Deconstructing a Fascist

8/22/05

Fascism:

A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.

That is the very basic idea behind the ideology of Fascism. There are obviously a lot more details to what "makes a Fascist" but, for our purposes, we can all agree that whatever you think is the correct definition, it is most certainly anti-American.

So, keeping that in mind, I am reprinting a recent exchange I had with someone the other day that, in all honesty, creeped me out, right down to the bone. It took me a couple of days to recover from the venom that was spewn at me from someone I have known for over ten years.

I am reprinting the two e-mails I received in their entirety with the only edits being names and such to protect identity. I known this person tilted to the right but how far I could not fathom.

Here is the initial e-mail I sent him:

The other day you sent me something about the woman whose son was killed in Iraq so she is making a personal vigil in front of Bush’s “vacation” house until he meets with her. She has finally put a face on a movement that has existed since the beginning of this mess (I know I was personally at a demonstration in mid town manhattan with at least 100,000 other people when this thing first started) and, although she is not saying anything new, her “credentials” and/or “motives” CAN NOT be questioned and the actual ISSUE has to be addressed as compared to “attacking the messenger which has been the right wing’s (Including YOU) response for the last 3 years.

You implied that you thought the whole thing was ridiculous and vaguely suggested that anyone taking part in the demonstration was an ass-hole.

Are you REALLY this fucked up and see the world in a such a self-centered warped way or do you do and say these things just to “pull my chain”?

This was his surprisingly lengthy reply:

In response to your e-mail about this Sheehan woman...comments after copy of what you wrote below: Oh, I could post this on your BLOG if you wrote a story on it...anyway, here is what I have to say...for all it's worth....not much these days....but, again, anyway, here it is:

Yeah, her son was killed, and so were over 1500 other mothers' sons during this "war" in Iraq. What makes her think that SHE is the one who President Bush should meet with? After all, he did meet with her once already, in a group setting, back in 2004, but, according to her, she didn't "like" what he said, so she is "demanding" another meeting with him.

Remember, this is the President of the United States, and she is NOT going to get a one on one meeting with him. For what purpose does this serve? It's not going to bring back her son...and what "answers" is she looking for? Because no matter what "answers" she gets, she will do EXACTLY what the rest of the Anti-Bush people have been doing...and continue to say that no matter what the answers are, they are still "wrong." This is an administration that can do absolutely no "right" in the eyes of the anti-Bush people.

And this is not about name calling either...as you have pointed out, as well as others who feel the same way, not pointed out, but rather prefaced, all of the negative comments strewed forth, will be met with name-calling from Bush supporters. I guess this is sort of "preparing" for the criticisms before they come from the anti-Bush comments. (I can only think of using the term anti-Bush right now, as I don't want to use other words to categorize...so when I say anti-Bush, don't get in a tizzy and say I'm being one of those people who you say are name-callers...anyway...).

When you say, "She has finally put a face on a movement that has existed since the beginning of this mess." What "face." And if there is a "face," this is not a "face" that has "finally" come into being. The people know there is a "war" going on in Iraq, and the people certainly know about the demonstrations that took place before the November elections. And if what you are saying is to be believed, that this Sheehan woman "finally" put a "face" on this "movement,"...FINALLY??? If this "face" has just finally come about, then what in the heck were all the demonstrations going on before the election?

If your statement is to be believed, then darn, those "demonstrations" served no purpose whatsoever..and even though those "demonstrations" were broadcast all over the media, both here in the U.S. and abroad, according to an "understanding" of what you said, the people still did not know what these "demonstrations" were all about, etc. To think that, with all of the "hype" going on about those "demonstrations, that the people really didn't know what was going on...is really making people out to be VERY stupid.

On the other hand, you may mean that Cindy Sheehan is the "face" of the reason behind the demonstrations...is now like the "spokesperson,"...and if you meant this, I understand your statement...but then again, didn't Michael Moore and all of "your" people consider him to be the oh so knowledgeable "spokesperson" of the antiwar, anti-Bush movement? The "face" of what was really going on...and the "spokesperson" who was the one who DEFINITELY was letting the people KNOW the "real" truth. Again, didn't happen...Bush was reelected.

And again, I know, the loud rhetoric is heard about how the Republicans "scared" the voting public into voting for Bush, and again, making it out as if the people are all stupid. People are not that stupid, (even though it is comments that some people make...including yours at times...that does contribute to the theory of the dumbing down of America). And when I say the dumbing down of America, I mean it is those people who will constantly complain, (the bleeding hearts...there I categorized)...that they don't want the government involved in their lives....but yet when something happens that is detrimental to them...like someone not being searched all the way before boarding a plane, and then something bad happening on that plane...who are the FIRST people to complain...the bleeding hearts...complaining that the government is NOT doing enough for them, (but, hey, they don't want the government to "intrude" on their lives)...but yet on the other hand they want to blame the government for not "protecting" them. And the response to this will be that the government should protect the people but not "intrude" on their lives. Well, there has to be some sort of "intrusion" for this "protection" to take place...that is a fact.

Wait, I am probably not using a good example for the "dumbing down of America." Perhaps I should explain it this way: It's when people say that they should always be given the "full" information about something, such as a television commercial promoting something but leaving some information out...but information that a person with common sense would be able to figure out. And I don't like to hear people then say that, "Well, people don't have common sense, they need to be told everything...." This is hogwash...and again makes it out that the American people are stupid.

Anyway, getting back to this Sheehan woman. You had mentioned that you feel this woman has put a "face" on this "movement," by saying you know this because you personally was at a demonstration of over 100,000 antiwar, anti-Bush, or whatever one wants to call them. Well, just what did these demonstrations do? Absolutely NOTHING. Yes, they "showed" the world that they are living in a free society where they are able to critique their government, and yes they "showed" that they were demonstrating against this "war" and Bush....but their effect did just the opposite....so CONFIDENT that President Bush was definitely not going to win another term in office...but yet he did.

And I know, we hear about the people who still "swear" that the election was "fixed," but this is to be expected from groups of people who were so "confident" that their candidate was going to win. And where is Michael Moore now? Another one of "your" people, (I say "your," because you described the demonstration as being at least 100,000 of "her" people). Michael Moore made his movie, Fahrenheit 911 for the SPECIFIC reason because he felt that by making this movie and releasing it before the November elections, that it would "definitely" make Bush lose the election. Again, the opposite was achieved. Bush won the election.

Right, she isn't saying anything new, but her "credentials" and/or "motives" CAN be questioned. What "credentials" are you speaking of? Do you mean that because her son died during the Iraq war, that she is "qualified" and heavily "credentialed," thereby giving her EVERY right to meet PERSONALLY with the President Of The United States? What about the other mothers?

Yes, you can say that they also have the same "credentials" and "rights" to personally meet with the President, but why? Again, as I said previously, President Bush already had a meeting with a group of mothers/parents, whose sons have been killed during this "war" in Iraq, (and she was at this meeting)....back in 2004...but to say that now this woman isn't "satisfied" with what she heard from Bush, that she is now "demanding" another meeting with him...and this time on a "personal" level? Well, perhaps President Bush should just take the time to meet with each and every parent, (one on one meeting no less), who had a son/daughter die in the line of duty?

I don't think so....and this is something that shouldn't have to happen. So now what? Because Bush won't meet with this woman, the bleeding hearts start "crying" about how he has time for a "vacation," but doesn't have the time to meet personally with this woman. And I won't even comment much on the "vacation" word the bleeding hearts like to use...no matter who is sitting in the office of the Presidency, I guess the bleeding hearts don't think the Presidency is a 24/7 job...365 days per year...no, because their hatred of President Bush is so deep-rooted, they feel that the President Of The United States needs to "physically" be sitting at his desk in the oval office...or be somewhere in the White House...in the vicinity of the White House...or in the Washington DC, area....it surely must be impossible to do his job from his ranch in Texas.

As stupid as this may sound, it is exactly what "your" people WANT everyone to believe. In reality, the office of the President moves with the President wherever he may be...even if he was visiting me here at my house! I know this kind of "talk" may seem infantile to you, but I am saying it anyway, knowing full way that you understand where I am coming from, so to speak. And also knowing, that to understand someone doesn't mean to agree with someone.

"...the actual ISSUE has to be addressed as compared to “attacking the messenger which has been the right wing’s (Including YOU) response for the last 3 years."
Just what do you think the "actual" issue is? Is the issue being that you, (meaning Sheehan and her "followers,"), feel the "need" to hear from the President's own mouth of why there is a "war" going on in Iraq? I think this issue has been rehashed over and over and over again...and like I said before, there is no "right" answer for the bleeding heart liberals, Democrats, and the like. Yes, I am "name-calling" again...but why not? The people who already hold the same "position" that I am spewing forth in this writing, the ones who are NOT antiwar, NOT anti-Bush, etc, are constantly being "told" they resort to name-calling anyway...although I don't think this is name-calling...it is rather just "grouping" individuals into groups of which their beliefs lay.

As far as "attacking" the messenger, as you state, this of course means the "message" of Cindy Sheehan. But just what is this "message?" Yes, people do "feel" the sorrow this woman has due to the loss of one of her children...and the loss of a life that she feels there is no rational reason for...but here is a woman who, perhaps, started out her crusade with one thing is mind, and this being her wanting to know why her son died in an Iraq, "unjustified war."

But now she has started talking about things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the "war" in Iraq. And truthfully, I would believe that her "mission" was originally one of just dealing with her son...but these bleeding hearts, Dems., etc., have been "using" this lady so much to hopefully "further" their own "agendas," that she is more and more appearing to be some kind of loony tune. Yes, her son died in the line of duty. But remember, and I know, your "people" will say, "Here we go again...the neocons are saying the same things over and over again,"......that this soldier volunteered to enlist in the service...and he RE-ENLISTED...and when he did reenlist, he KNEW he was going to be sent over to Iraq...and even if he didn't know...he KNEW what was going on in Iraq, and he knew the chances of him being sent there were about 99%. No one deserves to die in a "war"...especially in a "war" that many consider to be an "unjust" war...but it happens...and no matter how much a President Of The United States says, does, etc., it's not going to change the fact that there is a "war" going on right now in Iraq...and who knows...perhaps there is another coming for Iran in a short time.

So, Cindy Sheehan sits there, near the President's property, thinking that all of the world's problems are going to be solved if only the President would personally meet with her. Well, I shouldn't say all of the world's problems, as she is looking to have her own problems "solved," or, as one might say, she is looking for some type of closure. Just as the demonstrations, the Michael Moores, etc., did absolutely nothing to prevent President Bush from being reelected...this so-called "protest" that now has a "face," named Cindy Sheehan, is also going to prove to also be an event that serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever...other than to be able to "use" this woman as a "pawn" in the bleeding hearts, Democrats, and their followers, agendas.

So I retorted:

It’s called the human spirit my friend.

It is the ability for one human being to stand up and say “THIS IS WRONG”

It is an ability that the majority of people who are rabidously tearing into this person can not understand because they can not feel it, smell it or wrap their shallow greedy little paws around it so it scares them.

And the reason she is “thinking she has the right to meet with the president” is because she is a United States Citizen and the guy in that office works for her. If you don’t believe me read the Declaration of Independence.

You see, people (and you specifically but I think the current administration has nothing to do with that) have been hammered down with fear and hate so much, that their thinking about their own country, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the way the citizens of the Soviet Union, China and any other two bit oppressive regimes over the past several millennium have thought about their governments with pedestaled “leaders” treated as they’re infallible and/or unaccountable.

You do not see that as a crime or, at the very least, a tragedy?

Never mind about that last question. It was rhetorical because I already know your answer.

But as far as, “…her protest not meaning any thing,” maybe in the grand scheme of things you will be right and you, and your right wing brethren, get what you want and the United States becomes some ridiculously romanticized version of “The Alamo” and we all go down the toilet gallantly. I can’t, nor will I, argue with you because, like religion, it all comes down to faith and belief.

Although I will say this, until you let go of your totally misdirected hate, rage and anger, you will never be happy or even remotely content because the points of view you have expressed are completely devoid of any compassion, love or empathy which, in the final analysis, is what gives human beings any REAL reason to exist at all.

He came back at me with this:

"Although I will say this, until you let go of your totally misdirected hate, rage and anger, you will never be happy or even remotely content because the points of view you have expressed are completely devoid of any compassion, love or empathy which, in the final analysis, is what gives human beings any REAL reason to exist at all."

And the above last paragraph you wrote, is the EXACT epitome of the feelings of the Democratic party...the bleeding hearts...etc.....for instance with terrorists...what they say, "Ahhh, let's try and understand what they feel as well, because, they ARE human beings also. Let's show some compassion, love and empathy for them as well...let's take them to court and let a court decide their fates...lets' wait for them to come here and reek their havoc on us before we make a move on them." No, you're right, it's not worth arguing over, because I do agree with you that it's like religion...all coming down to faith and belief.

And, living in a "fantasy" world where everyone feels compassion, love and empathy, is what has made the United States such a laughing stock around the world. No, this can't all be blamed on President Bush, (although there are those who try to blame him for everything "negative" that may presently be happening)....but enough is enough.

Leaders in the United States are "fallible[sp"] and are "accountable" for their actions. You are just making an analogy when you say this and then compare people of the U.S. with citizens of Russia, China, etc. They are a totally different people...growing up in a culture totally different than in the U.S.

But when people, who share the same feelings as yours, come up against what they believe to be such bad things that are happening in the U.S., right away they try to make a comparison of citizens of the U.S. and citizens of an "oppressed" regime. These people of these "oppressed," (I use this word to copy your use of it), regime have had NO choice but to treat their leaders as if they are "infallible" and/or "unaccountable." To do otherwise would most likely have meant death to them. So how can you honestly compare that with the people of the U.S.? Is it a crime, or at the very least a tragedy?

Yes...it is a tragedy knowing that these people in these "oppressed" countries, human beings like the rest of us, have to live in such a way that doesn't occur in the United States...and this is why so many people want to live in the U.S. Although, one would not come to this type of conclusion if all they were to hear was all this bashing going on, etc. And I don't want to say anti-war bashing, anti-Bush bashing, etc., or else I am once again being told that, "You see, these people hear something that is against the United States, and right away they are calling us anti-American, anti-military, and other such name-calling."

As far as what you said about this woman feeling she has the "right" to meet with the President because she is a United State's citizen and he works for her, yes, you're absolutely correct. But having to read the Declaration Of Independence to discover this, wouldn't make any sense. Remember, that document was written at the beginning, when people had easy access to meet with the leader of the free world, (I like that term for this sentence)...but you know that is not possible in this day and age.

Yes, there are those who will want to know WHY they can't meet with the President...but for those who ask WHY, (and I mean adults, not kids)....well, then they really have to have been living in some sort of cocoon during their childhoods that they don't know WHY they can't have a personal meeting with the President...well, I know there are special occassions for this...but VERY rare.

But to imply that because Cindy Sheehan is a United States citizen and "the guy in that office" works for her, that she should be meeting with the President, is totally ridiculous. Because she gets to meet with him, then all mothers of soldiers who have died, should also meet with the President...and you know this just is not logical. Anyway, I think I said that in my last email.

Anyway, that's enough typing for today. One last comment though, is your thought on compassion, love and empathy being what gives human beings any REAL reason to exist at all....that is your opinion, and I know, we all, as individuals, form our own opinions about what life is all about. But, there is more to life than just these three things you mentioned.

It is fortunate that human beings all have their different opinions on different things....because, (in my opinion), if the world was totaly "run" on love, passion, valour, there is definitely more that makes the world go around than compassion, love and empathy.

Wars aren't won by being compassionate...whether it is a "just" or "unjust" war...whether we are at war or not...I don't think the compassionate side is the side that celebrates victory.

Once again, I have to apologize for that rather lengthy reprint but I needed to show you his words in their entirety so I can not be accused of taking anything out of context.

But, Christ, this is one scary correspondence and I want to, no, I NEED TO rebut this point by point because if this is the way the general public thinks we really are in trouble.

Here is my point by point response to this barrage of inanity.

From the first letter:

1) Yeah, her son was killed, and so were over 1500 other mothers' sons during this "war" in Iraq. What makes her think that SHE is the one who President Bush should meet with?

The short answer is because she is a citizen of the United States and we, for the time being, live in a representative Democracy where every citizen has the right to be heard.

2) Remember, this is the President of the United States, and she is NOT going to get a one on one meeting with him. For what purpose does this serve?

One purpose might be to help the President understand that his decisions have consequences which he certainly does not understand now. And before you say “But, in war, there is always sacrifice, and the President understands this,” the fact is he doesn’t.

3) ...and what "answers" is she looking for? Because no matter what "answers" she gets, she will do EXACTLY what the rest of the Anti-Bush people have been doing...and continue to say that no matter what the answers are, they are still "wrong." This is an administration that can do absolutely no "right" in the eyes of the anti-Bush people.

This concept that I think that any answer I will get from the Bush administration will be “wrong” is a somewhat astute observation although needs a little clarification. First of all, I am glad the author used quotation marks because I don’t necessarily believe any answer the administration will be wrong. A more apt description would be a “lie.”

4) And if what you are saying is to be believed, that this Sheehan woman "finally" put a "face" on this "movement,"...FINALLY??? If this "face" has just finally come about, then what in the heck were all the demonstrations going on before the election?

The “face” that Ms. Sheehan put on the anti-war faction of this country is the realistic one. Before Ms. Sheehan decided to go on her pilgrimage, anti-war activists were painted as a bunch of lunatics, “anarchists,” no good America Haters. The end result of this ridiculous mis-representation is that everyday “normal” working people who had the same misgivings about the disastrous foreign policy that is currently being prosecuted or were “middle of the road” at best, would not bother to speak up because only “freaks” felt the way they did.

Well, Ms. Sheehan is none of those things and no matter how hard the administration, through their surrogates, try to make her out to be some kind of “looney tune,” this fact can not be disputed. She is simply an American citizen who wants to understand why her son had to die. The “official” answers the administration have been giving for over 2 years do not even satisfy me. If that is the case, how could they possibly satisfy somebody’s mother?

5) If your statement is to be believed, then darn, those "demonstrations" served no purpose whatsoever...and even though those "demonstrations" were broadcast all over the media, both here in the U.S. and abroad, according to an "understanding" of what you said, the people still did not know what these "demonstrations" were all about, etc. To think that, with all of the "hype" going on about those "demonstrations, that the people really didn't know what was going on...is really making people out to be VERY stupid.

To put it bluntly, the demonstrations failed. That does not mean they had no purpose. It is the ability and power for one human being to stand up and say that this is wrong. Just because the author can’t see, smell or get his grimy little shit hooks around it does not mean it does not exist.

6) On the other hand, you may mean that Cindy Sheehan is the "face" of the reason behind the demonstrations...is now like the "spokesperson,"...and if you meant this, I understand your statement...but then again, didn't Michael Moore and all of "your" people consider him to be the oh so knowledgeable "spokesperson" of the antiwar, anti-Bush movement? The "face" of what was really going on...and the "spokesperson" who was the one who DEFINITELY was letting the people KNOW the "real" truth. Again, didn't happen...Bush was reelected. And again, I know, the loud rhetoric is heard about how the Republicans "scared" the voting public into voting for Bush, and again, making it out as if the people is all stupid.

Might makes right!

As far as “the people” being stupid, I really can’t speak for everyone.

7) …it is those people who will constantly complain, (the bleeding hearts...there I categorized)...that they don't want the government involved in their lives....but yet when something happens that is detrimental to them...like someone not being searched all the way before boarding a plane, and then something bad happening on that plane...who are the FIRST people to complain...the bleeding hearts...complaining that the government is NOT doing enough for them, (but, hey, they don't want the government to "intrude" on their lives)...but yet on the other hand they want to blame the government for not "protecting" them. And the response to this will be that the government should protect the people but not "intrude" on their lives. Well, there has to be some sort of "intrusion" for this "protection" to take place...that is a fact.

This is a case of projection. In an attempt to describe “bleeding hearts” etc. the author is describing himself.

8) Well, just what did these demonstrations do? Absolutely NOTHING. Yes, they "showed" the world that they are living in a free society where they are able to critique their government, and yes they "showed" that they were demonstrating against this "war" and Bush....but their effect did just the opposite....so CONFIDENT that President Bush was definitely not going to win another term in office...but yet he did.

It is called conviction and the human spirit. But that is something the author would know nothing about so I will not waste my time explaining it.

9) And where is Michael Moore now? Another one of "your" people, (I say "your,” because you described the demonstration as being at least 100,000 of "her" people). Michael Moore made his movie, Fahrenheit 911 for the SPECIFIC reason because he felt that by making this movie and releasing it before the November elections, that it would "definitely" make Bush lose the election.

Michael Moore, right now, at this very second, is doing the same thing he has been doing for the past 25 years. Making films, writing essays or supporting groups and causes that emphasize human rights over property rights. Just because he is not currently on Fox doesn’t mean he has gone away. When a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it still makes a noise.

The author seems to really despise Michael Moore and I have no idea why. Was it Moore's publicity stunt, shaming an insurance company into OK'ing a kidney operation for a man who had literally a death sentence? It couldn't of been that because I think that can be universally accepted as a good thing.

Has the author ever even seen any of Michael Moore's work?

10) …she isn't saying anything new, but her "credentials" and/or "motives" CAN be questioned. What "credentials" are you speaking of? Do you mean that because her son died during the Iraq war, that she is "qualified" and heavily "credentialed," thereby giving her EVERY right to meet PERSONALLY with the President Of The United States? What about the other mothers? Yes, you can say that they also have the same "credentials" and "rights" to personally meet with the President, but why?

She is just as “qualified” or “credentialed” as any of the military industrial complex lobbyists, oil company lobbyists or NRA lobbyists that continuously fill up his appointment book through out the year.

Besides, whenever I go out for dinner, I always believe in being polite to the person who picks up the check.

11) So now what? Because Bush won't meet with this woman, the bleeding hearts start "crying" about how he has time for a "vacation," but doesn't have the time to meet personally with this woman. And I won't even comment much on the "vacation" word the bleeding hearts like to use...no matter who is sitting in the office of the Presidency, I guess the bleeding hearts don't think the Presidency is a 24/7 job...365 days per year...no, because their hatred of President Bush is so deep-rooted.

I’m not crying at all.

The more time this clown stays out of the loop the better the chance America has of being a cutting edge world power again in minor fields like education, science, technology and medicine.

12) I know this kind of "talk" may seem infantile to you, but I am saying it anyway, knowing full way that you understand where I am coming from, so to speak. And also knowing, that to understand someone doesn't mean to agree with someone.

Oh I know EXACTLY where the author is coming from.

13) Yes, I am "name-calling" again...but why not?

Why not be ignorant?

I have to ponder that one awhile…a real long while.

14)As far as "attacking" the messenger, as you state, this of course means the "message" of Cindy Sheehan. But just what is this "message?"

Point completely missed.

The message has never been attacked only the messengers because the position of being pro-killing is real rough to make appealing.

The message is that there is a possibility to live with each other without resorting to wholesale bombings of other countries. Before you say “we were attacked first” remember THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESTABILIZATION OF IRAQ.

The guys who were responsible for 9/11, al quaeda, were being harbored in the ultra repressive regime of Afghanistan. The OVERWHELMING majority of American people supported the invasion and subsequent capture and/or killing of them. Well, President Decisive-Man never accomplished that mission and invaded Iraq instead.

The fact that you think that the one operation had anything to do with the other proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, the deceit and shamelessness of the current administration.

15) Yes, people do "feel" the sorrow this woman has due to the loss of one of her children...

Oh wow, a genuine human feeling of empathy!!!

16) No one deserves to die in a "war"...especially in a "war" that many consider to be an "unjust" war...but it happens...

“…but it happens,” sounds like a person drenched in “sorrow,” doesn’t it?

I take back my last comment.

17) …and no matter how much a President Of The United States says, does, etc., it's not going to change the fact that there is a "war" going on right now in Iraq

I actually read this line three times out loud before I accepted that is what the author wrote.

Let’s take a pass on the use of quotation marks around the word (war) because I can assure you there IS a war going on over there. More importantly, the author feels the President has absolutely no responsibility for our troops being in Iraq!!!

Let’s see, one thing he could do is bring our boys back home by giving a direct order. He is still the Commander-in-Chief right? Yeah…he could probably do that.

Maybe he didn’t have to start the whole fucking thing in the first place. That would have saved literally thousands of lives. Yeah…on second thought, that probably would have been better.

18) ...but these bleeding hearts, Dems., etc., have been "using" this lady so much to hopefully "further" their own "agendas," that she is more and more appearing to be some kind of loony tune.

How is this woman looking like a looney tune?

In other words, if this woman is appearing as a looney tune doesn’t that say ANYTHING TO THE AUTHOR… ANYTHING AT ALL… about the supposedly “liberal media” that I have been hearing about for the last 25 years.

Jesus Christ, open your eyes.

19) Just as the demonstrations, the Michael Moores, etc., did absolutely nothing to prevent President Bush from being reelected...this so-called "protest" that now has a "face," named Cindy Sheehan, is also going to prove to also be an event that serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever...other than to be able to "use" this woman as a "pawn" in the bleeding hearts, Democrats, and their followers, agendas.

I know this is a totally fucked up way of looking at things but I think opposition and political discourse are good for democracy.

Just my uninformed opinion.


_______________________________________________________________________

From the Second Letter:

1) And the above last paragraph you wrote, is the EXACT epitome of the feelings of the Democratic party...the bleeding hearts...etc.....for instance with terrorists...what they say, "Ahhh, let's try and understand what they feel as well, because, they ARE human beings also.

The author feels it would be a bad thing to understand the causes of terrorism because…I don’t know. Why exactly would it be bad to dissect the motives of people blowing up our buildings? Wouldn’t that actually HELP in the fight against religious extremists such as Hezz-ballah al-queda and born again Christians?

2) And, living in a "fantasy" world where everyone feels compassion, love and empathy, is what has made the United States such a laughing stock around the world.

We are a “laughing stock” around the world? I disagree. The only time this country has ever been a laughing stock was when the Republican Party decided to try to unseat a sitting President over a blow job. Other than that, the United States has enjoyed nothing but respect and admiration from the rest of the “free world” and looked to for guidance and inspiration from the less than democratic nations.

What has been laughed at is the stereotypical white hat, simple minded, “cowboy” character that many countries view the US as. This characterization goes back to at least the British comedy show Monty Python where whenever an American character was on screen he was depicted as a philistine, vulgar, stupid cowboy that deserves contempt. The Japanese and Germans during WW II would sometimes yell “Fuck John Wayne” during combat thinking that would demoralize the American GI.

So to get back to your original outrageous claim, the rest of the world is not laughing at us because of our (prior) humanistic progressive tendencies. They are SCARED of us because that cowboy characterture, a two dimensional fictional figure, HAS become President and in his first 4 years has decided, unilaterally, to go “get the bad guys” which translates to anyone who doesn’t go along or agree with him or has something he wants.

3) But when people, who share the same feelings as yours, come up against what they believe to be such bad things that are happening in the U.S., right away they try to make a comparison of citizens of the U.S. and citizens of an "oppressed" regime. These people of these "oppressed," (I use this word to copy your use of it), regime have had NO choice but to treat their leaders as if they are "infallible" and/or "unaccountable." To do otherwise would most likely have meant death to them. So how can you honestly compare that with the people of the U.S.?

I would like to respond to this lack of comprehension.

First of all, regardless of how the author feels about it, people of Russia or people of China or people of Africa or people of the United States are, first and foremost, PEOPLE, so I feel our situations CAN be compared with no apologies. The bottom line is the author and I have a lot more in common with an average citizen of Russia or China then we do with the ruling class of our own country. But we are taught from a young age to hate these other human beings or at least fear them even though we never even meet them.

With that being said, our government (For the time being) is considerably less oppressive than these other regimes, that there is no doubt. But why is that the case? Do you think it is because we are BORN that way? Do you think people born in Nebraska “love freedom” and generally lean towards representative democracy while people in China are born loving dictatorships?

IT IS TAUGHT!!!

When I was growing up, I was taught to question things and never “just follow orders.” Score one for my parents I guess.

The author sounds like he grew up in a place where you did what you were told or you shut up for fear of getting cracked across the face. If that is the case, shouldn’t we break this horrible cycle?

So my point was NOT the level one idea that our government is as domestically oppressive as China’s, because OBVIOUSLY it isn’t, but the attitudes spewed forth by the author, which are being “validated” by centralized corporate media outlets which in turn “trickles down” to the kids, treat our “leaders” as uncriticizable and citizens should feel like traitors if they question the disastrous policies of this administration.

The situation of ridiculing any descent as “traitorous” or “looney” creates a population not too many steps away from talk of “master races” and other such non-sense that we already fought a war against. With the primer of hate, fear and docility, how long is it going to take before citizens are arrested, taken away to some make shift concentration camp and held there without being charged nor given any kind of council for as long as the government sees fit?

4) Yes...it is a tragedy knowing that these people in these "oppressed" countries, human beings like the rest of us, have to live in such a way that doesn't occur in the United States...

Judging by the way the author categorizes, denigrates and rips into his fellow citizens such as, “Dems, Bleeding Hearts, liberals, etc.” do you think he gives a flying fuck about how any oppressed peoples are living anywhere around the world?

I mean, c’mon, really.

5) As far as what you said about this woman feeling she has the "right" to meet with the President because she is a United State's citizen and he works for her, yes, you're absolutely correct. But having to read the Declaration of Independence to discover this, wouldn't make any sense. Remember, that document was written at the beginning, when people had easy access to meet with the leader of the free world

The author missed the point but I’ll let it slide because it is a tad more abstract.

Besides from the beautiful writing and the concept of “inalienable rights” which is as progressive as the late 18th century could get, The Declaration also bluntly stated that the government’s power, any government, is valid solely by the consent of the people and if that government failed to meet this basic principle, IT HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST and should be replaced by one that does.

Ms. Sheehan is part of “the people,” one of which I might add, who has paid a very dear price, who might not get her meeting with the President, but should ALWAYS THINK THAT SHE COULD because to think anything else is un-American.

Although, as the author pointed out, the Declaration was “at the beginning,” the words and ideas are not dated at all and still holds true today.

Why do you think Ho Chi Min was quoting this document, OUR DOCUMENT, when he started his movement to liberate Vietnam from French colonial rule?

Because The Declaration of Independence is no bullshit and any one reading this blog entry who loves freedom should take a look at it.

6) …but for those who ask WHY, (and I mean adults, not kids)....well, then they really have to have been living in some sort of cocoon during their childhoods that they don't know WHY they can't have a personal meeting with the President...well, I know there are special occasions for this...but VERY rare. But to imply that because Cindy Sheehan is a United States citizen and "the guy in that office" works for her, that she should be meeting with the President, is totally ridiculous.

Totally ridiculous?

The sentence in between being called a fool and accused of living in a cocoon, the author, who probably has not left his house in months stewing in his own hate, states that there ARE special occasions, but rare, when the Emperor comes down off his throne to mix with the serfs. Doesn’t a woman who lost her son in Iraq and traveled many miles just to see him qualify? What would the author consider meritous of such an audience?

7) Wars aren't won by being compassionate...whether it is a "just" or "unjust"

They are not started with compassion either so the author is attempting to urinate down our backs and tell us it’s raining.

8) …is your thought on compassion, love and empathy being what gives human beings any REAL reason to exist at all....that is your opinion, and I know, we all, as individuals, form our own opinions about what life is all about. But, there is more to life than just these three things you mentioned. It is fortunate that human beings all have their different opinions on different things....because, (in my opinion), if the world was totally "run" on love, passion, valour, ....anyway, there is definitely more that makes the world go around than compassion, love and empathy.

And there in lies the rub.

Since I am not a simpleton, I do not see the world as one long cartoon complete with mustached villains and snow white heroes. I do not tackle the extremely complex problems of human relations with the comical broad strokes of Good and Evil, assuming that “Once the army gets there all the problems are solved.” Nor do I sit cross legged listening to Crosby, Stills and Nash records muttering over and over the 2005 equivalent of “Peace, Love, Dope.”

Obviously there is more to the world than love, compassion and empathy but my point was those are the POSITIVE emotions and, therefore, the REASON for living or, at least, the goals that the human race should be aiming for. Why or what should we live for? Hatred of others, envy of others, fear of others, all of the emotions the current administration creates and/or fosters. The problem with that is that there has to be always something or someone to loathe. When external entities are exhausted, this hatred turns inward onto the self where, I would suggest, these feelings emanated from in the first place.

In the author’s letter there is not ONE TRACE of these positive unifying emotions. The prose is filled with childish hate, unreasonable logic and juvenile name calling directed at whatever group he feels deserves to be insulted.

My point is, readers of my blog entries and/ or correspondences can detect the rainbow of emotions: Love of the human spirit vs “the machine”; Hatred of the Bush Administration and their self serving lies; compassion for people trying to survive; Fear of a totalitarian take over; and so on.

What does the author love? Our country? He probably doesn’t even know what that is. The war? My guess is he never was in one. The military? I bet he never even served. The President? I don’t know, there was not one thing positive about him in his letters.

I print this exchange for the sole purpose of illustrating what kind of absurd thinking is out there and must be confronted if we are going to get through these serious dark ages.

These letters remind me of the scene in 12 Angry Men, when the last “guilty” hold out juror (Lee J Cobb) goes on a completely hysterical rant about the now apparently innocent defendant. He goes on and on about how he “must be guilty” because he was an ungrateful child who killed his own father, etc. As the hateful speech continues, becoming more and more obvious that the juror is really yelling about his own son and has nothing to do with the facts of the case they are presiding over, the rest of the “angry men” stare at him in shame and disbelief because it has become clear what the motives were for this man’s “guilty” verdict.

In the play, the juror making the rant finally sees the light himself and acquiesces.

Unfortunately, I do not see the author letting go of his rage and giving in to reason any time soon and only about half of our population is currently staring at him in horror.

When you look into the abyss
The abyss also looks into you
Sixth Army

Et Tu, U2?

8/15/05

I know sometimes I can get a bit long winded so for this entry I will attempt to convey my point with a minimum of words. My opinion is the result of a slow burn for the past 15 or so years.

U2 NEVER achieved this kind of icon status.

God knows they tried.
(Graceland - from "Rattle and Hum" - 1987)

Interesting pose...

...but it has been done before.

The Beatles did this...
A London rooftop - 1969

...so U2 came up with this.
A Las Vegas rooftop - 1987

Oh, please...

The Stones did this...
Flatbed truck - NYC - 1975

...so U2 pulled this.
Flatbed truck - NYC - 2004

Why was this man inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame...

...by this man?
What could possibly be the connection?

In conclussion:

They are NOT the same person...

Not by a long shot.

All I want is some truth
Just give me some truth
Sixth Army

Be All You Can Be

8/9/05

Since General Whacky-Pack and his band of Fruit Loops have taken over the government and put into motion their plan for world domination, the armed forces of the United States have been stretched pretty thin. Right now, in Iraq, the frontline, there are National Guardsmen manning perimeters going on a second year.

Let’s put that in perspective. These are not professional soldiers. They are people who showed up at their local fort/club for, at most, one weekend a month to participate in "exercises" which boiled down to a bunch of guys knocking back cans of Rheingold till they regurgitated all over themselves. The one who can stay under the funnel the longest gets promoted to honorary "General."

Of course, for their service, they would get a modest check and a thank you from Uncle Sam.

Everybody was happy.

He deserves better.

But now, under General Yellow Streak, these same guys who, over one year ago, were stocking shelves at their local Walmart praying for five O’clock to come are now in some Baghdad shit hole, a murky quagmire that even the head coke addict’s architects of fear are finding hard to justify, praying to Christ, holding on to a shred of hope, but resigned to the fact that there is a good chance that they will never see their wives and children ever again.

Ok tough guy. How can you characterize our fighting men as "weekend warriors?" The people in the National Guard serve our country honorably and you are depicting them as a bunch of beer drinking local-yokels who only signed up because of the minimal commitment they had to make and the money. You are sadly mistaken.

To be brutally frank, my opinion was pretty much common knowledge for at least the past 30 years. When I was in college in the late 1980s their were several students I know who were in the Guard and, believe me, their motivation was less than patriotic.

But they "volunteered" to put themselves in harm’s way if their country needed them. They knew what they were in for.

Not until 2002 they didn’t. Before the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, when was the last time Guardsmen were called up IN MASS to be stationed in Combat zones engaging in intense fire fights?

But some Guard units were called up in the 1960s to fight in South East Asia.

Not many. Why do you think the current shit head in charge used his daddy to get into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War? Do you think he was concerned about the Viet Cong tunneling their way under the Rio Grande and attacking El Paso from Mexico? Actually, judging by his recent foreign policy decisions he probably was.

Just wait a God Damn minute. It sounds like you don’t "support the troops."

I certainly do…do you?

I am terribly sorry for coming to that predictable conclusion but when you engage in conversation with certain types of "surface thinkers" you are inevitably confronted with the same accusation.

As the saying goes, "All roads lead to Rome."

But what started me thinking about the sad state of the military was the recent barrage of recruitment commercials I have been seeing on the idiot box lately.

First of all, I am thoroughly surprised the present administration has not brought back conscription yet. There is NO WAY this pack of blood thirsty, cowering, weasels can continue to prosecute their grandiose delusions of grandeur without more manpower.

We are militarily stretched so thin the Encyclopedia Britannica officially describes our situation as "anorexic."

During the 2004 election, I was running up and down the rows of cubes in my office, ranting and raving "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" style at my coworkers who were mostly in their mid twenties. I was pointing out to them that, although Kerry would probably do it anyway, a vote for Bush was a guarantee that THEIR ASS was going to be drafted.

I vividly remember yelling, “PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!! LISTEN TO ME!!! YOU’RE NEXT!! YOU’RE NEXT!!! right before I was asked to go home for the day.

It hasn’t happened yet… but the "blood tax" is coming.

In the meantime, to fill its depleted ranks, the military is putting on the full court press with an ad campaign that needs to be seen to be believed.

The first one I saw involves a father talking to his son. Evidently, the son, clean cut, in shape and in full dress uniform, is just returning from they don’t say where but the scene and tone imply he is just back from boot camp.

I can’t remember the specific dialogue but the lines are on par with how the father at first couldn’t recognize his own son because of the dramatic improvement and is so proud of him for "finally becoming a man."

The son, for his part, is terribly humble, radiating a new found respect for his "pop" and a healthy, mature attitude towards his sense of personal responsibility.

With no explosions, shots of soldiers grappling down a helicopter or fast tanks, this Army advertisement is actually an attempt at subtlety.

Join the Army
Be a Man

To be honest I don’t even have any objections to its pitch. All they are saying is if you join the military you will be a better person. That statement isn’t entirely true but it isn’t a lie either. Anyway, what commercial for any product or service is completely honest. It is called salesmanship.

But this is no longer peacetime. General Herky-Jerky and his Gang of Ghouls are going to send this fictional son off to war where there is ample evidence that the events he will participate in and the traumas he will experience are not going to be "cool" and most likely will alter his world view not for the better and, probably, for the rest of his life.

He also might be killed.

As I watched the script unfold I pictured pretty much the same scene except it is now six to ten months later:

Father: I barely recognized you son.

The son with a bandage over his left eye doesn’t react. He sits there staring blankly with his good right eye. He rubs his dog tags with his fingers. His father puts his hand on his shoulder.

Father: It’s good that your home son.

The son still stares and rubs his dog tags. The father puts his hand over his own mouth and starts to cry uncontrollably. He pounds his fist on the table.

Father: Welcome home son.

The son continues to blankly stare. Although his facial expression doesn’t change, a tear starts to form in his eye. The camera zooms in on his face until his good eye takes up the whole frame. A tittle card comes on:

Join the Army…
Things will never be the same

I know this isn’t always the case with returning soldiers but to pretend it doesn’t happen disrespects our troops and is tantamount to a crime.

Which brings me to the other commercial I saw. It has a similar setting but this time it is a mother and her son sitting at a table. The son is telling the mother that he has joined the Army which will give him the training and money he needs for college which, in turn, will give him a better future. The mother is, at first, a little dismayed but then comes around to his point of view. I think, by the end, there are smiles all around.

So, what’s wrong with that?

Working on his Bachelor's

Of course, being war time, I can pull out the same objection I had for the last one. A young man thinks he is bettering himself but then finds out, albeit too late, that the price for his "improvement" is mental torture, physical maiming and his participation in events so horrific that, in the near future, he will barely be able to relate to any "outsiders" which will include his mother and his girlfriend.

Possibly the price is even death.

But that would be too easy.

I am not going to point out that obvious truth

For Christ’s sake, I can’t keep reinventing the wheel for you people.

What I do find offensive is the notion that, in the richest country on Earth, this young man has to put his ass in the line of fire to get money for school. He is presented as articulate, intelligent and responsible. The only reason, it seems, that he would NOT be going to college is because his mother doesn’t have the money. This commercial suggests the Army, with the maiming, mental scarring and the killing, is the perfect solution for this problem.

Great!

Did any one who saw this commercial, or read the description of this all too common situation ask yourself:

Why would we want to keep this man from getting an education?

Wouldn’t the education of this man be better for all of society?

Why, in this country, do we view higher education, as something that has to be paid for?

Can we say we live in a just society if a willing and able person can not continue with his or her education for the simple fact that he did not win the "parent lottery"?

If the answer to the last question was "no/maybe" how the hell do we have the right to tell anyone else what to do?

Both of these fools went to college WITHOUT
getting their asses shot up...with bullets anyway.

By the way, it was not lost on me that the first commercial had white people in it while the second one featured a black, possibly fatherless, family.

It was also not lost on me these completely militaristic messages and attitudes, ideas that would make Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (circa 1912) blush, were coming to me, free and often, via the liberal media.

If I didn’t know any better I would say we’re getting hoodwinked.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am NOT saying that joining the Armed Services is the worst idea in the world, in fact, it might be the best thing a person could do.

I remember being out of work during the first Bush years (What is it with these guys and hard times?) drifting around aimlessly. Not knowing what my future held, I wandered into a recruiting office on Flatlands Avenue looking to join the Navy. But, unfortunately, I was too fat. The recruiter took one look at me and disdainfully said, "Mister, before we can take you, you are going to have to lose at least 50 pounds."

Somewhat dejected I left the office and bought myself a forty of Old Gold.

I always look back at that moment in my life with regret. Who knows? Maybe if I served my country they would have taught me the inner discipline and self-respect I needed to move forward. Maybe I wouldn’t have taken the dead-end jobs I did in the following years which led to financial stagnation and spiritual bankruptcy.

Maybe if I hit the gym instead of the bodega, I wouldn’t be sitting in a cube right now.

Alas.

Of course, if I went to that same recruiting office today, the officer would probably toss me a rifle and say, "Let’s go chubby."

Hmm...
I was thinking about going back to school...
Sixth Army

Meditation in Media-Nation

8/8/05


Followers of this blog might have noticed my postings have been a tad angry as of late. In fact my last five or six posts (Sans my very positive review of Eternal Sunshine) have been downright nasty.

But my last article about that wonderful man and terrific jurist, John Roberts, and his beautiful and adoring wife, Joan, was really the last straw.

To be honest, I was debating whether to even post it.

I felt remorse immediately after I pushed the “publish” button.

I felt guilt when I e-mailed the article link to everyone in my address book.

I was beside myself, when I forwarded the e-mail using the “Spam Generator 3000,” selecting the “Everyone who has a computer on the Eastern Seaboard” option.

After this move did not generate any “hits,” I felt just awful, when I disguised the hyper-link to my entry with the banners

12 Inch Cock Guarenteed!

and

Teen Sluts Cum For You!

I think I might have a problem with rage control.

But I can’t help it.

After all, I do have eyes and ears.

But I know my anger is starting to have a negative effect on me. I have to be careful of my blood pressure, which I take medication for so I developed a new technique in combating unhealthy vibes.

Whenever I start getting upset about something I go to "my happy place" which, in my case, is the lyrics of any number of silly pop songs that occupy some part my brain through the constant repetitive hammering the Godless, soul sucking cretan corporate radio stations...

But, I digress. My method really works. Try it for yourself.

For example if, for any reason you start to think about:

The totally ridiculous mess that is Iraq....

She was gonna be an actress
And I was gonna learn to fly
She took off to find the footlights
And I took off to find the sky

Or the fixing of the fucking Supreme court...

Baby don't you know that I love you
And I'd never put nobody above you
He could promise the moon and the stars above
Even if he promised me the world
Just remember
I'm forever your girl

The unfucking believable price of gas...

Now these fine ladies, they had a plan
They was out to meet the boys in the band
They said, "come on dudes, let's get it on"
And we proceeded to tear that hotel down
We're an American Band

The shit bags on top making profit on your misery...

In a big country
Dreams stay with you
Like a lover's voice
Fires the mountainside
Stay alive

That cock sucking, mother-fucking scum bag Bush...

No moneyman can win my love
It's sweetness that I'm thinking of.
We always hang in a Buffalo Stance
We do the dive every time we dance
I'll give you love baby not romance
I'll make a move nothing left to chance
So don't you get fresh with me

You Get The Picture
Sixth Army

Apathy

8/6/05

I went to the off-Broadway Workshop Mainstage Theatre last night to see Apathy: The Gen X Musical which was this year’s opening production of the Midtown International Theatre Festival. I purposely waited to the next to last performance of the show’s run because I figured the company would be as tight as it ever was going to be.

I’ve been to many off and off-off and off-off-off Broadway productions in my life and, for the most part, I found the level of those productions not far above that of a high school play. I had no reason to think this show would be otherwise.

On that point, to my relief, I was pleasantly surprised. It was a completely professional production, and, considering the size and constraints of the actual theatre and stage, flawlessly executed. The show creates the sense of a lot of movement although it takes place in such a small and static environment.

The talented cast of Apathy

The story entirely takes place in the living room of one of the ensemble characters Babbet (Fiona Choi). It involves her and her six friends hanging out, drinking and taking drugs and continuously bitching at each other in a sarcastic and ironic way which the young adults of the 1990s seem to think they have invented. Although the scenes represent only one continuous night in 1995, it is definitely implied that this is EVERY night in the lives of these people. An epilogue of sorts is tacked on at the end which, I think, is supposed to represent some sort of triumph for most of the characters.

But the plot is not really that important and only serves as a clothesline for the songs which were written by Mickey Zetts, who also performs in and wrote the entire show.

Mr. Zetts’ character serves as a somewhat mute Greek chorus to the actions going on around him. In the roughly 18 musical numbers, he plays guitar while the various cast members sing and dance. Sometimes for comic effect (such as "I Love Her To her face" performed by Fiona Choi) while others for poignancy (My particular favorite, "You Smile Too Much" sung by Samantha Leigh Josephs).

All the songs are catchy and it is obvious that the composer is gifted but I just wish he would have strengthened up the plot/dialogue.

I saw several advertisements for this show that featured the tag line "Fuck Rent." In fact, the character Filander (Ryan Metzger) wore a tee shirt saying just that in the performance I saw. I am assuming the promoters consider this show to be either an alternative or comparable to the off-Broadway and later Broadway smash.

I personally never saw "Rent" but my guess is that that show was a musical BY generation X’ers while "Apathy" is a show ABOUT Generation X’ers.

Sort of like the Wionna Ryder movie "Reality Bites" compared to the Alannis Morrissette album "Jagged Little Pill." Although Reality was hailed at the time as the "First Gen X movie" if you watch it today it plays like a very traditional love triangle film which you can easily see Hepburn-Grant-Stewart filling in and not missing a beat. While, on the other hand, the Morrissette album still radiates the core values which has become known as Generation X. It might be dated but the feelings are her own.

"Apathy" seems to be looking down on 1990s generation instead of immersing itself in it. Or maybe it is so immersed that the whole lifestyle is revealed as downright unsavory.

Which brings me to the other comparison I heard about this show. I saw several articles referring to "Apathy" as a Hair (1979) for the 90s. I think this is a very fair comparison.

The theatrical production of Hair had a similar structure to "Apathy" I.E. the "plot" was disjointed at best and only served as a loose structure for a string of musical numbers including "The Age of Aquarius" and "Let the Sunshine In."

Now compare that version with the 1978 Milos Foreman film version. Foreman takes the score and dance numbers, the strongest part of the original show, and then creates a strong narrative to support it, making it one of the best movie musicals ever made. Mr. Zetts should definitely take this into account.

But the comparison to "Hair" should go further then just the basic structure.

When it first appeared in the late 1960s, I am not sure what kind of notices it received. I believe the more "traditional" reviewers criticized it’s lack of plot while the younger ones raved about it’s serious attempt at representing the hippie movement that was in full swing although pretty much ignored by mainstream entertainments. There was also a scandal about the nudity in one of the scenes which was unheard of at the time.

Keeping that in mind, I thought to myself, "Am I one of those traditionalists who am poo-pooing on something because it doesn’t follow ‘the rules’ and depicts something I do not relate to or particularly understand?"

After careful consideration, I don’t believe that is the problem.

The musical Hair broke all the rules. It lacked structure, featured Rock music and nudity, which were all taboo in the "legitimate" musical theatre. But its message was overwhelmingly POSITIVE. Yes, the hippie movement in hindsight can easily be characterized as narcissistic and hedonistic but the overwhelming theme was freedom.

The play dealt with the human spirit trying to break free of an unjust system by exposing and undermining the norms of the establishment. Through clothes, music, drugs and sex, the Hippie minority questioned conventional morality which, in turn, eventually made the majority question their own "undeniable truths." Obviously the 1960s fell way short in the social revolution department but, in my opinion, we are far better off for it and that decade at least put us in the right direction.

Both the play (Made at the time in the "Eye of the storm") and the film (Made ten years later in hindsight) celebrate this widely held opinion.

What does "Apathy" celebrate?

It depicts a generation of kids who were handed everything materialistically and it STILL wasn’t good enough for them just like the 1960s. The complaining about the system that made them comfortable also is comparable but WHAT did these two groups complain about? In the 1960s it was about social injustice. In the1990s it was about cable TV.

No wonder why we are in the mess that we are in now.

Now I am not the one who demands a "happy ending," or only watch plays, shows or films that deal with sunshine and positive glows. In fact, my favorite pieces usually deal with darker material and end ambiguously or decidedly unjustly. So the fact that the subject matter or characters are pathetic is not the problem. I do not expect Mr. Zetts to change history.

But I do expect insight into the pathetic and sad existence the author is depicting which, unfortunately, does not come through in "Apathy." The dialogue is way to literal. It is as if a tape recorder was turned on during an all night acid drenched whine-fest with conversations that might be considered remotely interesting to the involved parties but has no relevancy to an outside observer. That is level one.

Or maybe that is the point.

By presenting two hours of dismal conversation about petty concerns, meaningless bickering and total lack of care, Mr. Zetts’ goal was to accurately portray the 1990s generation as it was and make no comment. By doing that, he allows the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions. If that is the case I say he succeeded in his purpose.

But, for example, consider the poetry of the above-mentioned, "You Smile Too Much," a song about facades. Or how about the interesting premise of the more comedic "Mr. Bitter’s Blues" (Sung by Ethan Gomez) which involves the mocking of an aging hippie. The lyrics are considerably more sophisticated then anything that is spoken in between and hints at the heights this show could have achieved.

Now, I don’t want to give the impression it was not a good show because it was. The whole cast was talented and attractive and performed with great energy. Several of the performers, specifically Sami Rudnick and Fiona Choi, had beautiful singing voices. The song and dance numbers were well staged.

Judging by the SRO attendance the night I was there, which I am to understand has been the case for the show’s entire run, I am sure we will be seeing everybody involved in this production in other things in the near future.

But the lion’s share of the credit must go to the obviously talented writer/composer Mickey Zetts. I am hoping his next project takes it to the next level.

Sixth Army