Fight the Power

Well, friends, the time has come for me to take the SkyeWire offline.  I started this blog in the midst of a period of hyper-intellectualism and political anger, I end it in a period of creativity and overwhelming optimism.  It was 3 years ago exactly when the SkyeWire started, and it has evolved side-by-side with its author.  An important outlet for a troubled youth.

This evening, I proudly present my final tidbits of knowledge, opinion, and battle orders.

There are a few key things an American citizen must know:  1)You are a people with extraordinary potential;  2) ALL cable news (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc) belongs in Communist Russia; 3) Democrats and Republicans are on the same corporate team; 4) Barack Obama is not and will never be a revolutionary; 5) Republicans are still extremely dangerous; 6) It's going to be OKAY!  Live Life!

There are big mid-term elections coming up, and I expect every able citizen to cast a vote.  Get registered!! Democrats might be tools who lost their progressive values, but the country will survive longer with them in charge.  Keep the jerks in power, otherwise war with Iran will come closer to reality than you think.  Not that Dems aren't militant, they are.  Just not as much.

Never forget the Iraq War.  An attack planned by a small group of radical nationalists and facilitated by almost every Democrat and Republican in the Senate.  In my opinion, every person who voted for this unnecessary and devastating war ought to lose their seat.  Over a million Iraqis are dead, and the citizens of America need to take responsibility for it.  We did not march in protest like the millions around the world.  It is our fault for not being vigilant and critical enough.

President Obama has shown his true colors in recent weeks.  He has declared the end of the Iraq War, yet my friend Eric Shoopman still fights.  Indeed, 50,000 troops remain... many of the others have simply been replaced by private military contractors (i.e. Blackwater mercenaries).  Obama is no Martin Luther King or Gandhi.  He is a corporate Democrat who runs a moderate government.  I am still rooting for the man, but everyone needs to know the difference between the maintainers of the status quo and truly transformational leaders who direct a civilization.  We will have our leader one day.

These are the state of affairs, but do not despair.  The country is slowly pulling itself together, progress is happening.  The best we brothers and sisters of the world can do is act for each other.  We must vote, we must debate.  That is the calling of the people who founded the United States of America.  Thomas Jefferson wanted the Revolution to be ongoing, and I plan to keep it up in my own way.

Together we will bring down the industrial-congressional complexes that so paralyze progress.

With that, I'm off to be an artist or something.  Honestly, I plan to make beautiful, thought-provoking, controversial films.  One day a political epic...starring a blogger who brings down the whole system through the power of words in cyberspace.

No, that'd be damn silly.  Bloggers are truly ineffectual beings.

SkyeWire OUT.

The Pressure of Peace

While I'm not sure I understand exactly why the Nobel Committee in Norway decided upon Barack Obama as winner of the Peace Prize so early in the game, I'd like to try and imagine the potential of this strategic gesture.

This award is a call of expectations of the freshman President.  It is also a vote of confidence in the American electorate.  You see, President Bush changed the world forever-- he began a war of fear and intimidation.  He destabilized entire regions of the globe, and caused Iran to rush to arms.  Mr. Bush was a President for war, and one who reflected the values of the imperial elites of the United States.

But America said no, and elected a man who promised peace.  For this, every American deserves this award because it is WE who determine our country's policies and rulers.  We chose peace, and this seems to have been recognized by members of the international community.

Now the pressure of the world is on, and the world demands a peaceful USA.  But it is vital that we ask ourselves: what does their opinion matter?  Why should we listen to the desires of other states?

These are common questions-- and they are fair questions.  We are a sovereign state with the power to act in whichever way we see fit.  But what must not be forgotten is that because of our extraordinary wealth, power and influence, our choices ripple throughout the world in ways that we cannot imagine.  It is easy for American to lose touch of global realities because we are essentially an island.  We are not surrounded by nations with ancient traditions of conflict.  We do not know what it was like to be invaded and occupied by brutal militaries.  We cannot fathom the imagery of a holocaust in our backyard.

The fact of the matter is that there are deep global problems that cannot be solved without an engaged, informed United States.  Europe understands it.  We seem to be realizing it.

While Americans are essentially a peace-loving people, they are
also a distant, and easily convinced people.  We are duped into wars of "liberation" and "freedom."  We want peace, but our fault lies in the belief that war solves all problems.  That war yields peace.

Some of our allies across the pond understand that if the people of the United States of America do not break free from the bondage of the industrial-military complex, we will go the way of all empires.  Our potential to do remarkable things will wilt away, and the story of American democracy will be mere whispers of legend.

So let us unleash ourselves from this militaristic society.  Let us fight in ways we haven't yet thought.  Let us take the Nobel Prize and show everyone that we can be with the world, not at odds with it.

People, call your congressmen and women and senators--tell them where you stand.  President Obama, fight those generals and do what is right.  Be strong and call your people to action.  We'll fight with you.

Or against you.

Wondering Where Your Democracy Went?

When President Reagan gave his famous "City on a Hill" speech, he declared the United States the pinnacle of civilization--the city...on the hill. But when John Winthrop said those words he was talking about an America that ought to be. Not that is. Perhaps it is too hasty to assume that we have reached this ideal.

To the wide-eyed masses: you did not choose Barack Obama as president. To those who believe in the potential of liberty and democracy: your country has forsaken its highest ideals. In an age where the issues are not discussed and the candidates are interchangeable photogenics, you must question what it is you should be doing here. In this country. As a citizen.

In the election of 2008, this facade went on before our very eyes. Ron Paul raised over $6 million in a single day--the most of any candidate; he had millions of supporters and was leading a sort of movement. But he was, for some reason excluded from the later and more important debates. This was the sole Republican with truly unique views--and more conservative ones at that. He suggested to the people that U.S. imperialism is the cause of the terror--not our values and "freedom." Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, ran on a platform of peace. Mike Gravel ran to end U.S. militarization and establish a direct democracy. All were left out of the later debates.


Perhaps these candidates simply did not register enough votes in the early primaries, and were rightfully asked not to return. Maybe the media did its job. For the people. But then you look at who we ended up with. Hillary vs. Obama--two candidates with identical policy platforms. Debating. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe there is something larger at work. Not a conspiracy, but a system rather. A system that has developed over the years and fuels a sham of a democracy. Corporate media, corporate candidates. There are powerful interests at stake and a lot of profits to be made. Be wary.

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal

How Obama Could Fail

I know it's early in the term, but I want to get these ideas out there before they disappear. And maybe this will be a worthy assessment in the long-run.

As the title indicates, I believe there is a very high possibility that President Obama will not be able to accomplish his vision in the next 4 years or 8. His full vision has yet to be disclosed in its entirety, but to bring about the change I and many others believe in will take a lot of political power that I'm not so sure Obama will have for long.

You see, there is this thing called the "political establishment"-- an institution or set of institutions that have evolved over the years into the system that currently exists--which makes it really difficult to enact fundamental change (that is, change in the system itself). Congress, the Executive, and the courts are all a part of this establishment, and they have many rules--accumulated since the founding-- that determine HOW business is done. If you want to act effectively in this system, you must play by the rules.

What I am suggesting is that Barack Obama will be forced to play the game of Washington in order to get things done... and in the process he will discover that the establishment is far more powerful than any president-- and the hopeful masses will become tomorrow's cynics because the promises will fade to mere whispers. It is the nature of the beast.

And I've avoided an entire institution--perhaps the most crucial one of all-- that is, the media. As Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen suggest on Bill Moyers Journal (PBS), the mainstream media will protect the establishment of Washington, D.C. because they are a PART OF the establishment of Washington. Media commentators simply do not think to question the actual system of which they are so immersed.

If our basic institutions of democracy are in fact broken, and the media continues to insulate it from fundamental criticism, how exactly is the new president supposed to upset the system and restore government to the people?

I guess it all depends on how Obama can reconnect people with what is really going on... in a truly interactive and revolutionary way... via the internet. The question is: how do we utilize this remarkable tool in a way that changes the way people think about and learn about government? And affect government?

The Truth in Bulworth's Rhymes

Bulworth, the 1998 film directed by and starring the great Warren Beatty, tells the story of the last days of campaigning for incumbent Senator Jay Billington Bulworth--a liberal Democrat of California. The Senator, apparently depressed, orders a hit on his own life after arranging for a hefty life insurance policy to support his family. In his final appearances as Senator, Bulworth embarks on a crusade of truth--abandoning the trust of his wealthy contributors, Hollywood moguls, and shady insurance lobbyists by speaking of the game that has been played upon the American people.

Bulworth seems on a spiral of madness as he adopts "ghetto" slang, dress and rhythm to the utter bewilderment of his top campaign advisors and a C-SPAN crew. But in the course of his sensational journey, the Senator finds a renewed calling for service from a wise hobo who calls out: "Bulworth, don't be a ghost, you got to be a spirit!" And so he does, with a revamped campaign strategy, which consists of rapping the truth of the system and tearing down the myth of "honest" media during a televised debate. Drawing more and more public fascination, the incumbent raps during his primetime interview:

The rich is getting richer and richer and richer while the middle class is getting more poor/ Making billions and billions and billions of bucks/ well my friend if you weren't already rich at the start well that situation just sucks/cause the richest mother fucker in five of us is getting ninety fuckin eight percent of it/ and every other motherfucker in the world is left to wonder where the fuck we went with it/ Obscenity?/ I'm a Senator/ I gotta raise $10,000 a day every day I'm in Washington/ I ain't getting it in South Central/ I'm gettin it in Beverly Hills/ So I'm votin' for them in the Senate the way they want me too...

It's funny and revelatory, but where the film really shines is in Bulworth's discovery of the truth of the African American condition-- specifically from a drug boss (played by Don Cheadle) who recruits the neighborhood kids to do the hustling because it's the only way to make it in a world where politicians cut the funding to the jobs programs and education. Explaining the reality to Bulworth, Cheadle's character lays it straight: "How a young man gonna take care of his financial responsibilities workin' at motherfuckin' Burger King? He ain't. He ain't, and please don't even start with the school shit. There ain't no education goin' on up in that motherfucker."

And so the rogue politician finds new life in breaking free from the bondage of the corporate establishment--waging an all out crusade against the cancerous power that continues to strangle America the Beautiful. Within the fantastical rhymes of Senator Jay Bulworth lies the truth of the state of this union: that we have been deceived by the great nexus of misinformation into believing that the noble and virtuous will rise for our cause, and that this civilization is better than the great realities that our universe might have us believe in. Perhaps this is excessively cynical, but we must ask ourselves if it is indeed? Have our leaders not won time and time again upon the same promises of change and a better day? Do intelligence and extraordinary talent make the true difference, or does fundamental change arise from a rare kind of passionate courageousness?

Can a leader with the guts and vision rise to a level of true influence? ...Has he already?



Would they let him get away with it?

The Military-Industrial Complex: It's Real

The "Military-Industrial Complex". It characterizes one of the most influential (and terrifying) undercurrents of power in the United States government, and conceptualizes the fusion of government and military business. The term, immortalized by President Eisenhower in his farewell address, refers to the dangerous relationship between government and "for-profit" business, which fuels "for-profit" conflicts and wars. And what a perfect example we have in front of us!

On the Iraq war, author and journalist Naomi Klein said on Democracy NOW:

And one of the things that I think is most important for progressives to challenge is the discourse that everything in Iraq is a disaster. I think we need to start asking and insisting, disaster for who [?], because not everybody is losing. It’s certainly a disaster for the Iraqi people. It’s certainly a disaster for US taxpayers. But what we have seen—and it’s extremely clear if we track the numbers—is that the worse things get in Iraq, the more privatized this war becomes, the more profitable this war becomes for companies like Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, and certainly Blackwater. There is a steady mission creep in Iraq, where the more countries pull out, the more contractors move in...

Do you know how many American troops are currently stationed in Iraq? Answer: 160,000

Do you know how many Blackwater-soldiers-for-hire (aka mercenaries...not all BW) there are in Iraq? Answer: 180,000 (highlight to see answer... so you can guess) ...source.

And guess how many Blackwater mercenaries have been prosecuted for crimes in Iraq? Answer: 0!

Moral implications aside (like how the war has cost probably over 1 million Iraqi lives), let's try to bring this back to the economy. Francis Ferguson, phD economist, explains his view:

As the US slides into recession, economists wonder why the massive government spending on Afghanistan and Iraq provides so little economic stimulus. World War Two brought an immediate end to the Great Depression, yet a current $600 billion dollar defense budget (not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) does little to stop the emerging recession. Part of the minimal effect results from the fact that we were already spending well over $300 billion on the military prior to 9/11, whereas the US defense budget was trivial prior to the beginning of World War II. The other reason for the minimal economic stimulus lies in the fact that so much of the expenditure goes to fund wages and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so much flows as excess profits to American corporations rather than into the pockets of American workers who would have a greater tendency to spend those earnings here. Finally, even the portion of war spending that does flow to American workers has, today, a very high probability of being used to buy imported consumer goods, providing stimulus, ironically, to our friends the Chinese—the very people who fund our wars (but that's another story).

So why do I bring this up today? Well it's still quite relevant, and I think people should be concerned about it and the effects upon the country and world. But the New York Times actually brought me back to this important issue in their 11/29 article entitled "One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex"--which places special emphasis on the media's role is fueling the MIC. It's long, but important... please read. Thanks.

Tragic W.

In his new film W., Oliver Stone has provided the world with a haunting portrayal of the 43rd Presidency of the United States and the man at the forefront of it.  It is tragic in the strictest sense, not only of the man who rises to greatness only to destroy his own family name, but also of the nation whose highest and most revered office has been ravaged by the forces that be.

As a young man Bush was a reckless party fiend who lived in the shadow of his father and brother.  Jeb was supposed to be president, but George, Jr. stepped up to the plate to prove he could be everything that his father said he could not--or so the film suggests.  It is hard to believe that George W. Bush's sole motivation to do what he has done was to prove something to his father (and in fact to be better), and perhaps no one will ever know, but these thoughts are surely an important part of the complexity of this man.  W. made me think of Bush as less of an idiot--he is not stupid; however, his ideology and arrogance make him simple-minded.  Bush has not expressed regret for his blunt policies, and does not seem to possess the sensitive reflections of an intellectual.  He is a blinded man who successfully surpassed his senior's legacy, but tarnished the Bush name and divided the country in the process.

There was a time when American presidents--popular or not--were respected for the sake of the Office. But something has changed. Perhaps it was the rise of 24 hour cable or possibly the growth of online media. I for one believe that it is more a matter of trust. Citizens no longer believe in the president as they have before. Too many of our leaders have disgraced the Office--lying to the public and engaging in disingenuous acts. While watching W. it was truly chilling to witness the meetings that took place in the lead up to the War in Iraq.  The Vice President's justification for the invasion was purely for geo-political gains--control over the world's oil, not terrorists or WMDs.  And when a skeptical Colin Powell asks to know the exit strategy, Cheney simply says, "There is no exit strategy."

W. is empathetic in its portrayal of Bush, and Stone's script and dramatic film techniques make it more that just a biopicture.  This is an epic tragedy in the tradition of Oedipus and Hamlet.  It is the story of a man who captured the American imagination and divided the country.  Nothing will ever be the same after George W. Bush--no matter who is president.

I Saw and Talked to Biden: Here's Proof!

Yes, that is me with Senator Joe Biden, candidate for VP of the United States.  Very cool moment!  

Shortly after I had him take the picture with me (this is in Newark, Ohio btw) he said to another person who wanted a pic: "Tell this guy to take it."--referring to me.  

As I was taking the picture, I knew I had to ask a question... I had prepared an in depth and broad question to ask if given the opportunity with a microphone.  Unfortunately, it wasn't that kind of town hall meeting, so in the midst of the bustling crowd of Democrats, I spontaneously said: "Joe!  Please tell me you're gonna end American Imperialism!"

He answered: "Well, I don't think we're imperialist, but we will get out of Iraq."  

Okay, decent answer, but I regretted how I phrased the question.  I should have asked: "Joe, please tell me you're gonna end American militarism."  Because a.) Imperialism is too loaded of a word and debatable, and b.) militarism directly refers to the military-industrial complex, which is more of a tangible phenomenon (the one that Eisenhower talked about).  

But I was satisfied enough.

Cynicism for Obamanation

The Obama fervor is fairly strong here on campus, so I thought I should inject a little realism into the conversation by posting the following in our school paper (you may recognize the quote):

Former New York Times reporter recently wrote this forward thinking and realistic assessment of our current political predicament:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

I am voting for Barack Obama, but I know that I should be voting for Nader. I suppose it is the fluffy hope that Obama speaks of in his carefully crafted speeches... the idea that Obama could be a third party in disguise. If the fact that Nader is on 45 state ballots and was STILL restricted from the debates does not set off red flags in your mind, you must be truly blinded. But if there is not radical reform of our government, then this country is going to become a lot more pathetic... maybe even dangerous. The corruption has permeated all aspects of the legislative, executive and judicial. The empire is out of control.

Eventually there will be a call to arms to end the corporatocracy and dismantle the military industrial complex (look it up)... to restore the integrity of the Republic. The people forgot Vietnam and did not feel the Iraq War, but they will feel the next one, and when they start to suffer, they will cry out for another Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. Till then and beyond we must take after the Founding Fathers and be skeptical of those who rule, and take action when they become incompetent.

Later today I'll be seeing Joe Biden speak in Newark, OH... hopefully I'll get to ask him a good question.  Will report later.