Just Bananas

The Clash of Nations

2006-09-24T12:01:00.000-04:00

I found this video on Fark.com. It shows a secular woman on an Arab television show making some extraordinarily valid points in the context of her situation. It's something that I think anyone living in today's world should view.

VIDEO LINK

Todd McFarlane Animation

2006-09-20T19:34:00.000-04:00

Todd McFarlane of Spawn fame recently did the video for Disturbed's cover of Genesis' "Land of Confusion". Although I'm not a big Disturbed fan, I loved this track when I heard it on the radio. When I saw the video I knew I had to help spread the word on a piece of quality work, so here it is. Along with it I've included the first of the two videos, Pearl Jam's "Do the Evolution", which is an even better animation.

Enjoy:

Pearl Jam: "Do the Evolution"

Disturbed: "Land of Confusion" (cover of Genesis)

What are We Shooting For?

2006-08-17T18:44:00.000-04:00

What feeling does the word "gun" stir in you? Is it a feeling of fear, brought on by the assumption that guns are a tool for evil means and ruthless ends? Perhaps you place upon it an immense respect, knowing that it can so easily strip anyone of their hopes, dreams, relations, and anything else which is inherent in their living. Still, maybe you completely loathe guns, knowing that they might cross your pacifist ideals, or simply that they are, by their very nature, designed to terminate life. Life, of course, is what we all value, isn’t it? But what if I were to say to you that you owe guns for everything you are and have, from the money in your pocket to that life in your veins. How would you feel about guns, and things like nuclear bombs, if I were to tell you that you wouldn’t be if they didn’t surround you? I’m here to tell you just how critical a role that guns play in preserving your lifestyle, and perhaps even convince you that it is your duty as a member of the American democracy to own one. Whether you agree or disagree, understanding the role of arms in society (from a political perspective) is key to having an opinion in the arms control issue of modern politics.

The image of the gun has left a powerful impression on people of the United States. It represents many things to many different people. To a woodsman in a rural county, its traditional rural function has made its use the most practical among hunting methods. It represents sustenance. It is still as crucial to some as the grocery store is to others, though many of us are inclined to assume that capitalism has stripped America entirely of self-reliance in the hunting/gathering context. To these same men, guns can represent recreation as well. In urban centers where minorities feel the economic pressure of lives lacking opportunity, guns are individually harnessed to regulate black market activity, personal protection, and serve in a largely self-administrated system of justice. At odds with underground ghetto business and culture is governmental supervision (i.e., the police), itself employing the gun as a means of keeping a higher order (namely, the law of the land). And then there are the many gun opponents, from war protestors and pacifists to relatives of children who have died due to accessible guns in the home and those whose family or friends have been murdered by gun owners. To all of these groups (and many more), the image of a gun represents something different, and there is almost always some type of emotion involved.

Before the significance of my appeal to near-universal gun ownership in the United States is explained (with the theory of necessity behind it), one needs to understand the negative impact of guns. First, guns kill. If Elmer Fudd tricked you into thinking that a shotgun blast to the head did little more than leave you with a slimmer look and a really dark tan, you probably figured it out when your parents first introduced you to the evening news. Fortunately, the United States isn’t among the top ten countries when it comes to murder rates, and in my area, Mainers literally live in the safest among all fifty states. Nevertheless, we’re well aware of the murder that takes place in America, and the role that guns have in it.

On top of shootings, most gun opponents will cite the death of children as one of the most crucial causes for stricter regulation. The website for the Brady Campaign (a gun control activist website) quotes the Center for Disease Control’s declaration that “the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. Guns that haven’t been locked up properly in the home can account for a large number of youth murders, both accidental and intentional. We all recall the Columbine, Colorado incident, when two troubled youths with access to guns left their school in the aftermath of some sick murderous fantasy that they preconceived, killing students and teachers before turning the weapons on themselves. Access to guns by children is a big cause in successful suicide attempts. According to the Brady website, 1998 saw “more than 1200 children aged 10-19 [commit] suicide with firearms.” I myself remember the tears falling in my high school when a kid with more issues than he thought he could handle used a gun that he clearly did not legally own to kill himself. It doesn’t take announcements over intercoms and grief counselors to help someone understand the costs involved. These high costs greatly influence Democrats, who regularly advocate gun control in their campaigns in order to appease the high constituency rate of women in their party.

But isn’t there some reason why guns remain legal in the face of all the bad circumstances that arise from their accessibility? Certainly. Guns are extremely useful. From a legal context, they are the greatest deterrent power in our society. Criminals might have less fear of authorities armed with billy clubs (like British bobbies), or perhaps officials armed with swords or other blades as history speaks of. A gun is instant, immense power. It demands no melee-level contact, and has no reliance on the strength of the owner and very little on training. A gun kills or subdues rather easily. Knowledge of this, fed through film, television and other media sources, pushes down the disorderly upstart who would commit crime. A concealed weapon also serves as self protection for women and private investigators, or anyone who faces dangerous circumstances and wishes to own one (while qualifying through background checks). The power of the gun controls order in our country on the legal level, and similarly, on the illegal level. Already mentioned was its use in urban culture, but one could watch “the Sopranos” or any glorified film depicting mafia commerce to understand its application in keeping order through alternative means of capitalist success (illegal commerce).

Clearly, the gun has its social use. However, how does this affect all of us so drastically that I claim you might not be anything like the person you are today if they didn’t exist in the hands of the general populace? Let’s take the historical road. It doesn’t chronologically start with the second amendment to the Bill of Rights, but to understand the context from which the amendment came and therefore the privilege of gun ownership in the States, we’ll begin here.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

From its historical context, this reflects the Revolutionary War era necessity of gun ownership on the citizen level. In a society at war, there was the official military of the British, who in their previous colonial reign gave the colonies no reason to create their own military. The opposition to these “red coats” were the “minute men”, who were recognized as a loose coalition of individual, private, state militias. America today, as a free democracy, was a notion that hung over the head of these minutemen.

In Esther Forbes’ Johnny Tremain, society is on the brink of war. In a fiction depicting Revolutionary War era life, we have the hero, Johnny Tremain, who is a silversmith apprentice to Paul Revere (yes, that Paul Revere). We’re automatically introduced to history from a fictional standpoint, but one that reflects the reality of the times. Where Johnny is staying, there is a paranoia concerning the loyalty of different people in the neighborhood as to their loyalties. Some are said to favor the British, while others are Colonial loyalists. At some point, we are introduced to the significance of the house rifle, which is later used in the story to fend off the incoming British.Johnny Tremain exemplifies is the importance of deterrent power in the hands of the individual. Without arms of their own, colonial revolutionaries would easily have been dominated by British loyalists aware of their rebel movement. This was an active example of the importance of guns in the hands of the common man. One didn’t need to be a soldier, or even a hunter, to be as crucial to history as the domestic characters of Johnny Tremain. Without owning those rifles, there would be no free American democracy. It was experienced revolutionaries that sat in the constitutional convention and wrote the constitution, and it was they that later added that very important second amendment. In the recognition of the need for arms to protect our way of life, they specifically granted men the right to own them. Republicans, well aware of this historical context, are always at odds with liberals in an effort to protect this constitutional right, and if only for political reasons, it serves one much greater nonetheless.

The revolutionary war has long been over, and we don’t face the same internal strife as we once did. The American political structure has enough checks and balances in it that no single power could effectively overthrow the government. Though we may have fears of those on the extreme right ruling the country and pushing minorities back into slave labor, or wild leftists taxing us all into communism, it is nearly impossible through democratic / representative government for any particular faction to rule. The United States military, as ruled by this checked and balanced system, is also a force that could never be used to internally fascist ends.On an international level, though, it is very important to recognize the need for arms in the hands of every man. The nuclear bomb has taken the modern era, since the Cold War, into new realms of deterrent power where land war seems especially unlikely, but theoretically, we must be prepared for the worst. The military is only so large, and as a volunteer militia, it only contains those willing to fight. Theoretically, if we were invaded, protection of our society would require every man to have that “rifle over the fireplace”, for easy access nationally to militant strength. It is therefore the duty of each able man in this country to be prepared to defend it, and realistically, this requires every man to own a gun.

Universal arms possession is realistically very dangerous socially and therefore a frightening thought. There are clearly those who should not own weapons. Similarly, the idea of a domestic invasion is a stretch, granted the seas that separate any potential enemies of America. Canada and Mexico seem like highly unlikely enemies in this century, as well. Neveretheless, there were times when America was at odds with the Mexicans in the west, and the French and Indian War put us at odds with the north. Unlikelihood is not impossibility. The second amendment was not created for nutbag gun enthusiasts. Any government would understand the danger of putting weapons into the hands of its citizenry if it did not serve some self-beneficial purpose. Through understanding this, I hope that you can view firearms with a grasp of their power in protecting our democracy, and knowing that without them, historically and presently, there would be no United States. Whether or not you approve of their near-universal ownership, you can at least respect the cause for which this distribution theory serves.

Works Cited

WEB –

Federal Government, FBI uniform crime reports, 2003 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

Brady Campaign, Brady Campaign website: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=kids

U.S. Constitution, a copy of which is here: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

RESOURCES –

Forbes, Esther. Johnny Tremain. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1998. Info: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-

8&hl=en&id=r9_0WSNKPJMC&dq=johnny+tremain+review&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Djohnny%2Btr

emain%2Breview%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff

Constitution.org. “Militias”. http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

Wikipedia.org. “Militias”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militias#United_States

Best, Ben. “Death by Murder”. http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#usa

FBI crime statistics. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Brady Campaign website. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=kids

National Rifle Association Website. “About the NRA”. http://www.nraila.org/About/NRAILA.aspx

United States Constitution. Second Amendment, Bill of Rights. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[1] Source: FBI uniform crime reports, 2003 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
[2] Maine has the lowest murder rate nationally. Source: FBI u.c.r, 2003, same address as above.
[3] Source: Brady Campaign web: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=kids
[4] Fourth Amendment (Bill of Rights), U.S. Constititution, ratified 1789. 

Donald Duck... Nazi?

2006-08-04T00:08:00.001-04:00

You have to see this to believe it. While scouring the web, I came across this classic Disney cartoon featuring Donald Duck hailing Hitler. I'd put my bets on it being at least twenty times.

I would broadcast the need for Jews to ban Disney, but considering it was many decades ago and that we're currently occupied with plans to bring down Mel Gibson, I'll let it slide.

A Jew's Case for the Arab

2006-08-03T21:38:00.000-04:00

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule." - Buddha

Before you label anyone a hippie, consider the truth of these words. Conflict is a battle of pride, where nothing will bring an end to the conflict but the end of pride (whether by submission in defeat or compromise) or outright eradication of one party. Now understand this: all conflicts between human beings are a product of the competitive and paranoid nature of man. To elaborate, nearly every war in the history of the world is based on competition for resources specifically and fear that other men might attempt to take one's own resources, however thinly veiled in dogma a war's public justification may be.

In the light of this, we better understand the cohesive and fundamental nature of war. The Greeks laid siege to Troy over a man's wife. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan/Russia, and all other hot conflicts of the Cold War were based on competition for world resources (land and people included) and fear of one resource-allocating ideology wiping out the other - capitalism versus communism. Countless colonial uprisings, such as the Indians in British-occupied India, and even British Naval colonialism itself, were based on one nation's pushing into those of others to grow luxury crops. African natives suffered slavery and mass murder by European ivory hunters while domestic Europeans read about the effort to "Christianize the Africans" in their daily papers. Americans killed Indians and drove them out of their new property, while the Spanish put an end to native civilizations in South America where gold was ripe for the taking. Iraq invaded Kuwait and attacked Iran over oil resources, while, according to some radical (but possibly realistic) opinions, the only reason America is in Iraq today is to score a hand in some black gold.

I'm not here to give history lessons, but rather to emphasize this point: for hundreds to thousands of years, people have tried to justify to the public their reasons for leading their neighbors to war while, underneath all the propaganda, it was about material ownership. In an age where we're constantly fed odd Wilsonian idealism about democratizing foreign countries that hate us in the name of human rights, while others are left to suffer such as Sudan, the Congo, Somalia, and Ethiopia while in the presence of far worse and more widespread atrocities, politicians seem as superficial and dishonest as ever. Clearly these African countries lack something that Iraq doesn't, and if you think it's people that hate America, don't so easily forget Black Hawk Down.

But what about Islam? What about all of these Arab countries, labeling America the great Satan, calling for the extinction of the Jewish race? Are we led to believe that Islamic countries detest America and Israel because we're simply not Muslim? If that's the case, someone please explain to me why you don't hear about Chinese-Arab conflicts, or the infamous Australian-Iranian conflict. The reason is this: ideological justifications - religious justifications - are all pretenses. Man might loathe his neighbor and his ways, but how often does he pick fights that will cost him food on his family's table (not to mention a son or two). Why would he pick such fights if there were no reward?

Israel has the biblically-historical identity of being the Hebrew homeland, the land for the people of Abraham. Historically, they have dwelled in the land with the exception of the Roman expulsions of the Jewish people, leading up to the establishment of the Ottoman empire. Afterwards, Jews returned in large numbers, purchased land from Ottoman, and this eventually led to relations with the British and the Balfour Declaration which opened up Palestine (as the Romans named it previously) to world Jews as Israel.

Since the Balfour Declaration, Arabs have had to deal with even greater numbers of Jews immigrating into a land that they had long since dwelled in, immigrants coming in the name of Jewish ancestral history and external political decisions by a colonial country (Britain) and the League of Nations. This has created a long-running territorial conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, which has invited Arab neighbors in such as Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria - in support of the exiled Palestinian people.

So, with Lebanon and Israel going to war in the news, is this about terrorism? Is this about the sovereign nation of Israel being attacked by the evil terrorist entity? No. Is this about Islamic fundamentalism, and the belief that the non-Muslim must be exterminated? No. Is this about resources in the form of land? Yes.

Once more, in line with history, in line with reality, this is just another conflict over resources. It is about material goods. It's about monopolization of goods, stealing and hoarding of land, about the displacement of people, about resentment in the long-term blow-after-blow, hit-me / hit-you, hate-for-hate battle of Israelis and Palestinians, of Arab and Jew.

We can continue to view Arabs as evil, or we can look at the big picture: does the starving wolf have some right in nature to bite the fat wolf, when the fat wolf leaves his packmate to starve? We are humans, and for all our talk about bringing democracy to the Arab world as if it's an honest concern for our brother's happiness, we seem to forget that democracy is based on equality, on the importance of each member of the community. Democracy is based on equal value for every wolf in pack.

Continue to label your enemy as evil, continue to strip his scraps out of his plate, and you only refuel the hatred that a jolly fat man sitting under a Bodhi tree once warned against in its effect on perpetuating conflict.

For all my love of Israel and the need for a Jewish homeland, it is quite clear that there will never be an end to tensions between Arabs and Jews and those that support Israel until resources have been restored to our fellow man, who like us, is every bit as protective and in need of that which is his.