It is good and appropriate that the phrase “Never Forget” has been adopted as the slogan for urging Americans to eternally memorialize the victims of the events of September 11.  It is good because we should never forget.  Murdered innocents should be given the honor and respect of not being lost in history.  But the slogan is appropriate because for decades, we have been allowing horrendous atrocities that have taken place in this world—at our hands—to slip our minds.

On the 10-year anniversary of the attacks, as the hearts of all Americans are softened and people temporarily pull together as one to overlook regional and cultural differences, I would like to make a plea for that compassion to stretch beyond our borders.  Let us take this moment, with the horrors of terrorism even now still fresh in our minds, to recognize that terrorism is abhorrent, no matter who carries it out, who is targeted, or under what label it is recorded in the history books.  Let us recognize the sanctity of all human life, and let us feel the way we felt on Sept. 11 every time the life of an innocent child of God is snuffed out.  This is not strictly a Christian way of behaving, although Christians should be the loudest voices calling for peace.  This is basic human emotion that should be shared by every non-psychopathic human when witnessing atrocities.

Why then is there so little outcry against terrorism in all its forms?  The answer must be that we don’t know it when we see it.  Most of the time we don’t see anything—we have the privilege of tuning out news from around the world, around the country, around the city… We can tailor our bubbles to be as small and egocentric as we choose.  When we do seek out the news, what we get is an amalgam of propaganda presented by American media that long ago abandoned their position as the “fourth estate” of government and now functions mainly as a government mouthpiece.  So instead of holding the US government accountable when it commits terrorism, it hides it in plain sight under such noble-sounding and vague labels as “counter-insurgency”, “soft targets”, “low-intensity conflict”, “Operation Just Cause”, and “Operation Enduring Freedom”.

From what I gather, only America and Britain to a lesser extent have a public as completely in the dark as to what its government has done and continues to do without its consent.  The rest of the world is under no starry-eyed illusions as to what the arrival of the stars and stripes can and often does mean for their country: blood… their blood.  I’m not talking about the blood of evil drug lords and babykillers.  I’m talking about the innocent blood of women and children and old people and young men, whose crime that was punished by death was to live in a place that stood between US and something we wanted.

I don’t say this to be salacious or to excuse in any way the killings of 2,700 people on Sept. 11. It is simply fact that the United States is one of the worst purveyors and supporters of terrorism in the world.  It is a fact that the US consistently stands in the way of peace and democracy.  This only sounds outrageous because we are so ignorant of history, even recent history.  So to keep it relatively brief, here are some of the worst cases from just my lifetime:

1. The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, Aug. 1984.  After the revelation of the Iran-Contra affair, Nicaragua pleads its case to the International Court of Justice, charging the United States with supporting the Contra rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and setting mines in Nicaragua’s harbors.  During the proceedings it is revealed that the US had disseminated a manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare to the Contras, which included advice on how to rationalize killing civilians.  The Contras’ methods of warfare involved, according to Human Rights Watch, targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination, raping women, and indiscriminately kidnapping, torturing and executing civilians.  The ICJ finds in favor of Nicaragua, charging the US with, among other things, the unlawful use of force against another sovereign state (see definition of “terrorism”).  The US blocks the ruling and never allowed Nicaragua to receive compensation. Support for the Contras continues into the 90s.
2. September, 1984.  The UN Security Council passes Resolution S/16732, reaffirming a resolution from 1978 demanding Israel withdraw from Lebanon, during which time thousands of Lebanese had been killed and thousands made refugees.  The Resolution also demands Israel observe international law and human rights granted under the Geneva Convention.  It passes 13-1, US against. (Much more could be said about Lebanon.)
3. March, 1985. According to Bob Woodward’s book Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981 to 1987, a car-bombing in Beirut that kills 80 people and injured 256, mostly women, is arranged by the CIA and specifically authorized by CIA Director William Casey. The target of the attack: suspected terrorist Sheikh Fadlallah.
4. June, 1986.  Security Council drafts a resolution insisting all states observe international law.  The US vetoes it.
5. November, 1986.  The UN General Assembly passes Resolution 41/31, reminding member nations of their responsibility to abide by international law and the rulings of the International Court of Justice.  It passes 94-3; US, Israel and El Salvador opposed.
6. November, 1987. US-backed Contras attack two villages with RPGs, killing six adults and six children. (One of numerous examples.)
7. December, 1987. The UN General Assembly votes on Resolution 42/159 condemning terrorism and reaffirming “the basic rights of the individual in accordance with the relevant international human rights instruments and generally accepted international standards…”  It includes the important proviso that “people under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation” do not forfeit “the right… to struggle [for freedom and independence].”  The resolution passes 153-2, the two dissenting votes being Israel and the United States.
8. Invasion of Panama, 1989.  After 20+ years of employing Manuel Noriega as a CIA asset—during which time he operated as a known drug trafficker with full protection of the DEA—President George H. W. Bush decides Noriega must answer for his “crimes” of drug trafficking and initiates Operation Just Cause.  An estimated 2,500-5,000 Panamanian civilians are killed and 15,000 made homeless.  Panamanian military deaths: 205.  The UN General Assembly votes 75-20 to condemn the invasion as a violation of international law.
9. October, 1989. A year and a half after Saddam’s poison gas massacre of the Kurds known as “Bloody Friday” that killed 5,000 and injured 10,000 mostly civilians, with thousands dying later from complications associated with the poisoning, Bush I issues a national security directive stating, “normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East.”  The US offers Saddam’s regime food supplies and biological agents capable of use as weapons of mass destruction.
10. 1990 to present.  The UN imposes heavy sanctions against Iraq, effectively forcing the Iraqi people to rely on Saddam.  According to the UN, the embargo kills 7,000 Iraqis each month, 5,000 of them children under the age of five.
11. October, 1995.  A top official in the Clinton administration refers to Indonesian President Suharto as “our kind of guy”, according to the New York Times.  Suharto’s 30-year rule enjoyed US support while he was committing atrocities like the invasion of East Timor, where he killed somewhere between 91,000 and 213,000 people, or as much as 30% of the population.  Another 73,000-200,000 died from hunger and disease.  The Indonesian army’s officer corps had been trained by the US and CIA. US government officials had made at least four separate offers of military equipment to Suharto. The US continues to train the Indonesian army until Suharto’s resignation in 1998.
12. Luis Posada Carriles.  Venezuelan anti-communist, convicted terrorist and CIA agent. 1976: Convicted in absentia in Panama for bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 civilians. 1997: Admittedly part of bombings in Havana hotels.  2000: Accused of attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.  2005: Arrested in Texas for illegal immigration.  Cuba and Venezuela request extradition- the US refuses saying he could face torture there (to which a Venezuelan official cites US torture at Abu Ghraib as an example of what he will not receive at Venezuela’s hands). The US refusal violates Security Council Resolution 1373 of September, 2001, prohibiting countries from giving terrorists safe haven.  2010: Tried in Texas for lying to US officials, where his attorney argues in a motion that the “involvement, knowledge, acquiescence and complicity [of the US government] in sabotage or bombings in Cuba” are relevant to the case. Posada is cleared of all charges and freed on bond.
13. October, 2001.  Pakistan requests evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 and that upon receipt, they will turn him over.  President Bush ignores the request.
14. February, 2011.  The Obama administration vetoes a Security Council resolution calling for Israeli settlements to be condemned as illegal and for a stop to their construction.
15. Iraq War, 2003 to present.  Conservative estimates like that of the Iraq Body Count Project puts the civilian death toll as of October 2010 at 100,000.  “Controversial” estimates put the death toll as high as 600,000.
16. Afghanistan War, 2001 to present.  Bush II referred to it at first as “the Crusade”, ostensibly before someone pointed out to him the implications of the reference.  Later it was codenamed “Operation Enduring Freedom” (to “endure” means to suffer under).  No official overall total exists, but 20,000 civilian deaths directly is conservative.

More cases could be given but I think the point is made.  A tree is known by its fruit- looking not at what we say but at what we do, the United States does not support democracy or human rights.  It supports murder, aggression, and yes, terrorism.

This article is aimed primarily at my Christian brothers and sisters. For those of you that believe peace will come through human channels, by all means, get to work.  Get out the vote. Protest. Join the army.

But if you believe, as I do, that Jesus was and is the Prince of Peace, and that to take up the sword is to die by the sword, then won’t you stop supporting these wars? There will always be some justification given for them, but your heavenly mandate is clear.  It is not our job to spread the kingdom by crusade.  I promise you there is no foe that God needs our help to defeat. The “Old Testament” God who seems so angry is the same God of the New Testament who came down and told you in plain English (Hebrew), Love your enemies and do them good, for He Himself is kind to evil men.

For my part, this Sunday I will remember the victims of September 11. I will also remember the victims in Nicaragua, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Colombia, Cuba, Afghanistan, and Germany.  I will pray for the evil men and that Jesus would come quickly and wipe away tears from all faces.

Note: I have purposefully not cited anything in this article in the hopes that you will verify its accuracy on your own. Much of the information in this article was taken from the research of Noam Chomsky. If you want to know more about world affairs and history, I highly recommend any and all of his writings and speeches. 

So far, Blackwater’s war crimes have only reached the status of alleged (the murder of 17 Iraqis; smuggling weapons into Iraq that ended up in the hands of Kurdish terrorists; working as a hit squad for the CIA, without the knowledge or approval of Congress .)  Then again, maybe these aren’t crimes after all, because I always heard that crime doesn’t pay—and Blackwater has been paid big time.  The company has been awarded more than $1 billion in government contracts since 2002.

The latest addition to the Blackwater rap sheet is the alleged murder of two Pakistanis by Xe employee Raymond Davis, believed to be working as a CIA contractor.  Davis claims the two men he shot were attempting to hijack his vehicle, while onlookers and family members say the two young men were doing nothing wrong. Chipping in their two cents, authorities point out that Mr. Davis’s gun was illegal and that the (licensed) gun belonging to one of the dead guys was not loaded. Oh, and that Davis attempted to flee the scene after killing the men. And, oh ya, another innocent bystander was crushed to death by the car Davis called in for backup.

Most of the American media is calling this a “tricky” situation, given the precarious relationship the U.S. enjoys with Pakistan.  We need Pakistan’s cooperation and support in maintaining the fight in Afghanistan. Our government is pressuring the Pakistanis to release Davis, claiming he has diplomatic immunity.

As I read these news reports, this situation seems more and more like a microcosm for our entire War On/Of Terror.  To me, Blackwater has long represented everything that is wrong with wars purportedly begun to spread freedom, democracy and the rule of law.  In America, I expect the freedom to stand on the street and not get shot in the back by a foreign mercenary.  Should that happen, however, my survivors get their day in court to attempt to prove wrongdoing on the part of the alleged perpetrator. He has the right to remain innocent until proven otherwise.

So why don’t we see these rights “spreading” to the Middle East? Why is our government’s knee-jerk reaction to demand the release of an accused murderer without a trial?  Do we stand for the rule of law or not?

Granted, the argument could be made that the reason the American government is calling for Davis’s release is because officials don’t believe Pakistan’s democracy is legitimate enough to provide a court system able to conduct a fair trial.  But that’s not what they’re saying: their argument is Davis’s “diplomatic immunity.”

And that is why this debacle is our behavior in the Middle East in a nutshell. It boils down to the question, Do we have a license to kill brown people?  Can we indiscriminately shed blood under the banner of diplomacy?

This is the message we send fledgling democracies: we believe in justice for all over here. It’s no wonder they hate us—not for our freedom, but because we’re hypocrites when it comes to freedom. We don’t really want democracy in the Middle East. We want governments run by one guy hand-selected by us, bought and paid for by us, who is more than happy to give us unrestricted access to his country’s resources in exchange for making him and his family billionaires who hire Mariah Carey to play at their birthday parties.  And time and time again, it is the common people who get screwed.

Except the people are fed up. It’s happening in Egypt, it’s happening in Libya, it’s happening in Iraq.  Look at the Egypt protests—there you had a cut-and-dried dictator that the people overwhelmingly wanted ousted.  And the U.S government stance?

“Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel. I would not refer to him as a dictator.” –Joe Biden, PBS Newshour, Jan. 27, 2011

The word from the White House was ‘we are with the protestors.’ But then it was ‘he can stay if there is a dialogue.’ CNN was busy combing the streets of Egypt, looking for someone—anyone—to look into the camera and thank America for its great support of their struggle for freedom. And they couldn’t find them.

But Mrs. Clinton said it best:

“And I also believe strongly that this is in Egypt’s long-term interests, it’s in the interests of the partnership that the United States has with Egypt. So that is what we are attempting to promote and support, because clearly, what we don’t want is chaos.” Fox News Sunday, Jan. 26, 2011

Well, clearly. Obviously we wouldn’t want anything to jeopardize our interests in the region, especially some silly people’s revolution.

OK, so Egypt and Pakistan may be democratically-challenged, but so what? We haven’t invaded either of them lately/yet, so it’s not our job to spread democracy there.  What’s our track record where the tanks are rolling?

Here is an excerpt from Noam Chomsky’s analysis of the 2005 Iraqi elections:

“The United States had to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting elections… The U.S. wanted to write a constitution, it wanted to impose some kind of caucus system that the U.S. could control, and it tried to impose extremely harsh neo-liberal rules, which even Iraqi businessmen were strongly opposed to. But there has been a very powerful nonviolent resistance in Iraq – far more significant than suicide bombers and so on. And it simply compelled the United States step by step to back down… The population simply would not accept the rules that the occupation authorities were imposing, and finally Washington was compelled, very reluctantly, to accept elections. It tried in every way to undermine them. So for example, the independent press was kicked out of the country. Al Jazeera, which is by far the most popular media in the country and most of the region, was simply kicked out on spurious grounds. The U.S. candidate (Allawi) was given every possible advantage: full state resources, access to any television, and so on. He got creamed. Every party, including even the U.S. government’s party, was compelled to put in a plank, just by pressure of popular opinion, calling for U.S. withdrawal, withdrawal of the occupying forces… The U.S. announced at once after the election – in Britain, Blair, Bush and Rice announced at once – that there would be no timetable for withdrawal. It doesn’t matter what the Iraqis want. The U.S. announced right away that the troops would stay there at least until 2007, in fact as far as building military bases to try to keep them there indefinitely. Not to occupy the country, because for that they would much rather have Iraqi mercenary forces… But they have to be there to make sure things stay under control… Of course once the United States was forced into accepting elections, the government and the media immediately pronounced that it was a great achievement of the United States. But it was quite the opposite.”

That was six years ago.  Some of the players have changed, some of the names have changed, but power and money are still the motives behind everything we do in the Middle East.  And why should we expect change from this broken two-party system?   Our new House Speaker was caught literally handing out checks from tobacco companies on the floor of the House.  Our new “hope and change” leader couldn’t even deliver on his promise to shut down torture chamber Guantanamo Bay.

We cannot expect to spread democracy when we don’t even practice it at home. Our democracy has been co-opted by big business—Monsanto. Halliburton.  AIG.  Small wonder then that our government shudders at the idea of Raymond Davis being put on trial, because he doesn’t just represent himself—he represents big business and big government.  To indict him is to indict the whole outhouse.  And big business and big government don’t get indicted.  Case in point: the Wall Street bailout. Still nobody going to jail.

Until we right the ship at home and demand real democracy, we can expect to have no help to give those who cry out for justice in the bloody wake of the Raymond Davises of this world.

The government is launching civil and criminal investigations into JPMorgan’s activities with silver shorting. The last two paragraphs are just outstanding…

Noam Chomsky is an enigma.

The New York Times has called him “America’s greatest intellectual.”  That’s ironic, considering he has called the New York Times part of “the elite media, the agenda-setting ones,” whose real goal is to divert the public away from real issues and serve the interests of the power systems that own them.  Besides, to Chomsky, “liberal intellectuals” are  ”the ones who portray themselves and perceive themselves as challenging power, as courageous, as standing up for truth and justice… they are the most dangerous in supporting power.”

Noam Chomsky then represents some different kind of intellectual, a conscientious kind who calls things like he sees them, regardless of what his colleagues might think.  For fifty years he has relentlessly gone after American imperialism and dogmatic foreign policy, while attacking the media as being a giant propaganda machine in books like his Manufacturing Consent. As a result, the world-renowned linguistics professor from MIT and foreign policy expert rarely gets “ink” from mainstream media; “Chomskyans” tend to be found online at sites with names like “guerillaunderground.org”  and “countercurrents.org.”

One of the most fascinating aspects of Chomsky’s political views is his belief in anarchism, which Chomsky says is probably not well-known because “little is known about (his) views on anything.” In a 1995 interview, Chomsky defined the point of anarchism as, “to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom…”

To hear Chomsky tell it in his singular, sensible way, anarchism does not sound like the thing to be feared that some would have us believe. Indeed, he said that the misrepresentation that has surrounded the theory of anarchism has been promulgated by the ones who have a vested interest in preventing public understanding on anarchy.  Instead of being chaos, true anarchy would mean “a highly organised society, integrating many different kinds of structures, but controlled by participants, not by those in a position to give orders…”

In today’s climate of Tea Parties and heightened distrust of government, Chomsky seems like the ideal candidate to lead a revolution of political thought and address the disenfranchisement many Americans feel.  For his part, Chomsky was recently quoted as saying the United States is lucky no truly charismatic yet honest leader has come along to capitalize on “the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger” that exists in America today, the likes of which he has never seen.

“The mood of the country is frightening,” he said. “The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.” He said people like Joe Stack are asking, “What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”

As more and more Joe Stacks crop up, the public may become more inclined to give ear to philosophers like Chomsky who propose a new way of governing, however much the liberal intellectuals and media elite might like to keep such ideas under wraps.

Chomsky says, “More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes… Intellectuals may tell a different story, but it’s not all that difficult to find out the facts.”

That is a line from last year’s “The Messenger.”  It is delivered by Woody Harrelson’s Capt. Tony Stone, who is tasked with personally informing the next of kin when soldiers are killed.  It is a very moving film that almost no one saw- the film took in less than $1.5 million worldwide and cost $6.5 million to make. The fact that it sold few tickets is unfortunate but telling.

America has a very complicated relationship with its soldiers and the military.  The failure to win the war in Vietnam ushered in a new era of how we relate to our boys (and girls) in combat.  As Harvard Sitikoff said, by the time the troops returned from Vietnam, the American people no longer wanted to be reminded of our longest and costliest war, the only one we had ever lost.  Instead of being thanked, the soldiers themselves were shunned or branded murderers and psychos.  Virtually nothing was done to help them reintegrate into society.  It has been claimed that more men committed suicide after the war than died in it.

A new study found there are 950 veteran suicide attempts every day. Many reports have surfaced of the terrible quality of treatment given war veterans at VA hospitals and the military’s attempts to deny them and/or their families their due benefits.

So what does all this have to do with Capt. Tony Stone’s line?  The protagonist of “The Messenger” is Will Montgomery, a young war hero recently returned to the States.  The woman he loves is marrying a dorky rich Ivy-Leaguer type.  The best scene in the movie comes when Stone and Sgt. Montgomery crash the couple’s swanky engagement party, Montgomery’s wife-beater showing his tattoos.  They get drunk and make a scene, to the horror of the other, refined guests.  To try and diffuse the situation, the groom curses under his breath, then stands and makes a toast to “our troops.”

The movie is a heartbreaking look inside a horrible, private moment that some families have to go through.  But on a broader scale, the movie is about the chickens coming home to roost, so to speak, for all of us.  It’s not that we as the viewers get to see what getting that news would be like; it’s that we have to see.  We are like the other guests at the party- for us, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are academic. It’s just party talk.  We would rather not be confronted with the ugliness of the truth of what is done with our consent, whether by stated declaration or silent passivity.

The Army has been caught lying to us in the past: the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire.  The cover-up of torture in Guantanamo Bay.  The fabricated war heroics of Jessica Lynch.  Each of these stories caused an uproar, which is to say they dominated the headlines for a week or so and then faded from our memory when the next big news story hit.

Of course a low box office turnout for any movie could be because the movie is simply crummy.  But so few people saw “The Messenger” it makes one think there might be a deeper reason.  Could it be that we the people like having plausible deniability? Do we really want the truth or do we prefer to stay in the dark about the price of war?  Our treatment of war veterans seems to imply that we hope that by ignoring them they will go away.  But soldiers like Staff Sgt. Montgomery aren’t going anywhere.

Is that okay?

He always asks me that, Mr. Credit Card Machine. The reason he asks is because I keep attempting to buy things, and like the seemingly kind soul he is, every time I do he tries to warn me.

“$56.13 will be charged to your credit card. Is that okay?”

I never have the time or the nerve to tell him no, actually it’s not okay, but that’s what I’m inevitably thinking. Since you asked, I think these Whole Foods groceries should be free.  And when you asked me earlier at Express if it was okay that that t-shirt cost $27.50, that also was not okay. Obviously if I had my way, all goods and services would be gratis, but just for me of course. The economy would not exist if everything was free for everyone.  And no economy means no more stuff, free or otherwise.

Is that what Mr. Machine is getting at? What if all along I’ve been overlooking some deep philo-economical profundity that he has been prodding me to realize through what I thought was a simple yes-or-no? Surely he’s not stupid- he can calculate sales tax on the fly like nobody’s business. Is he trying to tell me I should be happy I’m stimulating the economy with my purchase? Or maybe he’s trying to get me to realize the value of a dollar, like some kind of small, rectangular, electronic parent, and the fact that a significant part of the blame for the current economic crisis is due to people sliding that plastic card through his orifice more than they ought. (Seeing as he works for the credit card company, I find that scenario unlikely. If the credit card company goes under, he’s looking for work as a heart rate monitor or something.) Perhaps it is just his humble way of making me take responsibility for my actions so that I cannot plead ignorance. “Don’t complain to me you’re swimming in debt, I warned you!”

What then will he say when I click “no” one of these days? Maybe he’ll say ‘fair enough’, and make me a counter-offer. Or maybe, just maybe, he’ll say, “Well done- you have discovered the beauty of saving. Now I’m going to have to ask you to put all those groceries back where you found them.”

When Eric Hansen left Yemen in 1989, Eritrea had not yet declared its independence from Ethiopia and made it onto maps of the Arabian Peninsula area.  The accompanying Eritrea-less map in the back of Hansen’s book entitled Motoring with Mohammed was printed in 1991 and is a prime example of how much the Middle East has changed in the last two decades. But given the central role the region plays in world politics these days, in the spirit of ‘knowing your enemy’, Americans would be wise to read it.

From his Manhattan apartment in 1990, Hansen sets the stage for Motoring with Mohammed in the forward where he gives away the ending to the story.  He writes that he is thumbing through his journals in which he kept seven years’ worth of notes from his travels across the globe, journals that until recently had been buried for ten years on a beach in North Yemen.

From there he takes us back to 1979, when the yacht he and his friends were attempting to sail to Greece shipwrecked on Uqban Island.  After two weeks the group is rescued but knowing they will have a long walk across the mainland to find help after they are dropped off, they opt to take only essentials and bury the rest of their possessions in the sand, hence the buried journals.  The group ends up under house arrest at a Northern Yemen army outpost on another island.  This would be the first of many of Hansen’s run-ins with “local law”, a complex system involving the military, corrupt government officials, and lots of tribesmen armed with Kalashnikovs.

Thinking the journals as good as gone, Hansen heads home to New York, then returns to Yemen 10 years later to try to recover his journals.  Unfortunately, Uqban Island lies in a security zone which individuals, especially foreign individuals, are forbidden to visit without express consent by the National Security Police.  Not to mention “the network of army checkposts, random police roadblocks, required travel permits, prohibited military and tribal areas, and armed villagers suspicious of a stranger’s every move…”

Although his original visa expires after 30-days, a new friend in the government grants Hansen a 6-week extension.  During that time he gets near the island only once but gets stopped and detained by police.  The rest of the time makes for an intriguing look at life in Yemen. The people are fiercely territorial but also fiercely loyal; to avenge a family member by killing someone is looked on as honorable, even raising one’s social status.  They are also patient and slow-moving, taking hours every day to gather to chew qat, a tobacco-like leaf. The qat sessions are “the great equalizer”, bringing together the elite and the destitute alike to sit and converse and enjoy life.

At one point Hansen mentions the Yemenis’ confusion over all the different branches of Christianity.  The Muslims point out that although they do have the Sunni-Shia segmentation, all can and do pray together in the same mosques.

Until late in the story, Hansen avoids the public bathhouses, believing them to be morally bankrupt and unsanitary.  When he finally does visit one, he finds the opposite is true- the patrons are pious and the facilities quite clean.

As a character in the story, Hansen is fairly non-descript.  He makes a nice blank canvas on which the Yemeni people and countryside paint an elaborate mural.  It is the story of a people faced with many obstacles, patiently waiting for an opportunity to overcome them like Hansen finally does his.   But just like Uqban Island, Yemen seems to be located in a spot that will not lend itself to making dreams come true anytime soon.

I watched “State of Play” the other day on a road trip through the winding hills of northern Arkansas.  Sitting in the back seat, being pulled left and right around the turns, was nauseating enough without adding the stimulation of a movie, not to mention the conversation of the people in the front seat in the background.  But I could not turn it off- that’s how much fun I was having seeing this film.

Russell Crowe is Carl McAffrey, a seasoned investigative journalist at a newspaper in financial straits, as most are.  He is an old-school type of reporter, bringing the police detectives coffee at the murder scene to try to sweet-talk quotes out of them.  The last thing a veteran like McAffrey would want to do is work with a rookie political blogger, played by Rachel McAdams. But uh oh, would’nt you know it- that’s exactly what happens.

That somewhat cliche script device of teaming up these two “surely incompatible” characters can be forgiven because the acting is so well done and the story is so fast-paced.  There’s no time wasted on a “we-sure-do-hate-eachother” montage; guided by Carl’s experience and drawn close by the dangerous waters in which they are swimming, the two become a team.

Ben Affleck also chips in a fine performance as rising-star politician Stephen Collins who becomes the center of a major Washington scandal when one of his female staffers is killed and Collins admits to having had an affair with her.  He is convinced the private defense contractor he is investigating has murdered the girl to disrupt the investigation. As Collins’ old college roomie, Carl takes up his fight and sets out to clear Collins’ name.  The question is whether his motivation is the true loyalty of a friend, or just a chance to get a good scoop. The action amps up steadily as Carl and Della (McAdams) close in on the truth, and the story.

Although it’s a small part, Jason Bateman completely steals the movie as a bisexual PR guy with a taste for a particular lifestyle on the weekends.  Think eyeliner and lots of leather.

“State of Play” is a great look inside both the print news business and the dirty underside of the Beltway.  If, like me, you are interested in journalism, hate Blackwater, and distrust the government, this movie is right up your alley. But this movie is also for anyone who likes a smart, well-written and well-acted thriller with enough twists and turns to keep you entertained and/or guessing until the end.

For one thing, Rick Perry is an incumbent.  That alone makes for an uphill fight for White.  Perry’s maneuvering to align himself early with the Tea Party will probably help him steal Debra Medina supporters away from White.  And let’s face it: Texas is a thoroughly red state.

This election is going to be a referendum on President Obama and the federal government; that was made abundantly clear in the primaries.  All Perry had to do was cast Kay Bailey Hutchison as a “Washington creature” and watch the votes roll in.

Consider this chart from the Washington Post on the relation between presidential approval ratings and unemployment:

That was Reagan, now here’s Clinton:

Seeing a pattern?  Basically when people are out of work, they don’t like the job the president is doing; when they have a job, they do.

Unlucky for Bill White, he shares a party with the president.  Simply sharing a town with Obama was enough to do Hutchison in against Perry.  And to say President Obama is unpopular in Texas is an understatement.  According to a recent Public Policy Polling Survey, 2 out of 3 Texans are dissatisfied with the job Obama is doing, and only 19 percent of independents approve of his job performance.

What White will have to do is a) distance himself from Obama; b) go after Perry’s non-sequitur claim that he is responsible for Texas’ economy being in better shape than other states; c) convince Texas voters that he can improve the job market in the state.  As the Houston Chronicle reported yesterday, new health care legislation could result in $400 billion in economic activity coming to Texas.  That is precisely the kind of statistic Bill White will have to play up and spin unpopular Big Brother issues into positives for Texans’ wallets.

The ugly, secret undercurrent of every election-time issue is money: how is this issue going to affect the voter’s bankroll?  If it’s immigration, how are you going to keep someone else from doing my job for less, thereby causing me to lose business and therefore money? If it’s health care, how are you going to keep my costs down and save me money? If it’s government spending, how are you going to keep taxes down and let me keep my money? Like Deep Throat said, you have to follow the money.

Two weeks ago political analyst Charlie Cook changed his evaluation of the Texas governor race from favoring Perry to a “tossup” between him and White, citing among other factors White’s Hispanic lieutenant governor choice and his ability to fundraise.  Why Cook thinks that makes the race a tossup is beyond me.  Regardless, it’s too early to predict; too much is going to happen nationally between now and November.

Bill White is said to be a man with strong Christian faith. That’s good- he should start praying.

Texas elections always have about half the turnout of a federal election.  However, if early voting is any indication, this election will have one of the highest turnouts in recent memory.  Nearly three times as many Texans have voted early as they did in 2006.

It could be the drama that stands to give this election one of the best voter turnouts in years, but a better explanation for the increased voter interest is the extent to which national issues are in play, making the gubernatorial race feel like a presidential one.

Sen. Hutchison admitted the other day that Perry’s constant deriding of her as a Washington insider hurt her campaign. For her part, Hutchison said she was in Washington fighting President Obama’s cap-and-trade and health care bills.

Debra Medina made headlines for supposedly mishandling a question from Glenn Beck about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, something that happened far from the plains of the Lone Star State and which resulted in much new federal legislation but little state legislation.

Even some of the key issues making Texans concerned… do not concern (just)  Texans.  The problems of immigration, unemployment and health care are certainly troubles in Texas, but are generally regarded as national issues and ones that the governor of Texas can only do so much about. He can’t, for example, bail out state banks to try to stimulate the Texas economy.

In fact, some have even argued that the lieutenant governor in Texas is more powerful than the governor because he can control the legislation in the Senate. Still, after the 2010 census, redistricting stands to create four new Congressional seats which the governor would have veto power over.

It may be that a year into an unpopular presidency (at least according to Texas voters), Texans en masse are looking to sound off on national issues.  And the rest of the country is listening.