Saturday, November 04, 2006

Sometimes I Lie Awake At Night

Sometimes I Lie Awake At Night
Sometimes I Lie Awake At Night © Patrick T. Power
It's not all that often that I have trouble sleeping, but last night (this morning) I did. I've had a cold for the last few days, and while it's on the wane, I was subjected to major coughing fits for most of the time I lay in bed.

Of course, at such times, thoughts conspire with the scratchy throat and before long, I'm taking a photograph of the shadows on my ceiling cast by the crabapple tree outside my bedroom window. Since I was awake, I just had to upload it to flickr.

It's almost dawn as I type this and I think I'm going to go out for a walk, get some cold air in me and come home and go back to bed.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Tigers vs. Cards

Zachary (circa 1988)
Zachary (circa 1988) ©2006 Patrick T. Power
This year's World Series is a bit special for me. Of, course, it's special for any Tiger fan considering the rarity with which the team gets to the playoffs, much less the Series, but this year is the first time my son gets to see the Tigers in the Series after having been a huge fan of theirs since he knew what baseball was about.

For me, one of the coolest things about Zachary getting to see the Tigers play at this time of year is that the last time the Tigers made it to the World Series, he was there — in his mother's womb. In what was probably one of the worst baseball games I've ever had to sit through (San Diego pitchers set a record with eleven walks; if memory serves, there was a hit batsman in there as well), Penny and I, her whole family and then some had what were probably the worst seats in Tiger Stadium — in the lower deck grandstand in right-center field. I recall that I was able to see third base, second base, the pitcher, the right fielder and (every once and again) the centerfielder. I recall that there was a miniature television in our section toward which we and others would occasionally crane our necks.

We did manage to see Marty Castillo's home run land in the upper deck in left field, as well as Chet Lemon making a nice over the shoulder catch of a drive to deep center off the bat of San Diego's catcher, Terry Kennedy. Frankly, we didn't see much else.

The Tigers won, of course, 5-2, and took a two games to one lead in the Series, then went on to win the next two games and the Series.

It was the year that Darrell Evans hit a home run in his first at bat as a Tiger (in the Metrodome in Minnesota) and with his first swing of the bat in Tiger Stadium. I can still vividly recall the excitement in the voice of the Tigers' radio announcer, Ernie Harwell, as he called that home run... I recall thinking at that time that he knew something special was about to happen to the Tigers that season.

I'd like nothing better than to see the Tigers win it again this year, as the first time that I got to see them in the World Series — in 1968 — they won. I was nigh on thirteen years old and their opponent in the Series? The St. Louis Cardinals. There is something about the idea of having the circle complete itself that I like.

Yep, Yep!


internetaddict_kirk_theblade

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Mon Nom


HowManyOfMe.com
LogoThere are:
28
people with my name
in the U.S.A.

How many have your name?


Because I'm a copycat!

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Senior Moments

Last night, as I made my first few steps out the door of the nearby grocery store, it occurred to me that I might have left the water running in my bathtub — flowing at a fast enough rate that surely, the tub was overflowing.

It was one of those moments of panic. I had begun filling the tub with pretty hot water with the notion that I'd go to the store and come back to a body-friendly temperature and a warm, steamy bathroom. I wanted to rest against a warmed wall. I wanted to relax immediately, without the annoyance of such chilly surfaces.

Suddenly, that notion evaporated with the vision of water spilling over the tub's edges, onto the floor and down to the downstairs neighbour's apartment. I imagined the apartment manager and maintenance crew standing with hands on hips in my bathroom, wondering where the hell I was and why there was water running in my absence.

I ran. Sort of. Being almost 51 and a good [sic] twenty pounds overweight, however, my mad dash to minimize damage lasted all of about three-quarters of a block. Time. Every second was another half-gallon of water, I imagined... water was everywhere, I thought. Four-letter words spewed forth as quickly and voluminously as the water I saw in my head.

After a brief slowing of pace for some gobbling of air, I resumed my trot home, getting only twenty or thirty steps closer before having to again catch my breath. I reached into my pocket and readied my outside door key. Another tenant slowed my progress momentarily by backing out then into her parking spot in the carport. I could see my bathroom lights were out, so perhaps my fright was to be all for naught.

In the door! Up the stairs! Key to keyhole! Into the bathroom!

These moments are coming way too often for my likes these days.

In this case, I had purposely waited and watched the water level of the tub reach a point high enough to warm it and the environs. I was absolutely certain I had turned the water off before I left the apartment, but I had no memory of reaching for the valves. None.

This scares me as I don't know to what I should attribute it. Was it because I was watching baseball at the same time I was getting dressed to go to the store? Was it because my mind was simply elsewhere while I prepared the bath? Or is it the early stages of some sort of dementia?

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Death Of A President

A couple of days ago, I got hold of a copy of a film — Death Of A President — a British-made faux documentary.

First, I think that whatever uproar this film's concept might (have) cause(d) — an assassination of a currently sitting President — it's not so controversial in its rendering.

In fact, anyone who might have anticipated it to be a left-wing antidote to Path To 9/11 would likely be happy to know that it shines a rather heavenly light on Bush, since most of the eye witness accounts of the murder are told indeed by housemaidens, as Palamedes aptly described them. That is wherein I have problems with the film.

As an example, Bush's speechwriter speaks of his grace under fire when protesters manage to break through security barriers and, without further incident, come in contact with the presidential motorcade in downtown Chicago. ("...and he says, 'You know, Ellie, I don't mind them having their opinions, I just wish they could demonstrate peacefully.' ") Fuh!

After his death, the newly sworn-in President Cheney (if that thought isn't enough to dissuade a potential assassination of Bush, I don't know what is!) eulogizes Bush as if he were stationed somewhere between St. Peter and John the Baptist in heaven's heirarchy.

My stomach turned as I saw the funeral caisson being prepared for its trip down Pennsylvania Avenue, the riderless horse with the boots turned backwards in the stirrups, the Air Force flyover minus a plane in the formation — all this for someone who, in my estimation, has done nothing to serve his country.

There is also a bit of a nod of approval of the Patriot Act (as voiced by one of the law enforcement characters) and, as mentioned in the film's postscript, Patriot Act III becomes permanent law.

Chilling.

Perhaps, however, that's one of the points of the film — that an assassin's bullet is apt to raise Bush's status as a leader and (Jesus help me!) visionary, as well as throw us deeper into the throes of paranoia.

Or perhaps it's what we should expect (regardless of how historians actually see his tenure in office) in years hence when The History Channel does its version of the Bush administration — a pussyfooting around the facts so that ultimately, Bush appears presidential.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Fallen
Fallen © Patrick T. Power
I don't see them fall
but fall they do.
Each time,
I imagine a thud
of skull on glass,
then carcass on wood.
In one surely unobserved instant,
a life that was...
vanishes, and in the 5/11 of a second
that it takes for my shutter
to open and close
I become
official biographer.

Free Hugs!

In light of all of the inhumane crap that comes with having to endure the Bush-Cheney regime, it is sometimes nice — if not necessary — to see something like this; to know that there remain good, kind, selfless people in the world.



Pass along this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4

Thanks Kathleen!

Thursday, September 28, 2006

ACLU

I am neither registered a Democrat nor a Republican, but I am now a member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU is perhaps the only organization willing to fight on behalf of the United States Constitution.

Monday, September 11, 2006

September 11

September 11
September 11 © Patrick T. Power
I will not be watching television today... I will not turn it on except, perhaps, to see what the miserable failure has to say at 9:00 tonight as he pushes the Republican fear agenda... I will keep the on/off remote in hand and a puke bucket on standby.

Listening to the clown speak is akin to swabbing one's ears out with darts.

Friday, September 08, 2006

My Letter...


...to Disney's Chairman of the Board, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).


Dear Mr. Mitchell,

This is another in what has surely been an avalanche of emails written in protest of Path To 9/11... therefore, I'll keep it brief.

September 11 has been touted as one of the most important dates in this country's history, yet your company has decided to produce a film that its writers know full well has the potential to shape the way people think about the event.

To support such a project that corrupts, distorts and fabricates facts — especially when it is purported to be based on an objective, factual study — is shameful. A company such as Disney has a reputation of being family-oriented and respected for its programming. This program seems to me to be contrary to the notion that its programming is responsible, much less respectable.

So, it is my hope that Path To 9/11 be edited to present a more factual story regarding such a significant historical day, or that the project be mothballed until it's fixed.

The American people have been bamboozled enough by the current administration, and for corporations such as Disney and ABC to appear to be in cahoots with the bamboozlers can't be a good thing for their respective reputations.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for all you've done in service to this country.


Patrick Power
East Lansing, Michigan



To write yours, go to Think Progress...

This might all be moot anyway as it appears that Bush has decided to give a nationally-televised speech at 9:00pm on September 11th, a time which conflicts with this program. I have a feeling that ABC will decide to postpone the program (under this scenario) while it scurries to edit the film. Skeptic that I am, I can't help but wonder if Karl Rove didn't have a hand in all this.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Mnemonics


I subscribe to various RSS feeds from my hometown newspaper and while I was delighted to see that today's Letters to the Editor included several anti-Bush/anti-Republican letters, I laughed out loud at the last one on the page...


'Praying' For Pluto No More


I remember a conversation with my mother and grandmother more than 50 years ago in which they shared the mnemonics they had learned to memorize the planets: "Mary's Violet Eyes Made Johnny Sit Up Nights" was my grandma's device. My mom added "Praying" since she learned the solar system after 1930.

With Pluto's newly diminished status, I'll probably go back to my grandma's system, although I must admit I'll miss the mnemonic I've been using for the past 5 1/2 years: "Many Very Erudite Men Justly Scream, 'Unenlightened Numbskull President!' "

Cathy Wirzylo
Eastwick Drive

Monday, August 28, 2006

Stretch


I have raved and I have ranted about the miserable failure (who, as far as I'm concerned, has given the word "failure" a bad name!) for as long as I have published this blog. The man has done to this country (not to mention Iraq) pretty much exactly what he has done with every other enterprise he's gotten his hands on in his lifetime — driven it straight into the ground.

But beyond his more cataclysmic, er, achievements, I am really pissed and annoyed at this — from his August 21 press conference in which, by the way, he also admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11:


THE PRESIDENT: Last question. Stretch. Who are you working for, Stretch?

Q Washington Examiner.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, good. Glad you found work. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much. Mr. President...


"Stretch"!!

This is — as far as I'm concerned — a perfect illustration of the lap dog nature of the press. The President of the United States apparently feels that it's okay to call people he hasn't met yet by nicknames, and as has been the case since this lamebrain took office over five years ago, the press has allowed him to get away with it.

At the very least, why didn't this reporter say, "Excuse me, Mr. President, but my name is _________________________"?

One of my closest friends is a journalist, and she happens to be less than five feet tall. What if he were to address a reporter as "Shortie"? How about "Chubby"? I mean, isn't that really what we're talking about here? This pathetic excuse for a public official can't demonstrate one of the basic skills of public discourse — that to give respect is to earn respect.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Quote Meme

Quote Meme

I was tagged (Thanks for the nudge, Trish!) the other day and I'm finally getting around to writing something. The rules are simple: look through random quotes and pick five from this list that in some way identify you. Then, explain why that identification is appropropriate. Here goes...
There is one piece of advice, in a life of study, which I think no one will object to; and that is, every now and then to be completely idle – to do nothing at all. — Sydney Smith (English essayist, 1771 - 1845)
I think that I have fallen into this way of living for the past year or so. As many of my friends know, I've dubbed the past eighteen to twenty months as my Year Of Living Aimlessly! What?!? So, I'm stretching the definition of "year" a bit! Of course, I don't really consider my life as aimless, but it has seemed to be a major time of discovery for me. Some might call it a mid-life crisis, but that's because clichés are a bit easier to hang one's hat onto. (I've yet to buy a sleek new sports car so, technically, I don't think I quite fit that cliché!)
I said to myself, I have things in my head that are not like what anyone has taught me – shapes and ideas so near to me – so natural to my way of being and thinking that it hasn't occurred to me to put them down. I decided to start anew, to strip away what I had been taught. — Georgia O'Keefe (American artist, 1887 - 1986)
About thirteen years ago, I began thinking a little bit more critically about art and life and the world, and I found some very odd thoughts passing through my head. While I've never read the entire Unibomber Manifesto, I felt I could empathize a bit with what I understood his issues to be (although let me be clear that I absolutely do not agree with his methods for resolving them). Our world has so become a slave to the economy that we have virtually lost touch with our humanity. While I was a supporter of President Clinton (for the most part), I have remained at odds with his "It's the economy, stupid!" campaign theme. This world — and particularly the United States government — no longer seems to base decisions on how they might affect communities but on how they might affect economies (and, subsequently, chances for re-election).
You see things; and you say, "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"— George Bernard Shaw (Irish playwright, 1856 - 1950) [from Back to Methuselah (1921), part 1, act 1]
This quote, of course, has often been attributed to Bobby Kennedy (he indeed used a slight variation of it), one of my personal heroes. I believe that a lot of what our country supposedly stands for died with him in 1968. In my opinion, he was the last politician that seemed to actually stand for something; that seemed to have the courage of his convictions. Seeing his son (Bobby, Jr.) speak a couple of years ago reminded me of that courage, that conviction as I saw the same spark in his eyes. Perhaps I've been blinded by the Kennedy "mystique"... I don't think so, however. While certainly every politician has a not-so-honourable side, I sincerely believe that both Bobby and John Kennedy understood the idea of public service; that their service in the government was purposeful; that the betterment of their country and the world was the aim of government — an aim that I believe is 180-degrees the opposite of that of the miserable failure and his band of crooks and liars.
Every English poet should master the rules of grammar before he attempts to bend or break them.— Robert Graves (English poet & novelist, 1895 - 1985)
I cringe at the treatment of the English language these days. Every noun, it seems, has turned into a verb; those whom you'd think would have an appreciation for the language (especially those that call themselves "journalists") are often the worst offenders. I get sick of hearing this crap about "living language" from those who don't seem to have a knowledge of it in the first place. I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but sometimes think really bad thoughts when I hear supposedly learned people saying such things as "from whence it came." !!! Really.... Don't get me started!
Calendars are for careful people, not passionate ones.— Chuck Sigars (The World According to Chuck weblog, September 8, 2003)
While I was in Paris last November, I missed my original flight home. Perhaps it's because I don't travel with a Blackberry, or a pocket calendar (like I once did), but I'm grateful for not being the most anal person on the planet. The extra nine days I spent in Paris due to my goof-up were amongst the best days I had while I was there. Hmmm... now I've got to tag somebody else! How about Rebekah, Leslie and Kathleen...

Friday, July 21, 2006

Fun

"The Pirate Song" by my favourite Beatle...

If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Ricky Teagues

Ricky Teagues
Ricky Teagues © Patrick T. Power
I waited at the corner of Fifth and Market Streets for the light to change when a man approached me from behind and stuck a Street Sheet newspaper in front of me and asked me for a dollar.

I told him I'd buy one if he let me take his photograph and he responded that he charged "five bucks for pictures." I chuckled and so began my conversation with Ricky Teagues, street poet.

We crossed the street and Ricky told me that he'd been living as a street poet for the past eleven years... I guess it's always difficult to know when people are giving me a line, but I went with it. He told me he'd been published in a number of papers and magazines, and then showed me a collection of his poems printed (copied, more likely) onto 8½" x 11" parchment stock and folded into quarter-sheets. Each "booklet" contained four poems and a couple of poorly rendered (printing-wise) illustrations.

As I looked at one of the booklets, Ricky began reciting one of his poems (coincidentally from the booklet I was looking at at the moment).

DWELLING WITHIN YOURSELF The center of love that you find in your mind, The peace of life that you have that leaves you to find yourself. Within to be or not To see yourself is to be in the right. From the id and to the superego To be the positive person you are and feeling is to be in the right. Delightful charm appears to open your mind full of light as the morning between the warm sun. To enter and fasten the embrace of the hair of the passing star. The smile that pleases a rainbow. © Ricky Teagues

I gave him another couple dollars for one of the booklets to give to my son, then another when I asked again to take his photograph. He asked to pose by the this light pole as, he said, he refers to it in one of his poems.

Dealing with street people is not something I'm particularly comfortable with... I don't know that there are many people who are, but as someone who tries to be compassionate toward the plight of others, it's not always easy – especially when it occurs on such a regular a basis as it did while I was in San Francisco.

On every occasion but this one, my response to panhandlers was, "I'm sorry"...

In this case, I felt more comfortable and willing giving a little cash (despite my not-so-wealthy standing) – not so much because I was getting something out of the transaction, but because Ricky seemed to me to be doing more than simply panhandling; that his life as a street poet created "value" for the world.

Perhaps that's a crass way of looking at things... perhaps it's insensitive... perhaps I'm a hypocrite. I don't know. Would it be any easier for me to give handouts if I were wealthy? That's hard to say as I've never been on that end of the spectrum either. I'd like to think I would be more generous with both my time and money as regards beggars, but there is a possibility that I'd have the tendency, still, to shy away.

A few days ago, I walked into downtown East Lansing with my son for lunch at a local deli. After withdrawing some cash from an ATM, we made our way towards our destination, and along the way, we passed a man carrying a plastic shopping bag and looking a bit haggard.

We were several paces in front of him when he called out to us, saying something about helping him find something to eat. I turned back and to my right and told him, "I'm sorry."

Zachary shot me a look that I couldn't decipher... one that I've not asked him about yet. I was overcome, however, with the feeling that I'd just let my son down, not to mention yet another human being.

If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Irony

Truth And Consequences
© Patrick T. Power
A recent letter to my home town paper ranted about the New York Times' decision to run a story about the Bush administration's activities with regards to monitoring banking transactions (purportedly in search of terrorists) — a program (SWIFT) which has hardly been keep a secret for the past several years.

I find it ironic that words such as "morally reprehensible" were used, especially when one stops to consider that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied — yes, knowingly and willingly lied — to the American people as a matter of precipitating war on a sovereign nation, and murdering — yes, murdering — over 2500 of our fine servicepeople and tens of thousands of Iraqis in the process.

I find it interesting, too, that -- during the whole Hurricane Katrina debacle -- not once did we see an indignant President Bush stand at a podium and rant about the less-than-stellar job his administration was doing in New Orleans and elsewhere. Not once! He offered only excuses and words of praise for "good job, Brownie." Not once did he show disgust over the fact that people were losing their homes (possibly permanently) or dying. Oh, but he did speak out against looting! That was courageous!

Yes... let's show our indignance about a newspaper finally getting around to doing its job and exposing this administration for what it truly is — the worst, most vile, cunning administration this country has ever seen. We the people of the United States of America are this administration's last concern.

In the words of my late father: Puh-thetic!



If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

EXPOSURE.Detroit


EXPOSURE.Detoit
EXPOSURE.Detroit © Patrick T. Power
I am pleased to say that I've been invited to be part of a group photo exhibit to take place in Detroit at Karras Bros. Tavern. The show, dubbed EXPOSURE.Detroit, is an offshoot of an idea of a group of photographers in Pittsburgh, brought home to Michigan by Detroit native Bobby Alcott.

Here are the details... if you're able to get to the reception Friday night, please come and say hello.

EXPOSURE: Detroit
Opening Reception
Friday, June 23 at 7:00pm
Karras Bros. Tavern
225 Joseph Campau
Detroit, Michigan

Karras Bros. Tavern website
Phone: 313-259-2767

Participating Photographers:
tEDgUY49 (Ted Fines)
kiddharma (Sam Mills)
Images Of Elbows (Ian Tadashi Moore)
Detrart (Chip Carroll)
O Caritas (Patrick Power)
Allan M (Allan Malchieski)
gsgeorge (Geoffrey George)
UrbanTiki (Bobby Alcott)


Exhibition runs until July 21st, to be followed by a solo exhibit by Bobby Alcott (UrbanTiki) beginning July 28.



If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Friday, June 16, 2006

3:19am


3:19am
3:19am © Patrick T. Power
I went out for a very late stroll last night (this morning, actually)... My son works the midnight to 6am shift at Beaner's, so I walked over to see him and hang out there for a little bit. I had a latte and a blueberry muffin and watched the scene there... probably twenty people or so were studying or making use of the wireless internet.

This was taken closer to where I live, on my way home... It's amazing how still and quiet East Lansing can be at that hour. Of course, there are considerably fewer students around during the summer and — I think — not as many of them live on the southwest side of campus.

This construction is at the intersection of Harrison Road and Shaw Lane and as I was taking the five to ten shots of this (all eight second or so exposures), not one car passed, and Harrison is a pretty busy street most hours of the day. I half-expected a police car to pull up and ask me what I was doing, but I didn't even see one of those!

At some point during the walk, I was thinking about my mortality (as one might) and as I am not a religious person, I thought, "If there is an afterlife, and I end up in hell with George W. Bush, I'm going to be really pissed off!"



If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Idle Chatter

Idle Chatter
I posted this at flickr a week or so ago and only now the thought hit me that this could be a metaphor for me and my brothers.

I'm the third of four and — depending upon how you look at it — either slightly askew or just a little different. I don't know how it is that I grew up to be so different from them, but I did.

If you were to ask me what the four of us have in common, I don't know that there would be much more than a handful of things I could cite. We all pretty much liked the same things as kids, but that surely changed in our post-high school years. They all like to say that I'm my mother's favourite, and perhaps I am. If indeed it's true, I wonder sometimes how that might have come to be. I don't think that I was really any different in the way I acted towards her as a kid than did my brothers. I didn't really excel as a student or anything. Might it have been that I was more productive in the Mothers Day cards and such than they were? Probably not.

I have also wondered many times about why I was the only one (that I can recall) to get piano lessons. Also, I was the only one to have received encouragement with my knack for drawing, having received a "How To Draw" kit which was based on a television show we would watch.

As for the piano lessons, my mother used to tell me that I could be the next Liberace. He was somewhat popular at the time (so that was her motive, I guess) and turning classical music on its ear a bit with his penchant for flamboyance, and the manner in which he injected a modern pop-ish edge to classical tunes. An ever-present candelabra was his signature, as were his gaudy diamond rings and sequined tuxedos.

Hah! You don't know how relieved I am now that that wish didn't happen to come true!

I dropped piano lessons after a couple of years as I had other things on my mind, I think. Baseball was still my activity of choice and I was beginning to notice girls with a bit more of an interested eye (distancing me further from the Liberace mold! Heh!) and while I liked my piano teacher, Pat Perlaky, a lot, I just didn't have the ambition to continue. I think that I performed one recital at Pat's home along with a couple other of her students. I don't recall much about it, except that it wasn't anything exceptional.

Back to the brothers...

For some reason, I took more to social causes (anti-war, pro-environment) during high school than my brothers did. Jim, the youngest, didn't really experience the angst about going to Vietnam, but the rest of us did. Bob, the oldest, joined the Air Force at some point. I Believe he enlisted. Thankfully, for whatever reasons, he never had to serve on active combat duty. His life then took turns that have pretty much been shrouded in mystery (for me) ever since. At any rate, Bob was the only one to serve in the military and actually face the possibility that he'd be sent into a war zone.

Mike also was of age with regard to the draft but lucked out. I recall watching one of the Selective Service's lotteries as it was broadcast on television, and his number (they used birthdates, if you're not familiar) never came up very high. Neither did mine, but by the time I was old enough to serve, Nixon had finally pulled the troops out. Mike tried to enlist, but Mom decided to get him braces for his teeth, thereby also getting him a deferment. Sneaky.

Considering that we're within three years of each other, and went to high school at about the same time (I was a freshman when he was a senior), it's beyond me how he never developed much of a social conscience. Many of his friends were peace activists to some degree, and environmental activists, but he didn't follow that path. Years later, when talking politics (he's a "Reagan Republican"), I posed the question (with regard to the environment), "Do you want your grandchildren and great-grandchildren living in such a polluted environment?" and he essentially dusted it off with, "What the hell do I care? I'll be dead." I suppose that's the typical libertarian response.

I never really knew Bob(by) that well growing up, to be honest. He's nine and a half years older than I am and I'm guessing that he left the house for the Air Force before I was even ten years old. I still recall a night which I recall him being around but we didn't really live in the same house for that long of a time. Oddly enough, I feel that I'm more like Bob in certain ways. He's always been a dreamer, I think... always having his sights set on something that would eventually be out of reach. And I think I have similar tendencies at times. I tend, however, to keep my dreams reined in a bit, closer to the vest and a little bit more within reach.

If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

Qui a marché ici ?

Qui a Marché Ici ?

In Paris, I try not to get too taken in by the "sights" despite their very obvious presence... While I create lots of panoramic images of the popular places, I tend to prefer the less populated spaces. Galerie 88 was one such place... it was a very narrow salon de thé along the Seine, not far from l'Hôtel De Ville.

Until I entered here, I'd not entered an eatery in which I didn't think I could rely on my english. On this trip, I was hoping to actually use some of the french I've been learning, and not rely entirely on the likelihood that the people to whom I'd speak knew english. It remains a daunting task for me as words don't quite roll from my tongue with the ease I'd prefer. The time it takes to put only a couple of words together in french seems like an eternity at times.

If I have one regret about my stay, it's that I didn't request of Phil that he only speak to me in french... it would have been hell, no doubt, but it would have forced me to use the language more than I did.

How did this stray to language? It was about small places!!

Ah, yes... I entered Galerie 88 wanting to see Anne McAulay's photographs and decided to sit and have a salad and a beer (two actually!). I expected that it would mean that I'd have to speak in french... as it turned out, I didn't have to speak much french as une salade grecque and une Carlsberg bière sound much the same in english as they do in french! Still, there is that whole approach/avoidance thing that occurs — that moment when we choose to take the safe route or choose to leap forth. This was one of those moments for me.

Besides, I really wanted to see Anne's photographs!

As for the title of this... it is a constant thought as I visit very old places — I wonder about those who have come before me. "Whose footprints have my feet just now retraced?" Famous or not, I wonder what kinds of lives have tread on these same floorboards or on the same cobblestone paths I've wandered. In a place like Paris, it's difficult to not feel something other than the stone or wood beneath my feet.

If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Ombre de la Liberté

Ombre de la Liberté
Ombre de la Liberté © Patrick T. Power
I tried to photograph something a little less tangible... something that was more in my mind than on Allée des Cygnes. "Getting it right" just doesn't seem to be an issue with my country's current administration or with most of the people that supposedly represent us (or our best interests) in the "hallowed halls" of Congress. We no longer have leaders here — at least none that seem to truly be leading this country. Lots of words spew forth from Washington, D.C. about patriotism and freedom, but actions — as we all know — tend to speak louder than words, and the actions that my government has been taking over the last five to six years have nothing to do with making this country a great nation. We continue to drive ourselves inward (as a country), like brat children that sneer through fences which protect all that they own. And now, "we" are considering sending the National Guard to the Mexican border! A couple of verses from a Jackson Browne song of a few years ago just came to mind...
They call him by "the Prince of Peace" And they call him by "the Savior" And they pray to him upon the seas And in every bold endeavor And they fill his churches with their pride and gold While their faith in him increases But they've turned the nature that I worship in From a temple to a robber's den In the words of the rebel Jesus We guard our world with locks and guns And we guard our fine possessions And once a year when Christmas comes We give to our relations And perhaps we give a little to the poor If the generosity should seize us But if any one of us should interfere In the business of why there are poor They get the same as the rebel Jesus from — The Rebel Jesus

If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The Decemberists

I have fallen in love!

For a solid couple of weeks, virtually the only music I have listened to is that of The Decemberists, a group from the Portland, Oregon area.

I discovered them via last.fm, an online music community that has a downloadable radio that plays music based on a person's listening habits, which the site determines via the use of a plug-in for iTunes (or whatever player you might use). It creates a database based on what you've listened to in the past, then plays music it "thinks" you'd like.

Well... the more I listened to the last.fm radio, the more I heard The Decemberists, and the more I heard them, the more I liked them. I have since collected everything they've relased, as well as a two-CD re-release of the band's writer and lead singer Colin Meloy's college band — Tarkio.

NPR has a couple of concerts online — one of The Decemberists and a solo show by Meloy

Meloy is one of the most literate writers I've come across in a long time and his songs are often based on literature (he was an English major back in Missoula, Montana), and many of his songs have a very traditional feel to them. One of my favourites is "We Both Go Down Together"...

We Both Go Down Together

by Colin Meloy

Here on these cliffs of Dover
so high you can't see over
and while your head is spinning
hold tight it's just beginning

you come from parents' wanton
a childhood rough and rotten
I come from wealth and beauty
untouched by work or duty

and oh, my love, my love.
and oh, my love, my love.
We both go down together.

I found you, a tattooed tramp
A dirty daughter from the labor camps
I laid you down in the grass of the clearing
You wept, but your soul was willing

and oh, my love. my love.
and oh, my love. my love.
We both go down together.

And my parents will never consent to this love
But I hold your hand

Meet me on my vast veranda
My sweet untouched Miranda
and while the seagulls are crying
we fall but our souls are flying

and oh, my love. my love.
and oh, my love. my love.
and oh, my love. my love.
and oh, my love. my love.
We both go down together.


Oh, and there is no truth to the rumour that I only like them because my birthday is in December!


If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Radio Silence

Yes, I've fallen into a period of radio silence... I like solitude a lot and I go through spells of wanting to keep to myself as much as possible. I turn off the phone. I don't answer email. I don't make calls.

Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes I feel like I've allowed myself to get too stretched in directions and in ways I'd rather not be stretched.

I'm also going through a period of discovery; a time of wondering about most things. Perhaps it's got something to do with mid-life. Perhaps it's got something to do with having children that need me less and less. Whatever it is, I'm giving in to it. Or perhaps I'm throwing myself into it.

I'm learning French. It's an incredibly difficult language, and I'm wishing I were only a year or two old so that learning it would come a bit more naturally. After a lifetime (well, let's optimistically call it a "half-a-lifetime!) of building a pretty good vocabulary, I'm back at the beginning — learning nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, learning feminine vs. masculine nouns, le vs. la, vous vs. tu... Forever, I have wondered why vis a vis is pronounced veez-ah-vee and not veez-ah-veez. Now, I understand. So, if i learn nothing else, I've at least learned that.

I leave for Paris in another week. I'll only be staying a week this time, but I'm scheduled to go back again in November — in time to celebrate my 51st birthday. There is something very special about the city that I can't explain with words. Maybe that's why I took so many pictures while I was there last November.

I want very much to move there. Very much.

Oh, and I think I'm going to go to San Francisco before the end of July, too! The world keep spinning and I've got to try to keep up!


If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Running On Empty

I don't spend as much time reading blogs these days, although I still try to at least visit a few of my friends' sites. I also still check in at the DailyKos to see if any new attempts to dislodge the miserable failure from our windpipes have begun to take shape. Alas...

This morning, however, I came across a post to which I had to respond as my memories of a night in 1978 remain fairly clear to me still.

First, I'll note that I first learned of Jackson Browne as I perused records in a K-Mart in Oregon, Ohio back in the early 1970s. I saw his first record (in LP form, of course) and liked the imaginative cover — the wine flask design with his graphically-rendered face — and I picked it up, looked at it and saw that Graham Nash and David Crosby (amongst a few other names I recognized) had contributed to the recording. I almost bought it without having heard a note or a word (I've been pretty lucky at buying music that way over the years) but didn't.

Shortly after that, on my way home from (high) school, "Doctor My Eyes" played on the radio (is there a chance that that song would be played on commercial radio in this day and age?) and the deal was cinched. From that day forth, Browne became one of my most favourite writers and singers, and surely has influenced my own songwriting. I've only seen him three or four times in concert, but all have been gratifying shows.

While in college in Bowling Green (Ohio), I saw him during the tour that promoted his Running On Emptyalbum, and after the show, a bunch of us (my then-girlfriend Robin Wilson, Scott Hilyard, Ed Nolan and a few others) decided to go look for him at the nearby Holiday Inn. We hustled into the lounge and waited a bit, hoping he'd simply saunter in and make our night, but he didn't. However, Karla Bonoff, the opening act, did happen in. I was a journalism major at the time and I had a story due for class, so I took the chance and walked over to her table.

I introduced myself and asked her and (I assumed) her manager if I could ask her a few questions for the article I needed to write. She was polite as I recall, but her manager was a bit on the snotty side and brushed me off and away rather brusquely.

We then went skulking around the motel looking for signs of Jackson, never finding him. We did run into his piano player Craig Doerge, however, whose door was wide open to the outside, so we chatted with him briefly.

I still have the t-shirt I bought that evening! Actually, my son has absconded with it, and he wears it often and I smile.


If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Night Sounds

I live very near train tracks. It seems as though a train rumbles by just about every twenty minutes or so, and I take great comfort in hearing them.

I grew up along the banks of the Maumee River in Toledo (on the East Side) and trains regularly rolled along Miami Street as well as down closer to the river. In the summer nights, with the windows open and the curtains lifted into the air by the draw of the fan in my parents' room, I was often awakened by the trains as they followed the river's bend.

Tugboats would also belch their sounds into the deep, dark dead of night as they steered ocean and lake freighters to (or from) their moorings along the riverfront.

I can't help but recall those nights so very, very long ago with every train whistle that sounds, or with the rythmic thump-thump, thump-thump, thump-thump of train wheels passing over a joint in the rails.

There is something about trains, something about rivers that will forever keep days of my youth close to me.




If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Saturday, March 25, 2006

To Kill A Mockingbird

I have begun to read this classic book for the first time.

I know... unbelievable!

My plan was to finish it by the end of this weekend, but I went to a film this afternoon — En Sång fõr Martin (A Song For Martin) — and I'll be going to a couple more tomorrow at the East Lansing Film Festival. En Sång fõr Martin deals with Alzheimer's Disease and its effect on a relationship between the victim and his wife. Powerful stuff.

I've been spending completely too much time online and I'm trying to temper that somewhat — not an easy thing to do when most of what I do every day involves the computer.

I will be spending a great deal of time rehearsing for next Friday's opening act gig at the Ten Pound Fiddle, so I don't know if I'll get the book done by then, but if I'm at all serious about cutting back this online time, well...

Addictions!



If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Interview


I got on the bus Thursday night to attend the Danú concert at Lansing Community College. I had just missed an earlier bus, so I had to wait fifteen minutes for another...

Upon getting on and sitting down in the first available seat, I was greeted with a pretty direct look by a man across from me who looked familiar to me for some reason. So, I said hello to him.

The first words out of his mouth were, "What year were you born?"

Somewhat taken aback, I paused a moment and said, "'55."

"I was born in 1952," he said, then added, "I don't look that old, though."

"You're right," I agreed, "you don't!"

"Where do you get your haircut?" he asked.

"Oh, diferent places," I told him. "Up the street here at Paradise Salon, or in Frandor (Shopping Center), or..."

"How much?" he queried further.

"Too much!" I answered.

"Two bucks? Only two bucks?!?"

"No, no, no," I chuckled... "Too MUCH!!"

He then asked me my name and repeated it a couple of times to make sure he heard it right, "Powers? It's Powers?"

"Yeah," I nodded, deciding not to correct him about the s he'd added.

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

I'm often very ill-at-ease when confronted with this kind of situation. I consider myself to be a pretty open, friendly person with people I've never met before, but I think that I tend to be quite cautious in public places — more observant of the people around me than interactive.

This night, however, the bus I got on had three riders that were all quite willing to interact with strangers at the drop of a hat.

When I first got on the bus (and for a good mile of the journey down Michigan Avenue), a guy was standing at the front yellow line chatting away with the driver at the top of his voice about something that seemed quite mundane to me. He did most (if not all) of the talking... I couldn't see if she was even nodding responses to him.

Another fellow got on at some point and sat to the left of the young woman who was sitting to my left... I overheard him talking to her about her fake fingernails amongst other things that no doubt left her a bit squeamish.

I love public transportation... I wish more people would use it. I wish more people would see the value in these experiences, regardless of how uncomfortable we might feel while in the midst of them. I think that this automobile-driven (pardon the pun) world has so reduced our collective ability to socialize.



If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Chomsky

Going through some old email, I came across one I sent as a response to a spam email I'd received that was one of those "if you're not with us, you're against us" drivelly jingoistic spews that I suppose have some kind of good intention (I think too many people confuse nationalism for patriotism!)...

In any event...

One of my pet peeves is how people seem to not think for themselves. So much of our populace seems to have their political intellect shaped, not by careful consideration of facts and opinions, but by bumper-stickers and one-liners by politically-motivated media types like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

No doubt more people were more concerned with the status of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck's spectacle/debacle than how the Bush administration is bamboozling the American public. A "flim-flam", my father would have called it.

Do you realize that while Bush's reasoning (at the heart) for getting into war with Iraq was the "security" of the United States, he hasn't asked for $87 billion to be put towards improving the security systems at our nation's airports? Don't you think that much money would make our airports considerably safer than what they are now?

While reading this interview of Noam Chomsky (below -- published in the October issue of The Sun), I was interested in a statement that "I'm really not interested in persuading people. What I like to do is help people persuade themselves."

So, that's what I'm trying to do here . . . trying to help you to persuade yourselves. My goal is to get you to actually think about this disgusting mess the current administration has gotten us into.

I awakened this morning to more pathetic news . . . that the Bush administration has apparently leaked information that has, in effect, bared the indentity of a CIA operative whose husband (former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson) was an outspoken critic of the intelligence the White House had used as its basis for attacking Iraq.

This is quite the twist of irony, of course, as Bush's father (a former CIA director) said in 1999 that those who expose the names of intelligence sources are "the most insidious of traitors."

LANGUAGE OF MASS DECEPTION:

NOAM CHOMKSY ON HOW THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS PUBLIC OPINION



by David Barsamian

NOAM CHOMSKY seems to lead a double life. As a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he practically invented the field of modern linguistics, but outside the academy he's drawn more attention as a trenchant critic of U.S. foreign policy and the media.

At seventy-four, Chomsky is "one of the radical heroes of our age," according to the Guardian. His activism spans five decades, and the Village Voice compares him to "a medic attempting to cure a national epidemic ofselectiveamnesia.'7he mainstream U.S. media studiously ignore him, but he is frequently quoted in the international press, making him better-known abroad than he is at home.

Though not a particularly arresting or charismatic orator, Chomsky invariably attracts overflow audiences from New YorkCity to New Delhi. His speaking engagements are booked years in advance. At the January 2003 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, some twenty thousand activists, workers, and trade unionists packed a stadium to hear him. Six months later, I saw him lead seminars for small groups of students
at the Z Media Institute in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 7he number of attendees did not affect his delivery: he is always patient and composed, with a dry sense of humor that often goes unnoticed amid the torrent of facts.

My relationship with Chomsky began more than twenty years ago when, after reading one of his books, I wrote him a letter. I was surprised to get a reply. Letter followed letter, and a friendship developed. Since 1984 I have been interviewing Chomsky as part of my Alternative Radio program. A series of books we have done together have sold many thousands of copies, despite having almost no promotion. Our latest is
Propaganda and the Public Mind (South End Press).

Chomsky has written scores of books himself, and, according to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, he is among the ten most cited authors, living or dead, right behind Plato and Freud. His most recent titles are Middle East Illusions (Rowman & Littlefield) and Power and Terror (Seven Stories Press). His book 9-11 (Seven Stories Press) spent seven weeks on the New York Times extended bestseller list. 7he hardcover Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Domination is due out in November 2004from Metropolitan Books.

People often ask me, "What's Chomsky like?" I've always found the Philadelphia native to be straight forward, soft-spoken, and unpretentious. 7here is no power trip or air of superiority. His approach is best summed up by something he once said to me: "I'm really not interested in persuading people. What I like to do is help people persuade themselves."

I caught up with Chomsky last April 5, in Boulder, Colorado, where he was helping celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of KGNU community radio. We conducted the following interview a few hours before his sold-out talk that evening Ever generous with his time, he was bound for L.A. the next morning to do another benefit. As we spoke, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was underway, and coalition forces were pushing toward Baghdad. I attempted to bring together Chomsky the linguistics professor and Chomsky the media critic by asking him about language used by the government and subsequently adopted by the media, to influence public opinion during the war.

Barsamian: What sort of propaganda is at work today with Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Chomsky: In this morning's New York Times there's an interesting article about Karl Rove, the president's manager - his "minder" is what they would call it in Iraq - the one who teaches him what to say and do in order to look good and get reelected. Rove is not directly involved in planning the war - but then, neither is Bush. That's in the hands of other people. Rove says his goal is to present the president as a powerful wartime leader so that the Republicans can push through their domestic agenda, which means tax cuts for the rich and other programs designed to benefit an extremely small, highly privileged sector of the population. (Rove says it's to benefit the economy.)

More significant than that - and this part is not outlined in the article - is the attempt to destroy social support systems like schools and Social Security and anything based on the concept that people must have some concern for one another. That idea has to be driven out of people's minds: that you should have sympathy and solidarity; that you should care whether the disabled widow across town is able to eat. The problem with things like schools or Social Security is that they are based on natural human concern for others. Driving such thoughts from people's minds is a large part of the Republican domestic agenda. The best strategy for this is to produce citizens who are focused solely on maximizing their own consumption and have no concern for anyone else.

Since people aren't going to accept total self-interest at face value, however, the way to achieve it - and this is stated explicitly in the Times article - is to make people afraid. If people are frightened, if they think that their security is threatened, they will suppress their own concerns and interests and gravitate toward strong leaders. They will trust the Republicans to protect them from outside enemies. Meanwhile the Republicans will drive through their domestic agenda, maybe even institutionalize it, so that it will be very hard to take apart. And they will do this by presenting the president as a powerful wartime leader overcoming an awesome foe. In reality, of course, Iraq is chosen precisely because it is not awesome and can be easily crushed.

This strategy is laid out pretty overtly in today's Times - not in precisely the same words I just used, but the message is very clear. And it's aimed at the next presidential election. That's a large part of this war.

Barsamian: Clearly, on the subject of the Iraq war, there is a huge gap between U.S. public opinion and opinion in the rest of the world. Do you attribute that to propaganda?

Chomsky: No question about it. The public-relations campaign against Iraq took off last September. This is so obvious it's even been discussed in mainstream publications. For example, Martin Sieff, the chief political analyst for United Press International, wrote a long article describing how it was done.

In September 2002, which happened to be the opening of the midterm Congressional election, the wartime drumbeat began. And it had a couple of constant themes. One is that Iraq is an imminent threat to the security of the United States: we have to stop them now, or they're going to destroy us tomorr6w. The second is that Iraq was behind September ii. Nobody said this straight out, but it was clearly insinuated. The third lie is that Iraq is going to arm terrorists who are planning new atrocities, so, again, we've got to stop them now.

The polls reflected the propaganda very directly. Immediately after September 11, 2001, only 3 percent of the population thought that Iraq had been involved. Since September 11, 2002, that number has grown to roughly 6o percent. More than half the U.S. population believes that Iraq was responsible for September 11, that Iraqis were on the planes, and that Iraq is planning new attacks. No one else in the world
believes any of this.

When Congress authorized the president to use force in October, it said that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. Yet no other country regards Iraq as a threat. Even Kuwait and Iran, both of which have been invaded by Iraq, don't regard Iraq as a threat to their security. As a result of the UN sanctions, which have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - probably two-thirds of the population is on the edge of starvation - Iraq has the weakest economy and the weakest military force in the region. Its military expenditures are about one-third those of Kuwait, which has one-tenth of Iraq's population. And, of course, the real superpower in the region is that offshore U.S. military base known as Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons and massive armed forces.

After the U.S. takes over, it's very likely that Iraq will increase its military spending and maybe even develop weapons of mass destruction just to counterbalance other states of the region, particularly Iran. This administration will support the buildup, just as the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration supported Saddam Hussein's military programs, including weapons of mass destruction, right up to the day of his invasion of Kuwait. But the other countries in the Middle East weren't afraid of Iraq. They hated Saddam Hussein, but they weren't afraid of him. For the past five years, in fact, they've been trying hard, over strong U.S. objections, to reintegrate Iraq back into their own system. Only in the United States is there fear of Iraq. And you can trace the growth of this fear to propaganda.

Barsamian: It's interesting that the United States is so susceptible to fear.

Chomsky: Whatever the reasons are for it, the United States happens to be a very frightened country, comparatively speaking. Fears of almost everything - crime, aliens, you name it - are off the chart. And the people in Washington know this very well. They are, for the most part, the same people who ran the country during the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration. And they're reusing the script: pursuing regressive domestic programs and staying in power by pushing the panic button every year. If you do this in the United States, it's not hard to succeed.

Barsamian: What is it about our culture that makes Americans susceptible to propaganda?

Chomsky: I didn't say we're more susceptible to propaganda; we're more susceptible to fear. We're a frightened country. Frankly, I don't understand the reasons for this.

Barsamian: So if the fear is there, then propaganda becomes easier to implement.

Chomsky: Certain kinds of propaganda become much easier to implement., When my kids were in school forty years ago, they were taught to hide under their desks to protect themselves from atomic bombs, At that time, President Kennedy was trying to organize the hemisphere to support his terrorist attacks against Cuba. The U.S. is very influential in this hemisphere, and most countries just went along, but Mexico refused. The Mexican ambassador said, "If I try to tell people in Mexico that Cuba is a threat to our security, 40 million Mexicans will die laughing."

People in the United States didn't die laughing. They were - and are - afraid of everything. Take crime. Our crime rate isn't that much higher than any other industrial society. Yet fear of crime is much greater here than in other countries. Even nonsensical fears, like alien abduction, are higher. If you go to Europe and ask people, "Are there aliens among us?" they'll laugh. Here, probably half the population will say yes.

Barsamian: Don't you think the media contribute to that with TV crime shows and movies?

Chomsky: Probably, but there is also a background fear that the media exploit, and it goes pretty far back. It probably has to do with conquest of the continent, where the colonists had to exterminate the native population; and with slavery, where Americans had to control an oppressed people that threatened, if only by their existence, to turn on their masters. And it may just be a result of the enormous security we enjoy. The United States controls the hemisphere. It controls both oceans. It cannot be seriously threatened. The last time the U.S. was threatened was during the War of 1812. Since then, it has just conquered others. And somehow this incredible security engenders a fear that somebody is going to come after us.

Barsamian: On Thursday, March 6, President Bush gave a prime-time press conference, his first in a year and a half It was actually a scripted press conference. He knew in advance whom he was going to call on. A study of the transcript reveals Bush repeating certain words and phrases: "Iraq"; "Saddam Hussein"; "increasing threat" or "deep threat"; "weapons of mass destruction"; "9/11"; "terrorism." On the following Monday, there was a sharp spike in public-opinion polls: a majority of Americans now believed that Iraq was connected to 9/11.

Chomsky: You're right about the spike in the Polls, but the change began back in September, when the poll results first indicated widespread belief in Iraqi participation in 9/11. That belief has to be continually reinforced, however, or it will drop off. These claims are so outlandish that it's hard to make people believe them unless you keep driving your point home.

You're right, too, that these press conferences are carefully programmed events, like television ads. The public-relations industry has plenty of experience in this. President Reagan was carefully programmed. Everyone knew that if he got off his note cards, he was going to say something insane. He was a media creation.

This administration has a collection of highly crafted media figures. George W. Bush is crafted to be a simple, honest, religious, straight-talking man who's got gut instincts and a deep sense of morality. Colin Powell is made out to be the moderate multi-lateralist, committed to diplomacy, so that when he stands up and says, "We have to go to war," people will think it must be true. There is not a particle of evidence for Powell's vaunted reputation, by the way. His record is horrendous.

But fear is the primary propaganda tool. Take a look at the 1988 presidential campaign. How did George H.W. Bush get elected? The Willie Horton ad campaign. Willie Horton was a convicted murderer serving time in a Massachusetts state prison when Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was governor. While out on a furlough, Horton, an African American, raped a white woman. The message of the Bush campaign ads was clear: If Dukakis is elected, an African American criminal is going to come and rape your daughter. They didn't say it in those words, but it was insinuated. And it shifted public attitudes about Dukakis.

Actually, one of the most spectacular cases of propaganda occurred in September 1989. Throughout the ig8os, the drug war had been in the news, but in September 1989, the first President Bush intensified his Hispanic-narco-traffickers-are-going- to-destroy-us rhetoric. Before that, drug trafficking hadn't ranked high among people's concerns. By the end of the month, it was the public's top concern. Media coverage of the drug threat was greater than the coverage of all international affairs put together. That campaign was a buildup to the invasion of Panama, which occurred in December of that year.

Barsamian: How long has this sort of propaganda been in use?

Chomsky: The practice of using language and information to shape attitudes and opinions and promote conformity and subordination is as old as history, but it didn't become an organized industry until the last century. And, contrary to what one might expect, this industry was created in the more democratic societies.

The first coordinated propaganda ministry, called the Ministry of Information, began in Britain during the First World War. It had the task, as the British government put it, of "controlling the mind of the world." And it was particularly concerned with the minds of Americans. The British thought if they could convince American intellectuals of the nobility of the war effort, then those intellectuals could stir the remaining population of the United States - which didn't want to have anything to do with European wars, and rightly so - into a fit of anti-German fanaticism and hysteria. This would convince the U.S. to join the war, which was the ultimate goal, because Britain needed U.S. backing.

So Britain's Ministry of Information aimed its efforts primarily at American opinion leaders. And it succeeded, especially with liberals of the John Dewey circle, who organized a propaganda campaign that, within a few months, turned a relatively pacifistic population into fanatics who wanted to destroy everything German. It got so the Boston Symphony Orchestra couldn't play Bach. These liberal intellectuals actually took pride in the fact that, for the first time, wartime fanaticism was created not by military leaders and politicians, but by the more responsible, serious members of the community - namely, them.

President Woodrow Wilson - who had won the election on the slogan "Peace without victory" - reacted by setting up the first US. state-propaganda agency, called the Committee orf Public Information. The members of Wilson's propaganda agency included Edward Bernays, who later became the guru of the public-relations industry, and Walter Lippmann, a respected media figure and leading public intellectual of the day. And these men learned from that wartime experience that they could control the public mind by controlling attitudes and opinions. As Lippmann put it, we can "manufacture consent" by the means of propaganda. Bernays said, "The more intelligent members of the community" can drive the population to do whatever they want by way of what he called "engineering of consent." Both of them believed this to be the essence of democracy.

The public-relations industry had existed before World War 1, but it was very small. It's interesting to look back at the thinking in the 1920s, when public relations really got started. This was the period of Taylorism in business; workers were being trained to act like robots: "Move to the left here," and so on. By turning human beings into automatons, Taylorism created highly efficient industry. The Bolsheviks were very impressed with this and tried to duplicate it throughout the Soviet Union.

The thought-control experts soon realized that you could have notonly "on-job control" but also "off-job control." Off-job control means turning people into robots in every aspect of their lives by inducing a philosophy of futility and focusing their attention on the superficial aspects of life, such as fashionable consumption. Basically, it got the masses out of the way so that those who were supposed to run the show could do it without any interference. And from that came enormous industries, from advertising to universities, all consciously committed to the concept that the elite must control attitudes and opinions, and the people have no business in the public arena.

Barsamian: Which flies in the face of democratic principles.

Chomsky: Actually, they had good constitutional support for that position. This country was founded on the Madisonian principle that the people are just too dangerous to wield power: power has to be in the hands of what Nfladison called "the wealth of the nation" - those who respect property and its rights and want to protect the rich minority from the working majority. In order to do this, the majority has to be fragmented somehow.

Barsamian: Why did public-relations propaganda flourish in democratic societies?

Chomsky: Because governments there couldn't rely on force to control the population. If you can't control people by force, it becomes necessary to control attitudes and opinions. The public-relations industry was later imitated - with varying degrees of success - in Germany and Bolshevik Russia and South Africa and elsewhere. But these attempts were always based quite explicitly on the American model.

In 1933 a progressive Wilsonian named Harold Lasswell - one of the founders of modern political science - wrote an article called "Propaganda." (People used the term freely then, before it picked up negative connotations from the Nazis.) In his article, which was published in the Encyclopedia of social Sciences, Lasswell said we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests." And since people are too ignorant to understand their best interests, his reasoning goes, great humanitarians like Lasswell must marginalize and control them. And the best means for doing this is propaganda. Propaganda, Lasswell said, is just a tool, as neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good or for evil. And since he and his associates were noble, wonderful people, they'd use it for good - to ensure that the ignorant masses remained marginalized and separated from any decision-making. This is not the right wing that I'm talking about; these are the liberal, "Progressive" intellectuals.

The Leninist doctrines are approximately the same: the "right" people would be in control, because they know what's best for everyone. The Nazis also picked up this philosophy. If you read Mein Kampf, Hitler was very impressed with Anglo-American propaganda. "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one," he wrote. And, "By shrewd and constant application of propaganda, heaven can be presented to the people as hell," and vice versa. He argued, and not without reason, that propaganda was what had won the First World War, and he vowed that the next time around the Germans would be ready. They developed their own propaganda systems modeled on the democracies' ' The Russians tried it, too, but theirs was too crude to be effective. Always at the forefront was the United States, because of course the more free and democratic the society, the more important it is to control attitudes and opinions.

State-run propaganda continued in the U.S. right up to the 1980s. The Reagan administration had what it called an Office of Public Diplomacy. But by that time, the public was no longer willing to accept state-run propaganda agencies, so the Office of Public Diplomacy was declared illegal, and the propagandists had to operate in roundabout ways. What took its place were private corporate systems, which don't take orders from the government but are closely linked to it, of course. And that's our contemporary system. We don't even have to speculate much about what these companies are doing, because they're kind enough to tell is in industry publications and the academic literature.

Barsamian: One of the new lexical constructions of the currently an ABC correspondent in Iraq, but they almost never use him. In his article, he points out that the United States must be the only country in the world that would call someone a terrorist for defending his or her own country from attack.

Glass is sitting there in Iraq, watching this with wonder. In fact, anybody who is even a little displaced from the United States and its system of indoctrination has to observe this situation with wonder, if not enormous fear and hatred of the United States.

Barsamian: The U.S. attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 generated some interesting terms. One was "unlawful combatant."

Chomsky: Prior to World War II, there were few laws of war, but this changed under the Geneva Convention, which was established in the postwar period to outlaw the crimes of the Nazis. Prisoners of war were granted special status by the convention, among other things. The Bush administration, with the cooperation of the media and the courts, is going back to the pre-World War II period, when there was no
international law dealing with war crimes. The Bush administration is not only carrying out an aggressive war; it's classifying the people it bombs or captures as some new category of combatant that isn't entitled to the rights granted by the Geneva Convention.

In fact, the administration has gone well beyond that. It has now claimed the right to arrest American citizens and place them in confinement indefinitely without access to families or lawyers, and with no charges made against them. Presumably, these "suspects" will remain imprisoned until the president decides that the war on terror, or whatever he wants to call it, is over. What's going on is a gross violation of the most elementary principles of international humanitarian law. It's unheard of in an industrialized nation, and yet it's been, to some extent, accepted by the courts.

In fact, a new act, sometimes called PATRIOT Act 2, is being kicked around inside the Justice Department. So far, it's not been ratified, but there have been a couple of articles about it in the press by law professors and others. It's astonishing. The government is claiming the right to remove citizenship, the most fundamental right, if the attorney general "infers" - they don't even have to have evidence - that a person is somehow involved in actions that might be harmful to the United States. You have to go to totalitarian states to find anything like this.

Look at Winston Churchill. Right in the middle of the Second World War he condemned the use of executive power to imprison people without charge as the most odious of crimes. And Britain was in rather desperate straits at the time, not like the United States today. There is a bust of Churchill looking at George Bush every day in the White House, but the president might pay better attention to Churchill's words.

Barsamian: What do you make of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's saying on Nightline that the attack on Iraq 'is not an invasion"?

Chomsky: Tony Blair is a good propaganda agent for the United States: he's articulate, his sentences flow together, and people apparently like the way he looks. He's following a position that Britain has self-consciously taken since the end of the Second World War. During that war, Britain realized that it was not going to be the dominant world power any longer. The U.S. was. And Britain had to make
a choice: would it be just another country, or would it be a junior partner of the United States? It accepted the role of junior partner, and that's what it's been ever since. It brings to the table centuries of experience brutalizing and murdering foreign peoples.

Barsamian: The British occupied Iraq in the early 1920s.

Chomsky: When Britain ran the region, it did just what the U.S. is doing now: it undermined international conventions banning the use of air power against civilians. British Prime Minister Lloyd George's comment was blunt: he said we have to "reserve the right to bomb niggers." It's the same now, because moral principles like that are lasting; they don't change.

Barsamian: At the talks you give, you're often asked, 'What should I do?' We heard this question just last night in Denver, for example.

Chomsky. You hear it a lot from American audiences, but you never hear it in the Third World. When I go to Turkey or Colombia or Brazil, they don't ask me, "What should I do?" They tell me what they're doing. When I went to Porto Alegre, Brazil, the first thing I did was go to a Via Campesina (International Peasant Union) meeting at a Landless Workers Movement farm. These are poor, oppressed people living under horrendous conditions, yet they would never dream of asking me what to do. They know what to do, and they do it. It's only highly privileged people who ask, "What should I do?"

We have every option open to us. We can do anything. But we're trained to look for a quick and easy solution that will let us go back to our ordinary lives, and it doesn't work that way. If you want to do something, you're going to have to be dedicated and committed. You have to keep at it, day after day. We all know what needs to be done: it's educational programs; it's organizing; it's activism. That's the way things change. You want a magic fix that will enable you to go back to watching television tomorrow? It's not there.

Barsamian: You were an active and early opponent to US. intervention in Indochina in the 196os. How has dissent changed since then in the United States?

Chomsky: Actually, another article in the New York Times today offers an interesting perspective on that. The article says that professors are the antiwar activists today, whereas the students used to be the primary antiwar activists. That's a common misconception about the sixties. It's true that, by 1970, as the article states, students were active antiwar protesters. But that was after eight years of a U.S. war in South Vietnam. In the early years of the war, from 1962 on, U.S. planes were bombing South Vietnam, the use of napalm was authorized, chemical weapons were used to destroy food crops, and U. S.-sponsored programs drove millions of people into "strategic hamlets" - essentially concentration camps. All of this was public. Yet there was little or no protest. It was impossible to get anybody to talk about it. Even in a liberal city like Boston, you couldn't hold a public meeting against the war because it would be broken up - by students. You needed hundreds of state police around to allow the speakers - most of them professors like me - to escape unscathed. The student antiwar protests came after years and years of war. By then, hundreds of thousands of people had been killed, much of Vietnam had been destroyed, and the war had spread to all of Indochina.

I'm sure the Times reporter is only saying what she was taught: that there was a huge, spontaneous, student-led antiwar movement. All of the early history of protest has been wiped out, because it tells the truth: that years and years of hard work by many people finally ended up building a protest movement. But the New York Times can't report that, because you can't learn that dedicated, committed effort can bring about significant changes. That's a very dangerous thought to allow people to have. What we hear about is the tail end of the movement, after all the real work was done. And we say, "How come it's not like that now, with this war?"

Barsamian: How does one distinguish propaganda from news, and what are some techniques of resisting it?

Chomsky: There are no techniques, just ordinary common sense. If you hear that Iraq is a threat to our existence, but its closest neighbor Kuwait doesn't regard it as a threat, nor does anybody else in the world, you should ask, 'OK, where is the evidence?" As soon as you ask this, the story collapses.

You have to be critical of whatever is presented to you in any media. Of course, the whole media system and the educational system are designed to drive critical thoughts from your mind. You're taught to be a passive, obedient follower. And unless you can break out of those habits, you'll be a victim of propaganda. But it's not that hard to break out.

In 1985, President Reagan declared a national emergency because of the threat posed to the U.S. by the government of Nicaragua, which, he pointed out, was two days' drive from Harlingen, Texas. If you listened to Reagan, Nicaragua was poised to take over the hemisphere. That National Emergency 'Declaration of 1985, which was a means of building support for the U.S.'s covert war in Nicaragua, was a model for the Congressional declaration of 2002. The wording is almost the same. Just replace "Nicaragua" with "Iraq."

How much critical thinking does it take to determine that Nicaragua is no threat to the United States? Again, people outside the U.S. just look at this in wonder. Throughout the 1980s, the tourist industry in Europe collapsed every few years because Americans would read news stories that made them afraid to go to Europe. They thought there would be some Arab there who would try to kill them. Europeans don't know what to make of this. How can a country be so frightened of something that is completely nonexistent?

Barsamian: That's happening again right now.

Chomsky: Yes, but to break out of this, we simply need to use our ordinary intelligence. Just examine what's presented to you with common sense and skepticism. Read the newspaper the same way you would read Iraqi propaganda. How do you decide that the minister of information in Iraq isn't to be trusted? Look at your own government the same way.





If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.

Tour Eiffel Avec Feuilles et Papier

From my first trip to Eiffel...

For a half-hour or so, I sat on a bench not too bar from here, perusing my travel guide, watching a couple making out an a bench across from me, and hoping that the kids who were kicking a soccer ball (in a play area behind me) didn't use my head as a goalie! I was still fairly exhausted from the flight in and nodded off on several occasions.

I got up and headed towards this green area — Parc du Champ-de-Mars — to begin considering how I would photograph the tower. I happened upon a man and a woman — he was struggling with his camera, trying to set it up on a small post in order to take their picture in front of Eiffel, so, I offered to help. They spoke Spanish, so I assumed that they were from Spain, although I didn't ask. I went to bended knee with the camera as low to the ground as I could get it (and still see the LCD panel) and took a couple of frames for them. I didn't realize until afterwards, of course, that the ground was a bit soggy. It left a lovely wet spot on the knee of my jeans.

Aaaarrrggghhh!

But onward I pressed... looking for "my shot" of the tower. I had made the very conscious decision earlier that my first shot of the tower was not going to be typical (and it wasn't). But at this point, I had to let the tourist in me take over a bit. After all, I'd come to Paris with the idea that I'd take loads of photographs... it wasn't going to kill me to be typical for a few minutes. Right? Naturally, it occurred to me to do a panoramic image, and as has been my custom of late, I shot from a very low angle, mingling with the leaves a bit.

It's not a great shot, and surely nothing that hasn't been done already, but I am posting this more as a reminder to myself to use my eyes just a little bit more as I look through the camera. If there is one thing that I have been working on this past year, it is the ability to see everything that the lens sees.

Like candy wrappers!

Best view of the paper is at the original size!





If you're interested in commenting, please sign up at Blogger to do so. The spammers have yet again found a way to ruin something, so I've configured this blog to accept only comments I've read first.