"War! What's it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again."

Edwin Starr, "War"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come you masters of war

You that build all the guns

You that build the death planes

You that build the big bombs

You that hide behind walls

You that hide behind desks

I just want you to know

I can see through your masks

How much do I know

To talk out of turn

You might say that I'm young

You might say I'm unlearned

But there's one thing I know

Though I'm younger than you

Even Jesus would never

Forgive what you do

Bob Dylan, "Masters of War"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a good chance that C.A.R.E. worker, Margaret Hassan, was killed by her captors. I'm sure the video will be released soon.

We are not safer now than before . . . We enter this dangerous void of pain. I stand at this precipice wondering when will we as thinking, processing beings learn to look beyond hate to solve our conflicts.

How odd that in a society where we encourage our children to resolve their conflicts through peaceful methods, we practice something entirely different as adults.

Margaret Hassan is a victim who gave her life working for the good of all humanity. She believed in the good of human existence, and yet she fell victim to human depravity. No words comfort at this time. No lasting peace shall ever ride upon this vehicle called violence.

I want no part . . .

Apparently, an unarmed Iraqi rebel was slain by a US marine. Some people are screaming that the US marine should be brought up on criminal charges for breaking the rules of combat. Give me a break! He need not be brought up on charges. He did his job. Is there really nobility in killing? Is it not all savagery? If you support the war, this is part of war. There is no honorable way of shooting somebody in the head. The blood decorates the wall just the same. I support this soldier, because it reinforces what I feel about war. War is meant to kill people. You define an enemy and you do your best to destroy that enemy. Why all this pretense about order? If I cut off your limbs 'til you die or I shoot you in the head, it's one and the same.

There are innocent victims in this war. Margaret Hassan was one of them, the Iraqi rebel was just a victim, not innocent. Both were prey. In war, we are all prey. Let us bow our heads, keeping our heads, and pray to end a world of prey.

The head of Margaret Hassan shares the same peace as the blood splattered brain of the Iraqi soldier. Both rest now, as the dead bury the dead.

I close with this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak."

Martin Luther King, Jr., Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence

"There's no place in this world where I'll belong when I'm gone

And I won't know the right from the wrong when I'm gone

And you won't find me singin' on this song when I'm gone

So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here . . .

Can't add my name into the fight while I'm gone

So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

And I won't be laughing at the lies when I'm gone

And I can't question how or when or why when I'm gone

Can't live proud enough to die when I'm gone

So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here"



Phil Ochs, "When I'm Gone"



I'm deeply saddened today . . . I was sitting here at my computer listening to the late Phil Ochs song, "When I'm Gone." I popped open my Explorer browser and I was greeted by the headline,

"Chinese American author Iris Chang found shot to death." She was responsible for a powerful non-fiction book called, The Rape of Nanking. This was a seminal book that uncovered the mistreatment of the Chinese during WWII at the hands of Japanese soldiers. Chang's compassion to uncover the atrocities done to her Chinese people was stirring. Sadly, it looks like she may have fallen victim to her giant heart. Preliminary reports indicate that Chang died from self-inflicted gun wounds. Ironically, the words of Phil Ochs song ring eerily prophetic. I have about a 1,000 CDs and I happened to be listening to that song at that time.



Strangely enough, Phil Ochs died by his own hands . . .



Be encouraged my friends. Suicide does not provide the answer we need. We need your voice in this fight. We need you to struggle with us.



"And I won't be running from the rain when I'm gone

And I can't even suffer from the pain when I'm gone

Can't say who's to praise and who's to blame when I'm gone

So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here . . ."

I am not typically drawn to the politics of this two caste system, but I must admit, I am totally intrigued by what it has meant to this country in current times. Each side has been vying for desperate positioning. The debates have been charged with vigor on both ends. Both candidates presenting what they consider their best face. The differences between the two men have been glaring. I' ve been fascinated by a certain issue, however.



In the vice-presidential debate, John Edwards made a specific reference to Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary, being a lesbian. In fairness to Edwards, he brought this up in reference to a question posed by Gwen Ifill to the vice-president:



IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks (emphasis added).

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?



The vice-president discussed the president's position on this matter. Then it was Edwards turn to give his 90 second response. At one point he said, "let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy."



I found Edwards mentioning of Cheney's daughter being lesbian to be benign; it was referenced to by Ifill's question. There were plenty of Americans who did not realize what Ifill was referencing and Edwards put it out there more directly. That being said I believe Edwards used it politically as well. Edwards must have realized that by making it clear that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian would benefit him politically. Why? Because there exists a significant contingency within the Republican chambers who believe that to be gay or lesbian is "wrong," a matter of choice an individual makes. This same contingency also believes that the parents are to blame if their son or daughter "turns out" to be gay or lesbian. These nonsensical thoughts are a reality within a certain segment of the Republican worldview and Edwards used that to tarnish the Vice-president's image. It shouldn't work, but it probably does amongst certain segments of this country. Cheney did not appear to be offended by this reference because it was in the context of the question. However, many republicans spat hell-fire and brimstone about Edwards' reference after the debate.



To further the cause, Kerry implemented it in his last debate with the Prez. Kerry's invocation of Mary Cheney came off much more disingenuous, too political. The question never mentioned Dick Cheney's daughter, but Kerry saw a political chance and took it. It angered the Cheney family. Angered? Hmm . . . angered them that Kerry mentioned that she was a lesbian? Yes, it was political, but why anger about mentioning orientation? Here's what I've observed.



There are three groups of responses around this public acknowledging of one's homosexual orientation. The first group are people who see mentioning someone's son or daughter as being gay or lesbian equivalent to mentioning someone's son or daughter being a convicted child molester. It becomes the nasty "L" or "G" words. This group is mostly made up of politically conservative individuals who see gay and lesbian as something shameful and evil.



The second group made up of both conservatives and liberals and all in between see this reference to Cheney's daughter as slightly uncomfortable, but not unmentionable. They believe that talking about it is equivalent to mentioning a daughter who has breast cancer in a conversation about healthcare. For instance, if the question was addressing the administration's statutes regarding healthcare, and Edwards or Kerry mentioned that this should be an important issue to Bush or Cheney because their daughters or wives battled some debilitating illness, this second group views homosexuality under the same microscope. They see homosexuality from a disease model.



The third group sees homosexuality as a minority issue like race or gender. There exists no offense in mentioning what someone is. It is not a shameful nor disease laden topic. If instead of being lesbian, Mary were black and the Cheney's had adopted her, there would be relevance in this group to mention that the Cheney's have a black daughter when talking about civil rights and affirmative action. One's orientation is not a pejorative reference. This third group is filled with consciously evolved beings, mostly liberals, but not exclusively. There are some moderate conservatives who fit smoothly into this category.



I try to operate from this third category in regards to this issue. Orientation will never be shameful to me, nor will it be considered a disease. It is like my race, but like my race, I hate the fact that it is used as political positioning. I am reminded of some lyrics by Run-DMC,

"I'm proud to be black, yall.

And that's a fact, yall

And if you try to take what's mine

I'll take it back yall

It's like that . . ."

I was struck by a conversation I overheard this morning in a bagel shop. Two men were talking politics, and one man said: "Basically, people will vote for the candidate who will most affect them personally." I immediately had a reaction that did not agree with this statement. It got me to thinking . . .



From what I can see, most people fall into one of three categories. Sometimes people fall into multiple categories, but usually one is more prevalent. The three categories of voters are as follows: 1. those who vote strictly on how they will be affected 2. those who vote on how a politician will affect the county, state, or country 3. those who vote for politicians who have the best global outlook.



Most people fall into the first category, as was suggested by the man in the bagel shop. People want to know if this presidential candidate will speak for them or their community. African-Americans who vote this way want to be insured that the black vote will count (even in Florida!). They also want a politician who will work at creating a fair, institutional playing field. Gay and Lesbian voters of this style want to see what specific messages will be addressed to their community. The very wealthy of this persuasion want tax break messages. Those who are hunters or gun owners are interested in where this candidate stands on gun laws and the National Rifle Association (NRA). And so forth . . .



The second style of voters take it a step further. Not only do these people want to be assured that their personal needs will be addressed; they are also interested in knowing that what they idealize will be catered to as well as what they oppose. Much of what happens in this stage of voting can be seen in the political buzz words: pro-life v. Pro-choice, gay/lesbian issues v. the religious right, death penalty and gun laws, military enhancements. People who are involved in these debates are not necessarily affected by them. Most who oppose the death penalty do not personally know anyone on death row, yet they will attend rallies upon rallies to free Mumia Abu-Jamal. I attended one of these rallies before I even knew who Mumia was. I found out that day that there were a lot of people who knew little to nothing about him as well. Only after the rally did I do my research. There are Christians who protest against the laws that will allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. They are red-faced and irate because to them any law that will allow gays and lesbians to marry (not one another, because that would be o.k.) is an annihilation and desecration to the sacred institution of marriage. But come on?!? Do people really get married because they want to enhance the sacredness of the institution??? Wow! I must have been sleeping for a long time, because I thought most American marriages take place because two individuals love each other. I certainly didn't get married to enhance any institution, and I don't remember the last person I've known who has. What's more important is how is someone's marriage my concern? Who cares??? Let's be real. If this issue is really about the sacredness of the institution, then why weren't these same people who rant, rave, and protest standing outside of Britney Spears' home when she, ON A WHIM, married Jason Allen Alexander. Somehow marrying someone on a dare, in a state where ordaining marriages is slightly more consecrated than a cable sitcom, does not seem to fit the definition of sacred. No. No. Obviously, the issue is far greater than the pretense of the sacredness of some institution. But this is what happens for people who vote in this manner. Issues do not have to personally affect them for them to be of interest. In fact, issues that have nothing to do with them is often more alluring. For this section of voters, the candidate in question is equivalent to a sports team. What uniform does he wear? The question may be better suited, is he a Yankees or Sox fan?



The third section of voters, those who vote towards that which is best for the world, has few members. However, this is where I find myself. I am more concerned about what a politician in question will do for the world at large. My decisions are not solely based on what will suit me. In fact, I have supported candidates who did not necessarily look out for my best interest financially, but had a better global plan. America is considered a super power in the world, but too often we behave like a super bully or super dictator. This is not only a criticism of the current administration, but a critique on any of the administrations who have made me feel unsafe. And before I hear any rant about me promoting some liberal agenda, let me make you aware that I would have been as outspoken during President Johnson's administration during the Viet Nam war.



The other night I was watching the Democratic National Convention and John Kerry was giving his speech. I was intrigued that he spoke very boldly about strengthening the military. Most democrats do not favor building up the military. At one point during his speech, he started on this riff that contained the words: "What if . . ." I couldn't help but to think of the same thing. What if all these politicians were less seasoned with rhetoric and more flavored with action? What if instead of just taking out the most dangerous weapons out of the most dangerous hands, we were to take out the most dangerous weapons? What if we tried to build a greater world, not just a greater America? What if God bless America became God bless this world? What if the enemy is no further away than the closest mirror? What if we were to work to build a world where A.I.D.S. is a distant memory and female genital mutilation would not be ignored? What if we were to create governments of interfaith? What if we were to rid this world of religion, replacing it with true spirituality? What if we stopped using God to justify our crimes and hatred toward each other? What if we were to have dreams of castles in the sky, and worked to build the foundations under them?



I want to vote in accordance with ancient ideals. I want to vote in accordance to needs larger than my circle of friends, larger than my state, larger than my country! I want to vote with the consciouness of the world. I am my brother's keeper, my sister's keeper, and my brother and sister serve Jesus and Allah. My brother and sister have been called white trash and nigger. My brother and sister are married to other brothers and sisters, and sisters and brothers. My brother and sister live below the poverty line in Camden County, NJ and my brother and sister have flourished in million dollar homes in Bergen County, NJ. My brother and sister speak many languages and have abodes in many countries; they love and hurt and pray and sing and fear. They fear what they do not know. They fear ghosts of hunger and oppression. They fear an uncertain future. They fear that America will vote only for American interest. I have these same fears.



I know not if my vote will make a difference this time around. I know not if the candidates will make a difference. I wait for that day when the politicians will be brave enough to stand up for dreams and deliver the resources to the people most in need. We are a country who has no money to aid the poor, the sick, those in desperate need; yet, we have billions to insure the making of destructive weaponry. This should not be.



I vote with the world in mind . . .

Just some random and not-so-random thoughts.



watch people who are barefoot or have open-toe shoes. did you ever notice that the toes find the ground after the feet? almost out of fear or anticipation.



rabbits are speedy. tough to catch. turtles are slow movers. easy and fun to catch. turtles are almost laughable at how slow they are. rabbits live on average 8-10 years.



turtles live on average . . . 200 years. may we seek to be more like the turtle.



we hate what we don't know. we hate what we fear. we hate what we've been taught to hate. we hate that which is foreign to us. we hate that which is us. we hate all. we hate thoroughly and completely, yet we love with as many boundaries as there are countries.



become YES!



there is much confusion about who we are. many of us walk around believing that we are human beings having a spiritual experience. however, the truth is far greater than that. we are spiritual beings having a human experience.



"There's a dyin' voice within me reaching out somewhere,

Toiling in the danger and in the morals of despair.

Don't have the inclination to look back on any mistake,

Like Cain, I now behold this chain of events that I must break."



Bob Dylan, Every Grain of Sand

"I got somethin' to say, and I thought it might be worth to mention. If you're not pissed off at the world, then you're just not paying attention." -- Kasey Chambers



Last night I was at a camp doing a performance for campers and staff who ranged in age from 11 to adulthood. I was deeply moved by the power of my show. I don't know what to think. I certainly did not create what it has become. I fear I am not worthy enough to create such beauty. Indeed, I am only the vessel for these miracles. I am deeply moved.



There was a girl who approached me last night . . . she was probably 14. She is going to be a freshman in high school this fall. She went on to tell me some painful stories about her reputation being tarnished by the boys in her school because of one indiscretion. She spoke about boys taking advantage of her. She spoke about feeling powerless. I listened to this girl talk in detail about what she's done with other boys, and my heart broke. I was upset at the whole system of power. Upset at males and how we often make our lives invested in making others feel abused. How being a heterosexual man is frequently quantified by how many girls or women you've been with. How being a homosexual man is qualified by a similar barometer. How many girls after being victimized seek to re-create future encounters, because it gives them a sense of self, albeit a fickle one. I listened to this girl tell me that she performed oral sex with this boy in her grade, and it nearly ruined her social reputation; yet, after that incident she has repeated that act with three other boys in her school, because as she put: "I thought I had to. They wouldn't leave me alone until I did it to all three of them."



I wish that I could save them all. I think about my daughter, Saskia, and how innocent she is at 3 weeks. I wonder who she'll be when she is 14. I know I cannot protect her from all of this world's ills. My parents could never protect me. I was involved with things at age 10 that I should not have known about. I am stronger because of them, but I don't think it was the only way to go . . .



I am aware that Saskia will make tons of mistakes (I hope so). I just hope that through those mistakes she learns how to respond differently . . . better than before. What made me sad last night about that girl was that I am not convinced that she will seek to make more conscientious decisions. I encouraged her to be active in her choices, to realize that she is not powerless. I challenged her to be proactive concerning her decisions to "fool around" with some boy. I hope for the best. I fear the worst.



A friend of mine who is a counselor at that camp asked me if I was working on sainthood because of all the lives I touch. Interesting. I thought about that. Sainthood? No, I'm still working on Humanhood . . .

Well, people never cease to amaze me. The older I get, the more I realize that it is not just people who differ from me politically, religiously, or philosophically. It's the MASS mentality. Recently, there was a movie released that has caused quite a stir. The title being: Fahrenheit 9/11. It's the latest work of fellow sojourner, Michael Moore. What irritates me is the vast number of people who have made judgments about the movie or Moore, but who refuse to see the film for themselves. What's that about?!?! I don't care where one stands politically, but I do care when asinine comments are being stated without any sensible data. Personally, I enjoyed the film. I took it for what it was: a docu/mocu-mentary. Moore knows his stuff. This is for certain. Does he have an agenda? Absolutely! Is his work important? Without a doubt. Is it propaganda? Not unless you think truth or speaking out against the president is automatic propaganda.



Now, that's just my opinion. Someone else can see this movie and feel that it is nothing more than the liberal agenda or pure hogwash, and that would be their opinion. The issue at hand, however, is if the individual speaking has seen the movie for themselves. If you are going to criticize something, please be educated about your criticisms; otherwise, kindly remove yourself from the dialogue. Bumbling, slurping comments of: "That was dumb!" or "Moore needs to loose weight," hold the intellectual equivalent of a solitary leptonic photon! I desire people to be thoughtful in their bias. Good luck, right? But why shouldn't I demand more than just moronic gurgling?



Of course some of you out there would like to just pin me to having a liberal agenda as well. I want you to know that I do have an agenda! My agenda is to decrease ignorance, increase understanding and compassion, and to confront and challenge the norm. I was just as offended when the Passion of the Christ came out and some of my liberal or Jewish friends refused to see this movie, because it was "anti-Semitic," though they had not seen it for themselves. Or some of my liberal friends who ranted that Mel's movie was a right-wing conspiracy. Personally, I didn't feel it was anti-Semitic, but then again, I grew up in a home where the Christian framework was set for me. I did, however, feel that the movie more pertained to a Christian audience than the mainstream. But I would not excuse anyone who attacked Mel (via his father) or the movie (via Jesus), if they had not viewed it for themselves. (One friend said that she didn't need to see it because she read a lot of reviews about the movie. I just hope she doesn't take a similar approach to life as she did to this movie.) I ranted away at these people as well. I think that both films are important for different reasons, and I believe that both are explosive and controversial. And for anyone who knows me, the words explosive and controversial are tasty morsels that nourish my soul.



But why is all this talk about these two movies relevant? To me, it's so much larger than the movies at hand. It has to do with the attitudes of people. People are afraid of that which is different. I spend my life performing characters who have been marginalized and ostracized by other segments in society. The athlete who does not want to be seen with the Goth kid (or vice versa), because it may cast a negative image to observers. The very mention of the words "homosexual," "gay," "lesbian," "queer," or "transgender" send certain people into convulsions. When I perform my football player who is gay my monologue revolves around his desire to be understood and accepted as a human being. He seeks not to be the target of attacks. He wants to belong. He strictly focuses on orientation, not behavior. Yet, when I perform this character I am always amazed at the idiocy of some of my audience. People claim that I am recruiting kids to be gay or that I am talking about the benefits of the gay lifestyle. Granted, the people who often say such remarks have not personally seen the show, yet they judge what they do not know!!!! Still, I have had students, faculty, and parents who have issued tirades about me promoting a liberal agenda, because they fear that students will walk away thinking that to be gay is o.k. And this is wrong . . . because? Don't get me started . . . the issue of homophobia is for another day . . . or book. I want to focus on what I originally started to say. This attitude of being so set in one's beliefs that we fail to see truth outside of our narrow-minded spectrum is at the core of most of the ills today. Take any issue that raises eyebrows and tempers, extract your personal biases, and see if you can understand the other side. If you can't, try again. Or better yet, write an essay defending a viewpoint which is not your own. You will be amazed at what you might find.



Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Passion of the Christ are polarizing movies because they are approached from a distinct worldview. Nevertheless, both contain important truths to be gleamed. To write of either movie because of one's fears and biases is the equivalent of intellectual suicide. At the very least, one should approach these movies with an attitude of "I want to know what my enemy thinks." You might be surprised. Your enemy may have analogous thoughts. We will never break down the barriers of hate and prejudice in schools and other organizations, until we are ready to confront the accepted embrace of these attitudes within the larger society.