I am a perverted moth...
Feb. 27th, 2003 08:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockSo now I've read an LJ that says we get no ROTK goodness at all in March. I am much vexed, but am holding onto my faith in TORN's article. Hopefully those souls able to get themselves to a theater on Friday/Saturday will post info for the rest of us. Hopefully.
Ok, one non-spoilerish brief comment about Daredevil, things I liked: The X2 trailer before it, the soundtrack; things I didn't like: not being able to switch channels during the exposition and mushy stuff, the confuse-o-vision fight scenes. In summation: a decent matinee if you've got a few hours to kill.
Will be seeing Cradle 2 Grave despite my intense, automatic dislike of any film a) using a number 2 in place of the word "to", b) starring a current or former rap star. Why? Jet Li and Mark DiCoscos...'nuff said.
Saturday is the annual "John and Ellie Pilgrimmage to Chinatown" followed by Shanghai Knights. This may include a brief stop at Lush as I'm currently out of Veganese conditioner, and like any other junkie, I need my fix. But it just smells so good, and makes my hair so soft, I cannot resist its siren call. This also works into my Sunday post-houseguest meltdown, which will include a nice long soak in a bath smelling of Cerridwen's Cauldron. I smell it every time I walk into the bathroom and murmuring, "Soon you will be mine."
A quick word or two on Saturday's performance. I learned a couple of important things during the experience. One, that a dancer has to be prepared for the unexpected. In our case this came in the form of two carpets taped together in the middle of our dance space, and lighting units we hadn't expected. On the plus side, the stage setup kept wait-staff from walking through the performance area (unlike Menara, Shamshiri, etc.). On the negative side it threw us all into a mild panic, "How am I supposed to spin on carpeting? I can't possibly spin fast enough for the airplanes!" We managed to get things arranged so that we all ended up on the tile, so it all turned out all right in the end. Still, you can't count on all the elements of a performance space being optimal, and we need to take that into account when rehearsing and practicing on our own.
Second, I discovered that being backstage at a bellydance show is a truly wonderful thing. The sense of comraderie is truly amazing, everyone is very supportive and helpful and encouraging, and the air is positively electric. Sure it's terrifying as hell too, but while you're shaking in your fringed belt, you're also dying to get out there and show your stuff.
There is also a great deal of female nudity.
Dancers have absolutely no problem stripping down to the altogether without the slightest hesitation in a room filled with other dancers. Shortly after we arrived a woman bustled in, agreed to dance second, and then without a word, threw off every piece of clothing she was wearing. She did it completely without shame, and kept up a happy, witty conversation with all of us while doing so. When our teacher shucked her own bra I had to keep repeating, "Look at her face, not at her chest." like a mantra under my breath. I get the feeling it's going to be my mantra in class too...good lord she's a gorgeous woman!
Ahem.
Anyway, it was an interesting experience and it brought up some of my own issues about my body image. Could I have stripped down in the middle of everyone without a second thought? Well there was a time I would've answered, "Yes!" I'm a pagan after all, we don't have any silly notions about sin, and we recognize that our bodies are a part of us, not some enemy thing to be controlled ruthlessly. Hell I've danced naked in the rain with others on several occasions, and skinny dipping used to be one of my favorite summertime activities.
So why, if you asked me that question now, would I answer "No"? There are reasons, of course, but ones probably not worth mentioning. Suffice to say that I've spent the past few years with an ego smashed into about a million pieces. Though I've been working hard to glue the fragments back together again, it's going to take time, lots and lots of time, and patience. And I've never been very good at jigsaw puzzles.
I'm hoping that continuing to dance, feeling stronger and more confident as my body starts to do what my brain is trying to tell it to, will help with that. I want that confidence back that I'm OK. I'm not shooting for "I am *all* that", I've never had that perspective in my life and I don't see it as a realistic goal now. But comfort and self-assurance, yeah I think those are worth shooting for.
I was pleased to be able to take part in yesterday's "Win Without War" campaign, which apparently succeeded splendidly in flooding Washington with the voices of those opposed to what is undoubtedly an inevitable war with Iraq.
Tom Andrews, a former Democratic representative from Maine who
is running the organization, said more than 500,000 people had
signed up on the Internet to take part and a half a million more
were also expected to participate without registering on the
group's web site (Moveon.org).
"We have hundreds of thousands of calls and faxes that we know
are going in. It's a first-of-its-kind protest and a tremendous
success already," he said. "People are making their voices heard
loud and clear -- don't invade and don't occupy Iraq."
A very interesting article on Yahoo news:
Veteran U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq-
J. Brady Kiesling, who served as political officer at the Athens embassy, reportedly said in a resignation letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) that he left the diplomatic service because of his disagreement over the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
"Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson," Kiesling wrote, according to The New York Times.
And apparently at least Britain's House of Commons isn't quite as unified in their support of America as their Prime Minister is, Rebel vote stuns Blair 121 Labour members vote against war, Biggest ever revolt against a government:
The vote "demonstrates there is no public support for a war. The prime minister has failed to convince the public or the party. It's time for him to think again", said the leftwinger Jeremy Corbyn, who has been campaigning against Saddam Hussein's brutality since the 1980s when his regime was backed by the west...
The one consolation for Mr Blair was that moderate rebels such as Chris Smith, whose amendment it was, said they could still be persuaded.
"There may well be a time for military action ... but at the moment the timetable appears to be determined by the decisions of the president of the US," Mr Smith, a former cabinet minister, told MPs.
Found this one interesting too:
Kenneth Clarke: 'Revolting regime is not a basis for war'
So much to read, so little time...
Ok, one non-spoilerish brief comment about Daredevil, things I liked: The X2 trailer before it, the soundtrack; things I didn't like: not being able to switch channels during the exposition and mushy stuff, the confuse-o-vision fight scenes. In summation: a decent matinee if you've got a few hours to kill.
Will be seeing Cradle 2 Grave despite my intense, automatic dislike of any film a) using a number 2 in place of the word "to", b) starring a current or former rap star. Why? Jet Li and Mark DiCoscos...'nuff said.
Saturday is the annual "John and Ellie Pilgrimmage to Chinatown" followed by Shanghai Knights. This may include a brief stop at Lush as I'm currently out of Veganese conditioner, and like any other junkie, I need my fix. But it just smells so good, and makes my hair so soft, I cannot resist its siren call. This also works into my Sunday post-houseguest meltdown, which will include a nice long soak in a bath smelling of Cerridwen's Cauldron. I smell it every time I walk into the bathroom and murmuring, "Soon you will be mine."
A quick word or two on Saturday's performance. I learned a couple of important things during the experience. One, that a dancer has to be prepared for the unexpected. In our case this came in the form of two carpets taped together in the middle of our dance space, and lighting units we hadn't expected. On the plus side, the stage setup kept wait-staff from walking through the performance area (unlike Menara, Shamshiri, etc.). On the negative side it threw us all into a mild panic, "How am I supposed to spin on carpeting? I can't possibly spin fast enough for the airplanes!" We managed to get things arranged so that we all ended up on the tile, so it all turned out all right in the end. Still, you can't count on all the elements of a performance space being optimal, and we need to take that into account when rehearsing and practicing on our own.
Second, I discovered that being backstage at a bellydance show is a truly wonderful thing. The sense of comraderie is truly amazing, everyone is very supportive and helpful and encouraging, and the air is positively electric. Sure it's terrifying as hell too, but while you're shaking in your fringed belt, you're also dying to get out there and show your stuff.
There is also a great deal of female nudity.
Dancers have absolutely no problem stripping down to the altogether without the slightest hesitation in a room filled with other dancers. Shortly after we arrived a woman bustled in, agreed to dance second, and then without a word, threw off every piece of clothing she was wearing. She did it completely without shame, and kept up a happy, witty conversation with all of us while doing so. When our teacher shucked her own bra I had to keep repeating, "Look at her face, not at her chest." like a mantra under my breath. I get the feeling it's going to be my mantra in class too...good lord she's a gorgeous woman!
Ahem.
Anyway, it was an interesting experience and it brought up some of my own issues about my body image. Could I have stripped down in the middle of everyone without a second thought? Well there was a time I would've answered, "Yes!" I'm a pagan after all, we don't have any silly notions about sin, and we recognize that our bodies are a part of us, not some enemy thing to be controlled ruthlessly. Hell I've danced naked in the rain with others on several occasions, and skinny dipping used to be one of my favorite summertime activities.
So why, if you asked me that question now, would I answer "No"? There are reasons, of course, but ones probably not worth mentioning. Suffice to say that I've spent the past few years with an ego smashed into about a million pieces. Though I've been working hard to glue the fragments back together again, it's going to take time, lots and lots of time, and patience. And I've never been very good at jigsaw puzzles.
I'm hoping that continuing to dance, feeling stronger and more confident as my body starts to do what my brain is trying to tell it to, will help with that. I want that confidence back that I'm OK. I'm not shooting for "I am *all* that", I've never had that perspective in my life and I don't see it as a realistic goal now. But comfort and self-assurance, yeah I think those are worth shooting for.
I was pleased to be able to take part in yesterday's "Win Without War" campaign, which apparently succeeded splendidly in flooding Washington with the voices of those opposed to what is undoubtedly an inevitable war with Iraq.
Tom Andrews, a former Democratic representative from Maine who
is running the organization, said more than 500,000 people had
signed up on the Internet to take part and a half a million more
were also expected to participate without registering on the
group's web site (Moveon.org).
"We have hundreds of thousands of calls and faxes that we know
are going in. It's a first-of-its-kind protest and a tremendous
success already," he said. "People are making their voices heard
loud and clear -- don't invade and don't occupy Iraq."
A very interesting article on Yahoo news:
Veteran U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq-
J. Brady Kiesling, who served as political officer at the Athens embassy, reportedly said in a resignation letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) that he left the diplomatic service because of his disagreement over the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
"Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson," Kiesling wrote, according to The New York Times.
And apparently at least Britain's House of Commons isn't quite as unified in their support of America as their Prime Minister is, Rebel vote stuns Blair 121 Labour members vote against war, Biggest ever revolt against a government:
The vote "demonstrates there is no public support for a war. The prime minister has failed to convince the public or the party. It's time for him to think again", said the leftwinger Jeremy Corbyn, who has been campaigning against Saddam Hussein's brutality since the 1980s when his regime was backed by the west...
The one consolation for Mr Blair was that moderate rebels such as Chris Smith, whose amendment it was, said they could still be persuaded.
"There may well be a time for military action ... but at the moment the timetable appears to be determined by the decisions of the president of the US," Mr Smith, a former cabinet minister, told MPs.
Found this one interesting too:
Kenneth Clarke: 'Revolting regime is not a basis for war'
So much to read, so little time...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2003-02-27 03:07 pm (UTC)First and foremost I'd answer your question with another question. We've known that Saddam is a ruthless tyrant since we basically set him up in power. He killed Iranians ruthlessly, we did nothing. He killed his own people for years, we did nothing.
I thought it was interesting that one of the major opponents to Tony Blair was also one of the most outspoken critics of Saddam's regime since the 1980's. If our main reason for going in there now is that he is EVIL, well hasn't he been all along? Why haven't we done something about this before? And is he the tip of the iceberg? I mean will we now start toppling other regimes that use the same tactics?
Also, I remain curious what you believe are the real reasons for our (by which I am assuming you mean the Bush Administration's) current policy toward Iraq.
Seriously? Ok, but try to remember these are *my* reasons, don't use this as an excuse to pick them apart and tear me to shreds. If you don't agree with them, that's fine, but you asked and I'm answering.
I believe our current actions have a great deal more to do with what is best for George Bush and his administration, and less to do with what is best for America/the Free World. I think he needs a target for the outrage the American public feels about 9/11 and those responsible for it, Iraq makes a much nicer and easier one than a terrorist organization with branches all over the world and a leader we can't seem to capture.
I think he's more interested in keeping us all focused on what's going on overseas so we won't spend too much time thinking about the bleak economic outlook back home. I think he wants a foothold in the Middle East, and I think he's hideously naive about the possibility that crushing Saddam and his regime will in any way slow or stop terrorism, or that it will somehow help right the wrongs that inspire it.
I think he has become the epitome of the "ugly American" to most of the world, a brazen, thoughtless bully with a "might makes right" attitude. And I don't think we can just shrug that perception off, I think we have to really contemplate how he and his administration are representing all of us. Whether we agree with the characterization or not, this is what the rest of the world is seeing. And I think he's destroying our credibility and reputation with the international community.
Now, before you cry, "Ah ha! So you are a George Bush hater! That's where all of this comes from!" Allow me to assure you that had Clinton or any other Democrat done these same things, I'd be just as opposed to them. Had they attacked our civil liberties in the name of "Homeland Security", had they played fast and loose with the truth, had they pushed for a war that nearly all of the remainder of the world opposed, I would speak out against them with just as much passion and disgust.
Actually Gary Hart said it really well...
Date: 2003-02-27 03:22 pm (UTC)Thanks be to
Re: Actually Gary Hart said it really well...
Date: 2003-02-27 04:09 pm (UTC)The temptation for ad hominem is really great, given that this flows from the pen of Gary freaking Hart. I will confine myself to noting that his use of the Jefferson Memorial as part of his masthead made me physically ill. :)
But that aside, I search the speech in vain for a coherent argument against toppling Saddam Hussein's Baathist terror state. Hart proposes, basically, that we should be the good guys in the international arena -- fair enough, that, and an end I can agree with (even if I think some of his suggested means illustrate his profound lack of fitness for national office). But where's the beef?
Re: Actually Gary Hart said it really well...
Date: 2003-02-28 08:46 am (UTC)I think the heart of his speech, and the heart of the folks that oppose what we see as an overzealous rush to war on the part of G. Bush Jr., rests on two points. One is that we are currently acting with belligerence rather than principle.
Power exercised for its own sake, or for the sake of a selfish or expedient interest, is ultimately self-defeating.
His second, and it's one I wholeheartedly agree with, is that we must start thinking and acting like a part of the international community, an important part sure, but a part none the less.
We should not behave differently to others, including the most humble nations, than we would have them behave towards us.
I know we discussed yesterday why people like myself didn't protest against Clinton and his foreign policies. However, you never asked why I and likeminded folks didn't do the same against George Bush Sr. I mean you didn't see this anti-war groundswell when it came to the Desert Storm campaign. Why do you suppose that was? Why did this country manage to find so many allies to support it then? What did James Baker manage to do that Rumsfeld hasn't? Why did one administration succeed so well in foreign policy while the other is failing so miserably?
Re: Actually Gary Hart said it really well...
Date: 2003-02-28 10:52 am (UTC)Obviously I disagree with you and Hart, here, and in any case, I don't see that belligerence and principle are mutually exclusive. Sometimes saber-rattling and the threat of force gets you where you need to go (see also, the Cold War); moreover, sometimes busting open the Arsenal of Democracy is absolutely necessary (see also, two World Wars).
The principle I see us acting on here is (a) toppling the murderous regime of a terrible dictator who we had an unfortunate role in propping up, before (b) the situation devolves until it's similar to the North Korea standoff, where our options are vastly more limited because of Iraq's WMD capabilities (c) that it should not be permitted to possess in the first place, given the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire and twelve years of United Nations resolutions. The blog entry I pointed you to yesterday is a nice roundup of all this, and more.
Why do you suppose that was? Why did this country manage to find so many allies to support it then? What did James Baker manage to do that Rumsfeld hasn't? Why did one administration succeed so well in foreign policy while the other is failing so miserably?
Well, first, I think the "success" of Bush I's foreign policy and the "failure" of Bush II's is more a matter of perspective than a fact in evidence. In fact, there was substantial foreign and domestic hemming and hawing before the Gulf War; not quite to the level we've got now, but bear in mind that the circumstances were markedly different, too. Then, Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. It's hard, politically and diplomatically and ideologically, not to condemn something like that. It's a lot easier when Iraq is "just" defying United Nations resolutions and concealing WMD programs; there are no corpses that you have to justify your opposition to.
Another thing that contributes to the perception of "failure" is, I think, a changing geopolitical picture. At the time of Gulf War I, the German Chancellor wasn't desperate to pander to the anti-war Greens keeping his coalition government in power. The French government wasn't trying to obstruct U.S. foreign policy goals for the sake of national pride and in a pathetic attempt to assert itself as first among equals within the EU. The French and the Russians weren't trying to preserve lucrative oil contracts with the Iraqi regime. And so on and so on.
Third, I think the dimensions of domestic politics have changed significantly over the last thirteen years. Since at least the WTO protests in Seattle a few years ago, it seems to me that the grassroots left has become increasingly beholden to shrill partisan cranks. Sure, there are some people out there who are sincerely (if naively and/or misguidedly, IMO) opposed to war. But most of the "opposition" smacks of a combination of political opportunism blended with socialist claptrap: this is a convenient moment for the various "no blood for oil", "Bush was unelected", "stop imperalist war", "Sharon = Hitler", "free Palestine" ninnies to get exercised and crawl out of the woodwork.
So I think that if Bush II's foreign policy has been a "failure" compared to Bush I's, it's a matter of perspective. Certainly Bush II is less circumspect than his old man, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-27 03:46 pm (UTC)Stipulated. And this all reflects poorly on us.
If our main reason for going in there now is that he is EVIL, well hasn't he been all along?
Indeed.
Why haven't we done something about this before?
Good question. I'd suggest it's a combination of two things: first, Reagan/Bush I-era realpolitik, and second, Clinton-era lack of political will.
And is he the tip of the iceberg? I mean will we now start toppling other regimes that use the same tactics?
Maybe. Would that be a bad thing?
The rest: I won't take issue with your beliefs. I assume you come by them honestly, and I suspect it won't surprise you to learn that I think some are dead wrong and others aren't particularly consequential. As to this, though...
Allow me to assure you that had Clinton or any other Democrat done these same things, I'd be just as opposed to them. Had they attacked our civil liberties in the name of "Homeland Security", had they played fast and loose with the truth, had they pushed for a war that nearly all of the remainder of the world opposed, I would speak out against them with just as much passion and disgust.
But here's the thing, Ellie: Clinton and the Democrats did do these same things. Clinton was far from some civil rights godsend: he was arguably the most anti-gun president in history, a vociferous defender of the worst excesses of the War On Some Drugs, the chief executive during the Waco and Elion Gonzalez debacles, and led a brazen assault on property rights under the rubric of environmentalism. I could go on and on; James Bovard has (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312230826/qid=1046388676/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0396553-7908702?v=glance&s=books). A discussion of the Clinton administration's difficult relationship with the truth would take up several posts all by itself. And Clinton led us into Somalia and the Balkans (all the while lobbing the occasional cruise missile at Iraq while calling upon Saddam Hussein to disarm using language eerily similar to what that cowboy Bush is using today); neither conflict, of course, opposed by "nearly all of the remainder of the world", but that's a pretty hyperbolic characterization of current world opinion toward the Iraq situation, too. Relatively speaking, Clinton was no saint and Bush is no sinner, and yet back in the day there was a conspicuous absence of million-person rallies protesting Clinton foreign or domestic policy.
So, short of assuming that people are partisans or assuming that people are ignorant, I hope you can understand why I can't explain the discrepancy.
Re:
Date: 2003-02-27 04:12 pm (UTC)And you have to remember that he also was openly Pro-Choice and pro gay rights, two issues much nearer and dearer to my heart than that of gun control. Again, I'm biased and I admit that.
For all his shady dealings and missteps he still managed to keep this country in the good graces of the majority of the world. Had he been in office during 9/11, and had he made the choices that Bush Jr. did (not likely as far as I'm concerned as Clinton was a far more savy and slick politician, I find it very unlikely that he would've blundered into this hornet's nest with quite the same lack of finesse), I would have vehemently opposed his methods and means as well.
Do I think he was particularly principled? Hell no. do I think we've had a principled leader in the past 20 years? Well, let's just say the last guy who tried to govern this country under the principles by which we claim to stand was, IMHO, Jimmy Carter. And look where it got him. Maybe deep down we don't want to live up to the ideals we've set for ourselves, but I have to think that somewhere in all of us we reach a point where enough is enough. I just personally can't stand the hypocrisy any more. I'm not saying it didn't exist before, but maybe it wasn't quite so...blatant?
If Bush would just come out and say, "Look, I just want to get Saddam out of there and take over Iraq. I think it'll simplify everything, and with any luck we'll get in there quick enough not to take out too many civilians and grab their oil fields before they torch 'em." I might at least be able to respect the guy. I'd still think he was lighting the fuse on a powder-keg that's going to inflame more fundamentalist Islamics ("Free Palestine!" may well become "Free Iraq!"), and that he was squandering the goodwill of the international community, while refusing to actually examine the reasons behind terrorism and working to remove or at least reduce them.