Phenomenal Woman

Here's a nice poem by Maya Angelou to end the year on an upbeat note. This was given to me by Erna, a coworker who does stuff with Women in Black.

Phenomenal Woman

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies.
I'm not cute or built to suit a fashion model's size
But when I start to tell them,
They think I'm telling lies.
I say,
It's in the reach of my arms,
The span of my hips,
The stride of my step,
The curl of my lips.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please,
And to a man,
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees.
Then they swarm around me,
A hive of honey bees.
I say,
It's the fire in my eyes,
And the flash of my teeth,
The swing in my waist,
And the joy in my feet.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally. Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me.
They try so much
But they can't touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to sho them,
They say they still can't see.
I say,
It's in the arch of my back,
The sun of my smile,
The ride of my breasts,
The grace of my style.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

Now you understand
Just why my head's not bowed.
I don't shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud.
When you see me passing,
It ought to make you proud.
I say,
It's in the click of my heels,
The bend of my hair,
the palm of my hand,
The need for my care. 'Cause I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

An excuse

This is my heritage, my legacy--what I bring to the world rattling behind me, ghosts of a whispered past that I was not a part of, chains and blood and mangled corpses. Books and a presidential palace burning. The world turned upside down and inside out.

Father, it's been thirty years since my last confession.

Both El Mercurio and the BBC have the story and pictures of what happened thirty years ago in Chile, free to anyone who seeks to know. Thirty years ago, Augusto Pinochet (may he die in fear), led a coup that ended--started?--with the death of the democratically elected President of the country, Salvador Allende ("the President of Chile does not flee in a plane," he said when offered safe passage) and then, seventeen years of dictatorship. Seventeen years and thousands vanished, murdered by Pinochet and his ilk who turned "to disappear" into something done to your enemies. Thousands "disappearead" and yet more live on to demand some sort of justice, though probably in vain. Well-mannered people, you see, do not speak of maimings and rapes and electrodes and beatings and bludgeonings with lengths of metal chains.

So thirty years ago, Pinochet and friends burned the Presidential Palace and set tanks out to mingle with the few who dared step outside. People were detained, lined up, laid on the floor like leaves in autumn, herded into the Estadio Nacional, which was turned into a center of torture and murder. Books and posters were dragged out into the streets and set on fire. There was martial law and curfews.

My parents--people who have never publicly been involved in politics, and who lean more to the right than the left--my parents lowered their voices whenever September 11 or Allende or the DINA (the Chilean intelligence agency responsible for what was, until September 11 2001, the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil) for years after this happened. Whispering and not talking of these unpleasant things has seeped into the blood of much of the people of Chile. My mother, not long ago, told me that perhaps I shouldn't rant against the US government in public, or on the web. The unspoken consequences left a chill in my spine for days.

So we come to September 11, 2001. More death and fire and firefighters carrying whatever bodies they could find. More people detained with no recourse. More ominous warnings to "watch what [you] say." And then, this: the hijacking of those events to clear the way for war and profits. War on places that had nothing to do with it. Questions of whether the Bush administration could have stopped the attacks from happening silenced. Anyone who doesn't fall in line with this "patriotism" considered almost a terrorist. September 11, 1973 was used in Chile as an excuse for seventeen years to silence its people under a traitor that ruled and destroyed ruthlessly. September 11, 2001, is, I fear, being used in the same way by Bush & Co.


In El Mercurio's site, I found this picture taken on September 11,
1973. The caption read simply, "workers surrender."

No blood for __________

I said before that, try as I might, I can't seem to find another main reason for the war than oil. But it occurred to me a couple of nights ago--what if the main drive behind the war isn't oil, but reelection? Everyone, regular wisdom goes, loves a wartime president. And those who don't can easily be labeled America-hating, freedom-scorning, Hussein-loving communists. Err, I mean terrorists.

Sure, it seems like a risky path to take in a push for reelection, but I truly don't think that Bush and those who have his ear thought the risks to be meaningful in any way. In fact, the White House & Co. seemed taken aback that there was some Iraqi resistance instead of open arms and parties (note to Fleischer, Rumsfeld, et al.: people tend to get grumpy when they see foreign tanks rolling into their country, no matter what the stated aims are).

Support for the war was tenuous at best before the war. Most Americans wanted the US to go through the UN. Bush's solution? Present the country with fait accompli. Once the war was under way, people would rally around the President, they guessed, and the gamble paid off. Bush can now call himself a wartime president (he did manufacture the war, but people don't seem to mind anymore) and run basically unopposed. What about, you say, the Democrats? Opposition Democrats--opposition anythings these days are about as common as the tooth fairy.

Things I Want For My Birthday

Not to be confused with Anesly's All-Occasion, Ever-Growing Wishlist O'Fun! (please note that the exclamation mark is an integral part of the name).

1. A more or less permanent job
2. Season 3 of Buffy and/or Season 1 of Angel (which features the goofy Angel dance)
3. Money (see #1)

I will be holding my birthday around April 12 this year. We now return you to your regularly scheduled political and world event hand-wringing.

Exhuming McCarthy

listen

REM
from Document (1987)

You're beautiful more beautiful than me
You're honorable more honorable than me
Loyal to the Bank of America

It's a sign of the times
It's a sign of the times

You're sharpening stones, walking on coals
To improve your business acumen.
Sharpening stones, walking on coals,
To improve your business acumen.

Vested interest united ties, landed gentry rationalize
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America

It's a sign of the times
it's a sign of the times

You're sharpening stones, walking on coals
To improve your business acumen.
Sharpening stones, walking on coals,
To improve your business acumen.

Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the realpolitik
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America

"Let us not assassinate this man further Senator,
you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir?
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

You're sharpening stones, walking on coals
To improve your business acumen.

Sharpening stones, walking on coals,
To improve your business acumen.

Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the realpolitik
You've seen start and you've seen quit
(I'm addressing the table of content)
I always thought of you as quick
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)

France ate my homework.

I am, as always, torn and arguing with myself. Call it the INTP disease. With that said, here are a couple of things my brain's managed to settle on for a few minutes before changing its mind.

George Bush will have his war. The fact that this Administration has been pushing to invade Iraq since it was installed by the Supreme Court makes me incredibly skeptical of any claims of imminent danger by a regime that by all accounts is only interested in keeping itself afloat. I keep searching for reasons for us going to war—because I'd like to think that it's about more than just oil or a personal grudge, but I fail to find them. I am bewildered, frustrated, and incredibly saddened. I am specially saddened—and anguished—by those who proclaim that sending their children to war and cheering the government on in squandering their lives is the only way to support them [the troops].

I am still astonished at the fact that the US failed to muster the necessary votes for another UN Security Council resolution on the issue. Sure, now Bush and the couple of countries he managed to have on his side—Britain, predictably, and Spain, and later Portugal (not a exactly a who's who of world power)—point the finger to the French-threatened veto, but one only has to look at the extremely short list of countries doing the pointing in the first place to see that, even if the French had folded (and an argument can be made that, had the rest of the Council shown support for the US and British proposed course of action, France would indeed have folded) to see that the support just wasn't there. The US has effectively squandered whatever good will the attacks of September 11 had fostered abroad—and there was an incredible outporing of sympathy and good will then—with its clumsy-at-best diplomatic maneuvering. Colin Powell, perhaps the sole voice of reason of the lot, has been steamrolled by the Bush-Rumsfeld machine, where sledgehammers and anvils pass for subtlety and diplomacy. And, sad as it is, compared to Rumsfeld, Bush is positively suave—a veritable James Bond.

When I'm in charge, and right after I've made sure that Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks never come close to making another romantic comedy (because first thing's first), the second order of business will be a muzzle for Rumsfeld and a speech therapist for Bush.

Definitions

An accident: you are driving along, someone steps off the curb without looking, and you hit the brakes, but the car doesn't stop in time. You hit them.

Not an accident: you are destroying civilian homes in illegally occupied territories; an international civilian stands on a mound of dirt in front of your bulldozer, wearing a bright reflective vest and holding a bullhorn, waving her arms and yelling at you to stop. You keep going. You dump a great big pile of dirt over her. Then, you drive forward, running her over. Then, you drive backwards, running her over again.

---

An email from Jed to the Israeli Embassy. He puts it better than I can right now, since I am still bubbling over with frustration and anger:


Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:23:31 -0800
From: Jed
To: ask@israelemb.org
Subject: The Bulldozing Of An American Youth

I am an American born, raised, living and working in Seattle, WA, just north of Olympia, the home of Rachel Corrie, the unfortunate young protester who died in Gaza.

I will say first and foremost that terrorism is despicable and no nation should have to suffer from its threat. I firmly believe that Israel should exist as a secure sovereign nation. However, I also firmly believe that Palestine has an equal right to exist as a secure sovereign nation free from blatantly illegal and indefensible settlement and extremely oppressive never-ending military occupation.

I will forgo a discussion of collective punishment and get to the heart of the matter, that being the fact that a young woman in a brightly colored jacket was standing in front of a bulldozer waving her arms and yelling, yet was knocked over by it, buried by it, run over by it and then run over by it yet again. The Israeli statement declaring this as a "very regrettable incident" isn't merely an understatement, it's a slap in the face. On top of that, trying to lay the blame on the protesters is simply disgusting.

Everytime I hear of IDF forces killing Palestinians, most especially small children, it sickens me to think that those rifles, those missiles, those helicopters, those very weapons are probably supplied by the US. And everytime I hear of the IDF being involved in over-zealous actions, the Israeli military says "There will be an investigation." I would dearly love to hear what the findings of such investigations are, what (if any) punishment is handed out for shooting a small Palestinian child for being on the wrong street at the wrong moment, or burying and crushing a young protester trying to halt the bulldozing of yet another home in the impoverished Palestinian Territories.

I have almost no hope whatsoever that this email will have an effect on your government's actions or policies, but as an American, I must tell you that I consider this just another in an endless series of brutal actions taken by Israel in the name of fighting terrorism and self-defense. America has been a fast friend of Israel for decades, but even our patience has limits. An IDF killing (at the moment, I will refrain from using the word 'murder') of a young American girl will *not* go unnoticed, it will not be glossed over by Israeli or US State Department press releases about an "investigation"; it is another mark in the ever-growing tally of innocent lives lost in the Israeli quest for "security".

I will end this email by saying that I sincerely and desparately hope that Israel finds peace and coexistance with the rest of the world and most especially its neighbors through the most peaceful means possible.

Shalom, pax, salaam,
JM

---

- See more photos of Rachel Corrie and the action that led to her death
- The International Solidarity Movement
- Email the Israeli Embassy

Fighting with Mexico

At the February 15 march against the war here in Seattle, once in a while, people would start chanting, "Hey hey, ho ho, we won't fight for Texaco!" Unfortunately, it was kind of slurred and out of synch, and it wasn't all that many people [chanting], so it sounded kind of like they were saying, "hey hey, ho ho, we won't fight for/with Mexico," which caused a bit of confusion and some giggling.

It made as much sense as the current rush to war. The Bush administration talks of people hating us because we have freedom, democracy, and so on, and how we are going to bring this to the people of <insert country of choice here>. Yet he doesn't listen to his own people; support for the war is tenuous and most people don't think he's presented convincing evidence (and is anyone really surprised, considering this is the man who urged people to elect him and not get tangled up in facts—oh yes, tricksy, tricksy facts—and just trust him). The US has been trying to bully countries into voting for war at the Security Council, and alternately dismisses and issues veiled threats to those countries who dare to listen to their own people.

It is impressive that countries so dependent on US aid have been holding out on the vote. It says, perhaps more than any other argument, just how soundly Bush & Co. have failed to make the case for war. Do they want regime change? Disarmament? Inspections? Enforcement of current regulations? It all varies depending on which day it is. Try as they might, they haven't shown a link between Iraq and everyone's favorite boogeyman, al-Qaeda or some other sort of terrorist group—“terrorist” being today's preferred put-down. Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, which many hoped would turn world opinion to Bush's favor, had about as much proof of the alleged link between Iraq and terrorists as a Mariah Carey movie has sharp social commentary.

Even for me, cynic that I am, the "it's all for oil" explanation seems too pat. Sure, oil is a major consideration—as a State Department official quoted in the latest issue of "The American Prospect" said, "If the Gulf produced kumquats, would we be doing this? I have my doubts." Oil figures prominently in any discussion of the geopolitical issues of the area; oil is a major reason in the push for war—though for the Administration to actually say it would be oh-so-gauche—and in the French-led resistance to it. But it seems to me that Bush is risking precipitating all the things that this war is supposed to fix or prevent; among them, an oil shortage. Surely, he must know this. There must be someone at the White House who's mentioned this.

Hussein is, of course, a complete asshole. A dictator. Someone who's committed numerous human rights abuses and who should not be in power; someone who should be at The Hague and later rotting in prison, afraid to die and dying afraid of what may come afterwards. But he's by far not the only one; the US has made a conscious decision to let others like him—and perhaps even worse—stand, and befriended them and offered aid when it was deemed to further the national interest (whatever that is).

And this leaves me right back at the beginning—completely baffled as to why our government is happily skipping towards war. The world being what it is, you can't just go around removing governments you think are wrong—there are consequences to be considered; there are alliances to be forged and compromises and promises to made. The possible consequences, in this case, just don't seem worth it to me. But, what do I know. I don't think that "he tried to kill my daddy" is a good enough reason to risk throwing the world into turmoil.