics I begin to see an apparent pattern in American politics, which is using the scare tactics on the people to make then vote and how the decisions that govern America are came about. Then they disregard us, only to use them for the justification of actions.

After, 9-11 the Bush Administration used the vulnerability and ignorance of the people to push his agenda and use rhetoric to make people believe that Iraq, was the place that we needed to be. Using old footage, reports and evidence to sell the war. (Colin Powell dd this)

We Americans are drunk on the ideals on what it means to be American. On Pride, Honor, Courage etc, but are ignorant to the actions that our country has done; thats why we criticize anyone against the war, as being against the troops, thats their knee jerk reactions.

Being different, being a liberal is a bad thing but people forget that dissent is very important for a society and their is some truth to what an opponent can sometimes say as to why they disagree.

Americans dont know what the CIA has done, nor the history of US foreign policy, and even domestic policy; they simply know what others wish them to know. They don't know what we did in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Iran, Iraq, and Cuba. Dont know what Dictators we supported and put into power. They are fed the same story, "We are combating the spread of: communism, terrorism (whatever adjective you want)" but how and why are they doing that is the question we should as ourselves. Was the tiny latin american country, Panama, any threat to the might of the US?

Going back to Iraq: Do your research, understand who Ahmed Chalabi is, and his role. Look at The Project for the New American Century and who is involved with them.

Instead of writing people off, because they aren't like you, be it the other party, a dissimilar faith or set of ideas, practice real democracy by putting aside the bickering and concentrate on the issue; even though I dont believe that could ever happen.

Mumia Speaks: The Taming of the Democrats

Since the recent democratic wins in the U.S. House and Senate. There has been a concerted effort from the corporate media to evoke from them pre- installation promises of moderation and a mass denial that there are any plans to impeach a widely unpopular president, George W. Bush.

There has been equally aggressive attention paid to house speaker elect, Nancy Pelosi, who makes history as the first American woman, to reach what is essentially the 3rd most powerful office in the nation.

With few exceptions, most outspoken legislators have poo-pooed the idea of impeaching the president, even before there has been hearings into the events that led to the ruinous disaster in Iraq. Columnists lecture, it would be too divisive, others, decry such talks as: radical. What is more radical than war? Why are the same voices and institutions that lead the cheerleading squad to war, now setting the parameters of acceptable political debate and activity?

Perhaps the most influential newspaper in the U.S., the New York Times used its front pages as a virtual billboard for the Bush Administration, and high ranking people like Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State then, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice quoted the New York Times incessantly in the run up to the Iraq war.

Pulitzer Prize winning times reporter Judith Miller essentially served as scribe for the White House, it was press scrutiny that led to the recent downfall of outspoken antiwar figure, Congressman John Murtha Pennsylvania, in the race for House majority Whip using grainy tapes from almost 3 decades ago, the FBI ABSCAM attempts to bust corrupt politicians.

It certainly appears like the so called Washington consensus was unilaterally opposed to Murtha in the Whip post; for it would have provided the critic with a platform that could not be easily be ignored. It was precisely this so-called consensus that lined up to support the Iraq adventure virtually without a whisper of dissent.

It very well may be the case that these same forces wanted to humble the house speaker elect, and yet it was the same alleged consensus driven to be sure, by the mad neo-cons in the White House, the defense department and the corporate think tanks that led to this mess.

Consensus here in the U.S. is actually the agreement of a fairly narrow slice of the American and sometimes foreign elite, in the brief but brilliant book, ‘Behind the Invasion of Iraq’ written by the Mumbai, India based Research Unit For Political Economy, this theme’s argued quite strongly.

Typically apart from legislators and the press; a proliferation of research institutes, semi-government bodies and academic forums, circulate proposals voicing the case of one or the other lobby. Leaving the administration free to deny that they constitute official policy, these proposals elicit objections from other interests, through similar media.

Other powerful countries press their interests directly or indirectly and the entire discussion in the light of the strength of their respective interests help shape the course of action finally adopted and helps coalesce the various ruling class sections around it.

This process of course has nothing to do with democratic debate since the people are excluded as participants and are included only as a factor to be taken into account.

We shouldn’t haggle with theory here; one need only recall the unprecedented mass protests all around the nation and abroad, the experts and think tank types decried the ignorance of the masses but time has proven that the mass demonstrations were right. Now the democrats being seduced by the lobbyists, the media, and the know-it-alls, who might be best called the know-nothings are being persuaded to be bi-partisan to take impeachment off the table, to cool that rap about ending the war.

That like before is the recipe for disaster for it ignores the people who turned out to vote, largely disgusted with Bush’s war. People are sick to the soul about Iraq If they ignore the public mood, they will once again be digging their political graves for this war from beginning to now has been an unholy disaster causing the deaths of at least half a million people, that ain’t impeachable?

From death row, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Manifest(ed Ignorant) Destiny

I think that the American people are very ignorant to what occurs outside of this country. They don’t understand foreign policy, they don’t see diplomacy and they wouldn’t know what it means to deal with a foreign power equally. In their defense, the media does not do a good job of informing people of how certain things are important. It’s about entertainment news. What some leader said about the “noble and brutally honest” United States, like it could never be true. Like Hugo Chavez does not make any sense, and why he is making more friends now in the world that rally against the U.S. than 10, 20, 30 years ago. Have you ever wondered why? The obvious answer is a ‘patriotic’ defense against this by saying, “They just hate Americans because we are Americans.” But that’s untrue.

They hate Americans because we impose our imperialistic will on others, to further our economic devices and vices. We tell nations how to govern themselves; we fund secret coups to overthrow democratically elected governments and quellish rebellions that support the true democracy of THAT people. Our foreign policy in the corners of the world and for the reasons unto which they were perpetrated is what people see as hypocritical.



We rattle the cage against tariffs and taxes but offer protectionism for our own industries against Japanese steel, which is cheaper, better and is more efficient than U.S. steel, which will in turn, lower car prices, and spread the savings to the consumer.



The infamous “Handshake” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Handshake300.jpg



IRAN



The British with the help from the U.S. worked to overthrow and discredit the Iranian Mohammed Mossadegh who in 1953, supported and worked towards Iran’s nationalization of its Oil industry, its independence and modernization and to push further away from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as British Petroleum (BP)). He was working towards sociopolitical changes within the country that would be viewed as positive and progressive to the Western world, If it wasn’t for his fight against foreign oil interests; entitled, “Operation Ajax” http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp



We are hypocrites



We impose our hegemony will publicly on other nations and privately work to overthrow anyone who doesn’t become its lapdog.



We aren’t innocent.





IRAQ



“The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.



Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.”



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/



- So when people say that Saddam gassed his own people, its true but we knew about that, because Iran kept telling us but we didn’t listen, and didn’t care.



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf





- In this declassified document it was revealed that the U.S. would back Iraq,(They previously supported Iran) in ending the Iran-Iraq War, and that over 800 Western companies were involved in Iraqi oil, so in turn it affected the U.S. economically and was not considered an isolated conflict.



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq30.pdf



- Now back to the American people, they don’t see these actions; they don’t read them on the news. They are told what is important and they accept it without question. I don’t blame them for that, but they replace truth for patriotism and nationalism, like any action we partake in foreign lands is in the best interests of those people. If we are so humanitarian, why go overseas to give others democracy, when we have people starving and dieing over here? Why do we see politicians talk about numbers of economic prosperity, and then we hear about their being 5 million more homeless than 2000, and about soaring CEO salaries and options packages for little work or loss and sometimes at the expense of cutting benefits plans for employees.



In closing, Hugo Chavez is gaining more clout because others are beginning to see how our actions in the Middle East, in Latin America. Our ignoring of the international community. Our hypocritical actions and stance on terrorism. This creates distance between how we wish to be seen and how we are seen.



More and more people are recognizing, the imperial hubris that we operate behind in the name of freedom and equality.



This country, this world is run by economics. The real truth behind any foreign policy issue is who profited from it, and why certain nations take certain the steps to help other nations.



The problems with Americans is that we view everything we do as being noble and justified, and any nation that judges us, as hating freedom and being against our founding principles; of which are an illusion. Imagine slave owners screaming about freedom from the British during the 1760s and 70s, how ironic.