I'm reading Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky. Basically a primer and compilation of the ideas and essays of Noam Chomsky. From the Sandinistas to Israel to thoughts on sports and socialism it spans a lifetime of hardcore political thinking. He's so extreme and so cool and so right. My favorite excerpt so far: a woman asks Noam if he's seen a Barbara Walters special about the organ trade in Nicaragua, Noam repiles, "Well, by definition, no." Snooty and self-righteous, maybe, but something that I myself might say indeed. It's a good thing to read because it kind of sums up a lot of his ideas without getting too tedious. I tried to read Manafacturing Consent, but only got about halfway through; it's simply too boring, focusing on specific case-examples of how our media fits into a so-called "propaganda model." I totally agree with the explanation and see it everyday I log onto google news, but I couldn't sit through the boring statistics. Maybe I'll finish it yet. I kinda want the synopsis though. And that's exactly why this book is great, it gives the basic terms and doesn't go into specific detail (though there're copious footnotes provided on a separate internet site for those who wish these details).

We come now to my problem. I believe almost 100% of what dear Noam is saying, but find my acceptance a bit suspect. Am I not falling into Noam's propaganda model? I simply can't make myself check his facts. He's a super-genius who's spent 50 years gathering his data, how could I (even if I had the willpower and stamina) test his data? I somehow don't think I'm being lied to though. It all makes too much sense, it fits into the exact mould that the Bush administration is now occupying. I see/hear/read the propaganda everyday. It's becoming more and more obvious. I can't decide if I've become attuned or if our current administration is so egoistic that it doesn't even bother to try very hard. A perfect example is our vice-president. We seem to have no problem that his (former?) company is being formally investigated by the DOJ for overcharging the government (ie: you and me sorry taxpayers) and being granted multi-million dollar Iraq reconstruction contracts at the same time. Does no one see how ridiculous this is? Does no one see that this should be at least questioned? This example and many others lead me to trust what Chomsky says. Why shouldn't I, when everything in my own experience agrees so completely?

Chomsky at one point in the book is asked (it's a series of lectures/Q&As) if he votes. He replies that he votes if he thinks it will make a difference one way or the other. And, especially because it's somewhat of a hot-topic on the site now) I sorta agree with him. In our current example, we have Bush vs. a democrat (most likely Kerry, or Edwards, or some combination). And while I want Bush gone with heart and soul, it is very disheartening to have no "real" candidate to vote for. The quotations around real mean that there are candidates who I feel share many of my concerns and priorites: Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, Nader. They have all been so marginalized by our system and by the media as to be virtually non-existant. That is so fucking wrong. This is supposed to be a democracy. Yet every candidate who has even an inkling of my views is so intentionally marginalized that they fall right off the politcal map. And, you tell me I should vote for the lesser-of-two-evils. I don't want any evil though. A little evil? A big evil? WTF, mates? We're caught in a cycle of hardcore Republican (Reagan/Bush) to centrist "Democrat" (Clinton) to hardercore Republican (Bush) to centrister "Democrat" (Kerry/Edwards), I don't see it ending anywhere besides Facism. These are not real choices. These are margarine or butter when I want olive oil. I guess I want Revolution. I don't believe in the system. I don't believe in capitalist democracy, it's an oxymoron. As long as real power lies in the hands o
f
co

rporations instead of politicians there can be no meaningful change (by and large we don't even debate possible alternatives). So, I don't believe in change through the system, and challenge anyone to find a single instance of meaningful substantive change that has come only through the system. So, yes, maybe I'll vote, but I won't like it and won't be satisfied. I'll probably vote for Nader and you can all come burn my house down when fucking Kerry doesn't win. Nananana-boo-boo.

I was on a radio show today. It was kind of impromptu, theresa came last night at like 11:30, but pretty neat. Wish I would have known about it earlier so I could have told someone to listen. Theresa had a guest that cancelled so needed an idea for a show and we thought we should talk about the proposed Bush amendment and the gay marriage movement in the country. I was in charge of most of the facts. The internet has made it so easy to get ahold of information, it's just great. I woke up at 8:00 and by 9:00 had most of the facts I needed. Thank you google. I really like the medium. It is nice. I think I did a pretty good job too. Makes me almost want to start some kind of show myself. Problem is, I think there's enough talk about the global world in general, and would like to talk about things that matter here. I think that would require more work though. Google won't have our local policies. I would have to actually do some reporting and such. Maybe that would be fun and motivating. Probably it would be demoralizing and depressing like everything else. I like feeling like I am doing something but can't escape my thoughts that it doesn't matter in the long run. Maybe the long run doesn't matter so much though, and if it makes me happy now that's what is important. I always fear being old, looking back, and thinking that my time was wasted on ideals that never went anywhere. But, maybe, as is the case now, I should only be worried that looking back will show no effort on my part. Who knows. To me it is fun to do the research and find the truth. That should make it worthwhile. Wow, rants. Yeah.

Open Debates.org is trying to wrest control of the presidential debate process from the Commission on Presidential Debates . This company (and yes, it's a non-profit company vested with this responsibility, not a governmental agency) has had complete control over the pres. debates since 1988 when the National Democratic and Republican National Parties seized control from the League of Women Voters. Basically, a corporation controlled by the two parties runs the debates; it's no wonder then that the debates frequently (almost always) feature only the two-party candidates, leaving third-parties and independents without a public forum for debate.

Sign the petition if you "believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission..."

"A Wall as a Weapon," Noam Chomsky

I've been waiting for someone to have the balls to write about this in the mainstream (NY Times via Google News). I didn't expect it would have to come from Noam, but I guess there's nobody who could do it better. Here're some tidbits. Take the to read the full article.

"What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands."

"...the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state."

"Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands."

"It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel."

"At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States."

Thanks for the poem, mama-trisha-san.The weekend was insanity. You would have loved it, maybe except for the almost-dying part. Well how close is debatable. According to Holly, she could have gone on a couple more miles. Yeah, I was close to dead I think. Two and a half cabins of friends. Too much fun. Too much of a lot of things in fact. Again how too-much is debatable. We had a three-way convergence, an almost impossible anomaly. I had told Dave to meet us to ski on Saturday. He never confirmed. Holly's sister was supposed to meet us. And, right on the fucking dot, all three of us got to the departure place almost simultaneously. We should have known what this foretold. When something goes this right, something must surely give, especially after toking in the van. We skiid (such a pleasure to write), chamille (aka southernyankee), dave, holly, cintra (holly's sis), matt, pat+terri (not me), terry (me), tina (oh wait she didn't go, get off my list bitch), and tk. A pack, a gang, swarm, no horde of crazies. The weather was ok, by the time we started it was slightly less than ok. Our spirits were fresh though, like a false spring had invaded our marrow. The snow was sticky, it should have been slick. We picked the trail, enboldened by our last very successful effort, perhaps a bit too emboldened infact. The longest loop: Ridge Run via Patterson. Labelled "More Difficult" (accurately labelled: "Too-fucking Long-ass Loop to Nowhere-special"). A couple of us's hadn't ever been X-skiing before. That's alright, says us's, nothin doin. Oh poor Chamille, still I carry remorse for you, I thought I was going to give in to the elements as a sheen of hoarfrost coated the leftside of my face, and I was a 'practiced' skiier. The weather became hurriedly inclement. The trail was insignificant, and what trail there was stuck to the skis. I remember asking Dave if he thought that maybe the fact that there wasn't really a visible track was a sign that we should choose a different trail. We were full of ourselves though, and carried forward with demented determination, doggedly drudging downward, driving deep drifts, dullards downing drinks, diggy-diggy-doo-dah. Truns out we picked the (by-far) longest trail. We were supposed to be back by 5:00 to turn in the rental skis, we made it by 5:30. Well, most of us at least. We had left a couple supposed veteran skiiers (namely pat + terri (not me)) to themselves. Later we would decide that it was a strange thing to do, but at the time seemed reasonable (I have experience with them and thought they'd probably slipped into the woods for a little frigid passion play). Anyways back to us steaming in the hot room at the top. It's 5:45, then 6:00, the sun is setting. There are no lights on the trails. We wonder if maybe we should call somebody. Let'em know, hey our friends are somewhere out there, we kinda, umm, lost'em. Well, 6:30 comes, bringing full darkness with it, and we decide to go tell someone. We call the po-po and they say no prob, happens all the time, we'll just hop on yon mobiles and fetch'em up for yous. I was thinking to myself, if the police actually do go out and "rescue" them it would be the first time an officer of the law has ever helped me (usually they're busy harrassing me, ticketing me, and making me paranoid as hell). Of course, just as the po arrived on the scene, out popped the lost couple from the wilderness. "Just, bringin' up the rear," according to terri (not me). So the police remain only nuisances in my vocabulary, but the friends are safe and revelry can commence once again. Hey, that's enough for now. Maybe I'll write some more stuffs down as they filter slowly through my head, percolating pertinent party parlances. Out mutha-fuckas.