All-things-scifi Web site, io9, has a wonderful article today:

• Great Opening Sentences From Science Fiction

As a student of creative writing and hopeful one-day teacher of it, I’m acutely aware of how important a good first line or two is for capturing the attention of the reader, and especially the editor who’s sifting through the slush pile of submitted manuscripts for publishing.

I think my favorite opening line I’ve written so far is:

“Ash was too late to see the end of the universe; it was already dead when he woke up.”

In the comment thread for this article, commentor Timeshredder remarks:

I posted earlier on the TSA’s thuggery, prompted by an article on BoingBoing–now another blogger I frequent discusses the power mad abuses by the TSA including his own harassment:

• Public abuse and x-rated searches now common.

In the last 16 months I’ve flown six times, but each time was from the same small midwestern airport to the same Orlando airport through nearly the same terminals. I’ve not experienced any abuse myself, thank goodness. Just the standard remove shoes, remove belt, unpack all electronics, put shoes, electronics, and bags in separate bins, get yelled at (in general, not specifically at me) to do X with your ID and Y with your bottles in clear bags, etc.

Once we had a TSA agent that was hard-ass and looked like she could have been a real problem if provoked. A couple times I actually experienced good-natured TSA agents, even one who joked and laughed (with us, not at us). However, despite the very fortunate lack of being singled out for extra search and seizure, the air of fear and loathing was palpable nearly at all times. I absolutely agree with CLS in his post that we innocent travelers in our own country are being looked at and handled as if we’re unruly children at best, and prisoners or constant Potential Terrorist Threats at worst. With maybe the exception of the joking TSA agent, I feel pretty confident that should I have not acted just as CLS describes (no eye contact, don’t speak up, don’t be noticed) any one of the TSA agents I’ve come across would have enjoyed exercising their seemingly unlimited and undefined power by being making my life very difficult–for not being a good sheep.

Now, of course I don’t know this to be the case; but, the cultivated air of expectation of this is exactly one of the ways in which innocent travelers are kept in line and TSA agents maintain their fictional appearance of martial power.

Not only will this trend toward Gestapo travel not change, but will likely only get worse, until enough people demand change. Demand it loud and persistantly, until it can’t be ignored or brushed off.

A few days ago, in the post “The right to persecute” I made a follow-up comment regarding how at a Promise Keeper’s rally nearly every speaker (and comedian even…everyone except the musicians) exclaimed to enthusiastic approval that atheists are ruining the country and must be eradicated, likewise feminists and socialists. And, being a somewhat newly minted Marxist cultural critic, I had no choice but to think about this admonition to eliminate the Socialist Threat through a religious context.

• First, a very brief grounding in Marxist criticism and why I think it’s appropriate for this examination:

There’s a difference between political Marxism and Marxist cultural criticism. (The politics is simply an outgrowth of the criticism, and that’s not what I’m concerned with at the moment.) The cultural criticism is a purely objective (ideally) historical and material examination of a cultural product or development. Sometimes something “small” like a genre of film, and in this case something more significant like religious ideology. Religion, like politics and manufacturing and cultural morés, are part of what’s called “the superstructure.”

Imagine a skyscraper, if you will, as it’s being built. All the metal girders and beams, the framework that will house everything that will go inside and define the building. Religion, government, clothing and fashion, everything that makes up a culture is part of this building’s superstructure.

But, what ultimately holds up the superstructure, what the framework and everything that is this building, extends out of the foundation, or “the base.” The base, in this metaphor, is the economics of the culture–who owns the means of production and distribution. From this base, the the paradigm of the ownership of capital, all aspects of culture spring forth. And cultural ideology is what supports and benefits those owners of capital. This is the basis of Marxist criticism: examining the material base which creates and supports the cultural products and can be purified down to these two questions: Who uses it, and what is it for?

• Now that you know where I’m coming from, let’s take a look at this marriage of religious ideology with socio-economics.

This Christian hatred of evil socialism seems to have begun at the same time “under God” was inserted into the Pledge and the country went hog wild anti-Soviet Union. Before that time, during the 20s and 30s, socialism was not vilified among the American populace–in fact, there was quite a lot of support for it. There were even Communist politicians who were just as valid and accepted as Democrats and Republicans. But once the United States came out of an era of war and slight economic upturn since The Depression, those in power, the politicians and the ever-increasing industrial capitalists, found a way in which the country’s economy could be boosted and accelerated–the development of the military industrial complex. By the constant and perpetual preparation for war, manufacturing could grow and get stronger, more and more jobs can be created, and patriotism and capitalism could become inexorably intertwined benefiting both the political power and the corporate power.

(History lesson warning!) Note that before World War II, America was in general isolationist, non-interference, and avoided foreign conflicts as much as possible (as per George Washington’s sage advice). Also note this was mainly true for the general populace, as there were those in government who were slowly expanding empire, starting with the Spanish-American war, by taking over Central and South American and Philippine countries by both force and buying the help of local revolutionary forces.

In order to justify and maintain the burgeoning military industrial complex, an enemy was necessary. The United States, which was broke, despondent, basically a “developing nation,” in the course of less than ten years exploded into being a military and industrial super power. Who else was an emerging super power? The uneasy WWII ally, the Soviet Union. A growing empire that, while originally having more than a little early support in the U.S. and especially some in western Europe, was admittedly lead by a tyrannical and murderous dictator, Stalin. (Who started his rule founded on the socialism of Marx and Engels and the idealistic struggle of Lenin, with the help of Trotsky, but then banished both Trotsky and true socialism in favor of fascist dictatorship. Yet, the myth of communism stuck as part of USSR’s identity.)

(OK, here’s where the history lesson starts to give way to explanation of the Christian marriage with capitalism….) In order to be properly adversarial, in conflict, each side has to thoroughly identify with the antithesis of the other’s assumed beliefs and ideology. Even though the people of the United States was by and large non-religious before the late 40’s, most Americans identified as Christian. Stalin on the other hand, having been trained to be a priest in his young adult life, saw religion as a threat to his omnipotent dictatorship, and sought to abolish it (not, as today’s evangelicals would have you believe: because Stalin was a staunch atheist and wanted to create a secular rule–but simply because he wanted to rule absolutely; and being well educated in theology, knew he could utilize the symbolism and trappings of religion and apply them to his own image to encourage the people’s worship of him instead).

So, our enemy is the godless USSR, and after the Soviets detonated their first H-bomb (1953) a fiery movement begins to reinforce America as a Christian nation, by inserting “Under God” in the Pledge (1954), making “In God We Trust” the national motto (1956), a cultural push in the arts and entertainment begins to create an image of Americana as church-going, God-fearing people. And it’s at this point in the mid-20th century when American prosperity, thanks initially to the industrial military complex and the beginnings of modernist capitalism, becomes ideologically married to the idea of Christian religion.

• Now, some theological posers:

Prior to the 1950s and the merging of religious identity with capitalism, what socio-economic system do you think Christianity was more supportive of? I would posit socialism. Throughout the Christian Bible we find examples of both Hebrew prophets up to and including Jesus himself and the founder of the religion, Paul, teaching the values of socialism and admonishing the selfish “individualism” and greed that is the basis of modern capitalism. The Beatitudes point to worth and value and reward not in the strident individualist money making up-by-your-bootstraps robber baron. The rich man is told he’s likely not going to be blessed by Heaven. Followers are told to give and not horde. Taught to take care of “the least among you.” The poor and the sick are the responsibility of all.

I really think it’s a work of mental acrobatics to try to make Christianity out to be pro-capitalism and anti-socialism. Ergo, the fact that the fundamental and evangelical Christian movement in America is so heavily anti-socialism is both evidence of the ideological manipulation of the superstructure by the economic base, and evidence that people tend to believe the ideology they’re raised into without examining or critically thinking about it. Christianity in America, thanks to the hegemonic dominance of late capitalism, has become a material wealth religion. Turn on pretty much any televangelist or Christian “teacher” or leader, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robertson, and they’re preaching the message of wealth and supporting the capitalist ideology in ironic disagreement and conflict with the message evident in the Christian Bible.

And you can’t say they’re exceptions, or not “real Christians” (whatever that means), as the message of capitalism and wealth is evident down in the trenches of the every-day Christian no less. Coming back to that Promise Keeper’s rally, the message Belief + Faith = Material Wealth and Fortune, and Material Fortune = Proof of God’s Favor, ergo Capitalist Ideals = God’s Ideals was heavy throughout the weekend. In fact, the final speaker of the event was a fellow who spoke to us specifically about financial prosperity, doing business with and associating with primarily other Christian owned businesses, and gave an implied message that if your business isn’t doing well (interesting how he was speaking to thousands of men and spoke as if they all owned and operated their own small businesses) then you’re not “right with God.”

• Final thoughts

Well, I’d like to think that the conclusions are self-explanatory. Religion is a cultural product. The Russian Orthodox Christianity is virtually a different religion from American Catholicism and Protestantism, which are different religions from Medieval European Christianity (and Irish Christianity was a different religion from Roman Christianity), which are all different from 2nd century Christianity. They may all share the same faith on a few constant ideas, but otherwise the shape and form and belief and practice in these ideas are completely and entirely the result of the socio-economic base of a culture.

Religion is just one of many pieces of the superstructure which is used (here’s the big kicker) to control the masses and get them to support and benefit those in power. Whether it’s Stalinism, or The Church, or capitalist Christianity, the religion of the land is formed and manipulated to reflect the ideology that controls the 99% and gives control to the 1%.

BoingBoing tends to have a lot of pretty funny people commenting in their site. I was just reading that Unreasonable Faith site I mentioned a post ago, and got a real chuckle out of his post: Irrefutable proof that Baal exists!, but then read the first comment left on it, and would have spewed soda through my nose should I have been drinking any. It’s the “delivery” that makes it real comedy.

BoingBoing has posted an article on an example of how the government uses the tools of “security” as political vindictiveness:

• CNN reporter says bad things about the TSA, gets hassled every time he flies

What? No, they don’t do that kind of thing! (Ruining CIA agent Valery Plame’s cover and her years of covert work as retribution for her husband criticising their made up intel on Iraq’s nuclear program, adding decorated Korean War veteran to TSA watch list for publically criticising the Iraq War….)

One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said. “

Friendly Atheist today posted a link to a blog site of someone who used to be a creationist, fundamental evangelical Christian who realized the fallaciousness of it all after a long path of critical thinking and examining the evidence:

• Unreasonable Faith

I’ve had time only to just start looking into the site, but I like what I see so far. He seems like a good person who sought to make sense of all the “that’s just the way it is” and “God’s ways are mysterious” answers he could no longer just ignore.

He has one article called “Might does not make right, even with God” which discusses the ethical and moral absurdity of an omnipotent and all-loving and merciful God and a world filled with pain and suffering–all because of The Fall. (Something I’ve discussed here at length…pretty much all alone. Hey, how’d this guy get such a big audience so fast?! LOL!)

One of the commentators on that page makes a great little quip:

There is no choice there — God made Eve in such a way that she would succumb to temptation — God made Adam so that he would follow her. If I write a computer program that freezes my computer when I press the “Enter” key, I can hardly complain that my computer freezes when I hit the “Enter” key. Getting mad about it and formatting the hard drive would be silly, right?

The middle class is getting squeezed:

• CNN Money: Middle class: ‘On the edge’

I don’t know here the “more conservative Heritage Foundation” gets their numbers from. They’re the “think-tank” that put out the white paper immediately after Bush was elected in 2000 advising him in order to forward his conservative agendas throughout the government, to purge key positions and fill them with loyalists who will craft the political message into their department’s mandate.

Let’s see, the past several year capital gains have gone up indicating greater corporate wealth and productivity, and average CEO compensation packages have grown, but the number in poverty has increased, unemployment has increased, and wages for those earning less than $200,000 a year have stagnated or dropped.
I wonder what conclusions can be drawn from that….

Related: Lettuce is the last straw, pt. 2.

King George loves the extremeists; The Middle Class is being killed off.

The new gilded age.

Not with a protest but with a whimper.

The war against the middle-class.

Why we vote against our own interests.

Just came across this fantastic list of theistic questions that a child may (and should) ask, (actually, any believer should ask), although the answers are more for adults–they’re a little crass:

• Kindergarten Questions for God

Here’s an example:

7. Why is belief so important to God when He judges us?

Children are praised or punished for how they act, not for what they think. They are taught that actions speak louder than words, and I would add that words speak louder than thoughts. Wouldn’t a benevolent deity focus exclusively on our being kind to the people He allegedly loves? Is God’s ego so fragile that He confines His ultimate wrath and vindictive acts toward those who disbelieve in His existence or don’t properly worship Him?

The author comments that the common answer for many of these questions is “God works in mysterious ways”…

The Biblically-based equivalent is found in Isaiah 55:8: “God’s ways are not our ways.” But such answers lead to yet another thought-provoking question. Should our ways be more like God’s, or should God’s ways be more like ours? Who among us, if we had it within our power, would not alleviate much of the pain and suffering that we see in the world?

Another list I recently discovered is a PDF of questions for the atheist:

• The Atheist F.A.Q. (PDF)

From there you can get the PDF, which you can get from this link as well. (right-click, save-as)

Example entries:

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

o Truth is not subject to popular vote, just like the majority of people were once wrong about the Earth being flat or the center of the universe. Much of the reason people believe in some God has to do with their religious upbringing; our beliefs are generally passed down through the generations.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?

o They teach that faith is a virtue. They use the same reasoning patterns as religious extremists when justifying their beliefs. If faith is all they need to believe, today’s moderates could become tomorrow’s extremists.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?

o Religion can be used as a motivator for good. It can be a source of comfort in times of need. It has the ability to bring people together and unite them. It has been the inspiration for much of our world’s beautiful music and architecture. However, all of these redeeming qualities can be found outside of religion as well.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

o It depends on the nature of the God, but it’s hard to imagine a God who would be upset with a person who honestly searched for evidence but found none that was satisfactory.

Cectic has a humorous if sad commentary:

I can’t help but think how true this is. How accepted and ingrained in our Christian-dominant society to be openly intolerant to non-believers. There was a recent story of a baseball player breaking a home run derby record and an announcer stating “it’s a bad day to be an atheist!” Obviously he was joking–but we all know not entirely. At the base of his jibe there is sincerity and a belief that it’s permissible to ridicule someone’s (lack of) belief. Normally, I believe that the proper response to this announcer’s joke would be to ignore it. In fact, normally I’d probably even give a chuckle at it as I’m sure in context and in the moment it would have been kinda funny.

But, let’s think about this for a second. What if he’d said “it’s a bad day to be a Catholic” Or, “it’s a bad day to be a Muslim”? Would he have gotten away with it? The player was white, what if he’d said “bad day to be black!” Personally, I think a person has a right to say what they want (so long as it’s not advocating violence and hate) and anyone has the right to be offended. What I have a problem with is the underlying acceptance in this society that non-believers are sub-human and don’t have a right to be offended.

We live in a society where an atheist has less of a chance to be elected president than a gay Muslim (I’d like to see that some day!) despite the fact the Constitution states no one is to be subjected to a test of religious belief to be elected to public office. Every presidential candidate has to fall over themselves to make sure people know without a doubt that they’re a faithful Christian, otherwise they know they have zero chance at getting elected. And like the Cectic comic indicates, this intolerance of non-belief is integral to Christianity. So much so that even Christians who don’t follow scriptural instructions to hate the non-believer and convert or kill them, still accept the hate speech that is a part of Christian theology.

I think the announcer has the right to make a joke like he did. What makes me sad is that the non-believers are the only ones offended–where’s the liberal, non-evangelical Christians who will speak up and say “hey, dude, that’s not cool”?

A recent parable on Friendly Atheist makes a good point, and while I don’t believe in any anthropomorphic sky-daddy, I would like to think if he really existed and was as merciful and loving as liberal non-scriptural Christians believe and could see the intent of people’s heart, he’d be like this:

At the end of their lives two Christians and an atheist came before God. To the first Christian God asked, “What did you do in your life, my child?”
The first Christian said, “I praised your name by driving out sinners from our society. I reviled and shunned and beat and imprisoned and even killed those who did not believe in you as I did, and those who did not live by your word exactly as I did. I made their lives miserable to glorify your name.”
God: “So you used my name to justify your hatred and cruelty to your brothers and sisters.”
First Christian: “I… I thought I was doing your will, my Lord.”
God: “You were doing your own will and misusing my name.”
Turning then to the second Christian God asked, “And what did you do in your life, my child?”
The second Christian replied, “I believed in you with all my heart and praised your name in my prayers.”
God: “And what did you do for your brothers and sisters who suffered at the hands of those who misused my name for their cruelty?”
Second Christian: “I, uh, I felt sorry for them and I hoped that those who were cruel would stop misusing your name.”
God: “Show me the hand you raised to stop the cruelty that was done to your brothers and sisters in my name.”
Second Christian: “I raised neither hand, my Lord.”
God: “Show me the hand you extended to comfort and heal your brothers and sisters who suffered cruelty that was done in my name.”
Second Christian: “I extended neither hand, my Lord.”
God: “So you praised my name in your prayers but you did nothing for your brothers and sisters who suffered from cruelty done in my name.”
Finally, God turned to the atheist and said, “And now you my child, what did you do in your life?”
The atheist said, “I spent no time believing in you or praising your name. Instead I spoke out against hatred done in your name. For that I was reviled and shunned in your name. I worked hard to stop injustice and cruelty to others done in your name. For that I was beaten and imprisoned in your name. I fought against the horrors that were done around the world in your name. For that I was killed in your name.”
To the atheist God said, “You may go inside, my child and join the feast.” To the two Christians God said, “You two will stay out here for the time being, while you consider that your brothers and sisters needed your love and your help far more than I needed you to praise my name.”

Glenn Beck is a tool.

He recently wrote an op-ed printed on CNN.com:

• Commentary: T-shirt depicts ‘pathetic and brutal legacy’

He seems to find much humor in the idea that, supposedly, part of the reason the people who portrayed a terrorist group was able to deceive the FARC group that they were “bad guys” (and thus able to liberate the group’s hostages) is that one of them was wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt. First of all, this is purely anecdotal from very biased source; and secondly, the successful deception probably had more to do with the fact the group in disguise was armed with AK-47’s, spoke the appropriate language, was able to talk and discuss key ideological points successfully, and had the general look and demeanor of a terrorist organization and was able to act the role. The Guevara shirt could have instead been an Old Navy American flag t-shirt and they would have been just as successful in the ruse. Likewise, the same group could have all been wearing Guevara shirts but if they lacked any of the other elements, would probably have been shot.

What the corporate news machine tool, Beck, is more riled up about is the idea that Americans wear the Guevara shirt because it offends his hegemonic capitalist sensibilities. So he sets about on a screed vilifying and smearing Guevara and in turn the people who appear to support Guevara’s struggle in the process. (For my own criticism of people wearing the shirt, see the end.)

By the way, he states: “So, what is the uniform of choice when fooling terrorists in Colombia?” Since when did every bad guy in the world suddenly become a “terrorist”? Now the FARC are not a friendly bunch. They use some despicable tactics in their battle for revolution, such as kidnapping innocent people, which is terrifying, no question! But should any tactic which causes pain and suffering and fear make a group a “terrorist group”? Here’s something terrifying: cluster bombing a town in order to take out a single target, occupying a city that had been sent from modernity back into the dark ages thanks to shock and awe missile attacks, using contract mercenaries to harass citizens and act as a foreign run police force. American forces and their proxies, like Blackwater, have killed thousands of civilians, devastated towns, destroyed civil infrastructure, and created millions of refugees, and have made people afraid to step outside for fear of being harassed and abused and afraid to stay inside lest their building gets hit by a rocket. If harming civilians and causing havoc is a sign of a terrorist, make no mistake: the U.S. military is the largest, most well armed terrorist group in the world.

The ones with the larger guns are military, the rest are terrorists.

Beck hates Che Guevara because he was an ideological revolutionary. Again the hypocrisy is wonderful. If the ideology is his and the revolution to spread is his ideology, it’s OK. History lesson: The U.S. has been invading countries and imposing its ideology on other countries (usually by force) since the 19th century. Since the Spanish-American war the industrial robber baron owned administrations have sought to spread empire to Central America, South America, the Philippines, by either funding and arming and training (gasp!) local rebel and revolutionary organizations, or by directly invading. Since WWII (the last “good” and legitimate war) the government through the CIA has been funding and training and arming revolutionary groups from Honduras to Argentina (not to mention throughout the Middle East) in order to craft and contrive puppet rulerships that support U.S. interests.

And you can’t even claim the ideology being encouraged is Freedom and Democracy. If the goal of spreading empire was to promote freedom and democracy, Saudi Arabia should be the first country to go down (forgetting for a second that all but a couple of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian and none of them were Iraqi). Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive, violent nations in the Middle East if not all Europe/Asia. They constantly behead people for violating Sharia and use what used to be a, go fig, actual terrorist organization as their police force. Yeah, Saddam Hussein was a cruel and murderous dictator, but Saudi Arabia makes Hussein’s Iraq look like Sweden by comparison. Hmm, I wonder why this administration would invade oil rich Iraq and depose the not-too-friendly-to-U.S. dictator, but actually improve cooperative relations with the oil rich but friendly-to-a-certain-oil-family theocracy of Saudi Arabia….

Spreading U.S. ideology has nothing to do with freedom and democracy or any of the ideals of the enlightened Founding fathers of the United States, let’s get this clear. It has everything to do with spreading global market capitalism that specifically benefits corporate owners. It has nothing to do with patriotism, nothing to do with the American way, nothing to do with liberty and freedom–unless it’s the way of profit and and liberty of corporate management. In fact, the more oppressed a people and culture are the more the corporations prefer them as quasi-slave workers. The less choice, the less freedom a society has, the more likely a company will move operations and manufacturing to that country for cheap labor. But funny when they do this, the savings don’t get passed on to the consumer–prices stay the same or even increase.

On the flip side, corporations also love for the consumer societies to also have as little freedom as possible. The ideology of capitalism is about a false sense of freedom in that the choices we have are over this shampoo brand or that identical one, between a Mercury Mystique or a Ford Taurus, between blue jeans or slacks. We believe we live in a “free country” because that’s what the country was originally based on, before industrialization, and it was possible to be truly free to make whatever choices you want regarding your own life, liberty, and happiness–and it wasn’t tied into what products you buy.

The immediate, and reasonable response, is to say “but compared to the aforementioned Saudi Arabia and Iraq, we have a lot of freedoms!” and indeed we do. Don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather live in America than Cuba. I like having the ability to buy an MP3 player and an iPhone. I like the fact technically, at least for the moment, I can say exactly what I’m saying right now without fear of arrest, unlike, say, North Korea. But it’s still the justification of the prisoner in the holding cell versus the one in solitary. “At least I only got punched in the jaw and not kicked in the ‘nads.” It’s the same rationalization the person who accepts mass surveillance by the state commits by saying “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.” The hegemony gives us token freedom in order to keep us placid and thankful while exploiting us no less than they exploit the worker class in developing countries. They encourage us to believe in capitalist ideology, the myth of working hard and get rich, not because it serves us, but because it serves them. Ideology is the values of the ruling class, the masses are convinced it’s their own, and by following the ideology they’re convinced they’re following the “right” and “proper” and “natural” way to be and so they don’t revolt against the exploitation they are subjected to by the ruling class.

5% of this country control 95% of the wealth. Since, under capitalism, wealth equals power and control, 5% of the nation is the ruling class. And it’s not the government that are the rulers–government is part of the superstructure, an outgrowth of the material and economic foundation that generate an ideology to support it. The government is not the rulers, those with the power are the rulers and in our society it’s the 5% that own the capital–the government is in service to them both directly (by being bought by the capitalists and corporate owners) and indirectly (by supporting the capitalist ideology which serves the rulers and exploits the masses). So, the overt military invasions, the covert CIA infiltrations and instigation, that are the extension of government expansion of empire is not to serve the interests of “freedom” and “democracy,” but the interests of the ruling class which benefit from the empire of global market capitalism.

Better than feudalism by a far sight! Like having an eye plucked out instead your limbs hacked off. We’re convinced that capitalism is the best and only way to live, and we buy into that because, guess what, it serves the ruling class for us to believe that, as the alternatives may include an ideology which serves the 95% a whole lot better.

So, when Beck uses non sequitur and ad hominem attacks against Che Guevara because he took up arms to fight for an ideology he believed was better than the exploitation of capitalism and fascism, and Beck calls him a mass murderer, he fails to see that the Founding Fathers were exactly the same–rebels and criminals and traitors who took up arms to fight the legitimate ruling class and their ideology in favor of one they thought was better. When the U.S. overthrows a sovereign nation in order to force their own ideology upon the people, they’re doing the exact same thing he accuses Che Guevara of doing, except with trillions of dollars of equipment to do it with, and it’s his ideology that is being fought for. Whether the ideology is “right” or “wrong” is beside the point–the winner is always the one who gets to determine which is which. The one you believe in is always the right one, and the one the other person believes in is always the wrong one.

—-

Now, as for criticizing the wearers of the Che shirts, Beck misses the real issue: Most of the people wearing the Che shirt are not supporting the revolutionary leader–they have little idea who he is and a whole lot less of what he fought for. The irony that Beck misses and should actually be celebrating, being the tool he is, is that capitalism has won–Che has become a commodity. He is a product that one buys and consumes. When capitalism commodifies something it loses its ability to be subversive! Whether it’s Che’s image, protest music, or you as labor. Most people who buy and consume Che Guevara shirts think they’re making a statement of rebellion, fighting against The Man, but all they’re doing is putting more money in the pockets of the corporations while The Man smiles and pats the lil rebel’s head and says “Yes yes, you’re such the little revolutionary, my son. Now go run and play.”

We rebels buy Chumbawamba and Rage Against The Machine CD’s and we think we’re supporting the revolution or at least the idea of it, but what we’ve done is simply exercise our “freedom” (of choice) between one commodity over another. We paid Corporation A $15 for a rebel rocker’s CD instead of Corporation B for Brittney Spears. Our intent, as a consumer, may be one thing but our actions support the hegemony no matter what. “Heh, why aren’t you just the lil scrapper! Give me your allowance for Chumba’s Anarchy and go clean your room.” When Paltrow buys a $200 shopping bag (probably made using exploited workers) with a socialist slogan on it (see Beck’s article), who’s winning? Beck should actually be jumping for joy.

(It’s tough to speak the truth as I’m someone who loves Chumbawamba and would like to buy a Che shirt to state my message of support on my chest.)

BoingBoing has an article today that is just filled with absurd terrifying/funniness that’s right out of the movie Brazil:

• Quintessential TSA stupidity: taking airline cutlery away from a pilot

The entire Salon article is filled with sad and hilarious humor (really, “surreal absurdity” is just the best phrase for it), but the snippet provided is enough to make you shake your head in both disgust and glee (this kind of cognitive dissonance must have a Newspeak term for it. That’d be doubleplusgood!)

Some good stuff is found in the comment, though. Like this ROTFL quip from commentor #2:

I mean, if the pilot is allowed to bring a knife onboard, he might somehow get control of the plane!

On a serious note is this astute observation from #23:

OK, here’s the problem, years ago the corporations… I mean uh… people who run this country decided that they should fund education just enough to turn out people who can blindly regurgitate simple sets of knowledge and can perform tasks without questioning them. In other words, with complete absence of free thought. Now we are beholden to this army of idiots to run our lives. This is the end, people. Time to jump ship.

Followed up by another cute quip from #25:

jump ship? The IRS doesn’t permit that.

And because I’m a huge Philip K. Dick fan, I have to repeat this comment from commentor #12:

Whenever I hear stories like this, I’m always reminded of this line from the first chapter of VALIS by Philip K. Dick:

“[Fat] heard in her rational tone the harp of nihilism, the twang of the void. He was not dealing with a person; he had a reflex-arc thing at the other end of the phone line.”

the pilot couldn’t even get the TSA robot to share a bit of humanity in observing the absurdity of the situation –
“It’s not a dumb rule.”

Reflex-arc thing indeed.

Quickie; not much needs be said by me:

• NY Times editorial on laptop seizures by Homeland Security