Iran

So I've seen a few people freaking out here and there about Iran's nuclear enrichment. I haven't read much on the subject because I'm more worried about the fact that we are dedicating x number of dollars to increase our own nuclear stockpile after Obama said last April (was it?) that the world should move toward nuclear disarmament, and I don't see how increasing nukes is moving in a direction that truly earns him his Nobel. Of course, if the media hadn't done such a good job of portraying the Iranians as demonic, looking to bomb the fuck out of anyone that has pissed them off slightly, perhaps joe schmo public wouldn't give a moment's notice to the news. If it is news. All I've seen is a headline from CNN on the subject, and we all know how they have the interest of the US public at heart!

Quibbling over scraps

About 1.1 million Facebook users have joined a group called "Making Drug Tests Required to Get Welfare" (link, if it works). I have yet to see a group of Facebookers over a million strong demanding the money back the real welfare queens made off with (i.e. the Wall Street bankers et al.). These are all presumably middle- to lower middle-class folks. This is where their concern lies, that people who are just trying to get by not get any help because they have a drug problem? How callous and misled. People are still under the delusion that people have it "easy" when living on a welfare check, doing drugs and living it up. It's hard for me to accept that people would be so shallow when cutting off any other perspective as to why certain members of our society are on drugs in the first place and need help. When certain people tell me a revolution is inevitable within the next ten to twenty years, I can't help but hope it's not considering the public level of stupidity. If the Teabaggers are any indicator of some sort of revolt on the horizon, I say I'd rather see the masses wallow in a pit of ignorance and consumerism until we're all vaporized (*crosses fingers*).

Fucking Swiffer

God damn it, I like Swiffer shit. I know it's all totally first world and junk, but using those is a hell of a lot easier than the shitty alternatives that are also marketed to clean a certain way, what with all the different "absorbent surfaces" and whatnot. Their commercials are problematic, and in a way that's highly annoying because am I really up later than I wanted to be discussing advertising for household cleaning tools? But here I am. It just gets a little old seeing a prim and business casual-clad female playing the other half of a god damned mop she "dumped." In the latest one, the presumed housewife, or at least the Person Who Does the Cleaning (who happens to be a woman of color), dumps her poor, unsuspecting mop in the basement and the voiceover states something to the effect that there's always someone else. And who is that someone else to replace the human female the mop was once attached to? A pink bowling ball, which turns to face the mop as "he" first glances upon "her." Its three, er, "finger-holes" form the "face" of the bowling ball, suggesting a coy open-"o" as a mouth. Come the fuck on. This is why I don't watch television. Without the convenience of DVR or Tivo, the commercials are inevitable. But I usually end up paying attention more to those than the program. Ugh. Anyway, here's one of the commercials--not the latest one, but if you haven't seen them yet you should get the idea.

I would give anyone the shirt off my back but it might insult them

People can be sensitive about their choice in clothing. It's really not a big deal to me; dress how you want to dress. Even if you want to walk around like a billboard advertising all these multinational companies whose sweatshops put together your supposed envied look, not my business...right? Well, despite the larger, global consequences of dressing oneself in the US, I'm not one to judge. But I did get a little creeped out over the weekend by my friend's son's girlfriend's choice of t-shirt; it was a Blackwater shirt with the company's familiar logo and writing emblazoned on the front, back, and sleeves. Taken a little aback, I asked her where she got it. Her uncle's friend works for them currently (and I think their name is Xe now). Ugh. I wanted to ask, "You know that's a really bad company and stuff, right?" But I ignored it for the rest of the time we were around each other and went back to my middle-class daze in a timely manner. Ho hum.

Hurpa durpa

Really tired of hearing people ask me, "But Kari, what kind of political agenda would the US want to force on Haiti? It just doesn't make sense. It's just a little island." And then they expect me to give them a political 101 on Haiti, as if it's my job. As if the onus is on me to educate them about history and such. These kinds of attitudes are symptomatic of the larger sickness that we have--this imperialistic impulse to get our neighbors to accept the great American way of life. They are also bundled up with the term security as it's been used in the media. For years, Haiti has been portrayed as a hotbed of hostility that's ready to burst at the seams:

"The so-called level of violence in Haiti pales in comparison with violence in at least half the countries in the world. Compare the history of Haiti with that of England, France and the U.S. and Germany. Don't go back to the 1200s. Look back to 1804 and you have more violence in those countries than in Haiti. So the characterization of Haiti as a violent country is a bunch of hogwash. Why is there tension and instability in Haiti? It is simply because in Haiti you have 5 percent of the population controlling 60 percent of the national wealth, while 80 percent live in poverty. If you had such a situation in any other country you'd have a massacre or a civil war but that hasn't happened in Haiti, which speaks to the self-restraint of the Haitian population. The instability of the last 20 to 25 years has been caused essentially by this elite as well as their foreign allies who cannot truly accept the principal of one citizen-one vote because it would mean that they would lose their privileges and influence. They have tried to quench the will of the poor majority of Haiti and tried to change the rules of the game because they've lost in elections. If it were up to the Haitian people (and when I say Haitian people I'm talking about the vast majority of Haitians who are poor) there would be both democracy and stability. If you look at recent history, the Haitian people have chosen to vote rather than to riot. They voted four times in a row for the same political family, the same political leaning, the same agenda. They consistently have picked both democracy and stability."

One popular piece of propaganda the media has used over and over is the lie of looting during times of crises like these. Not only do the repetitions of these mythemes make it easy for people to accept their inherent prejudices without question, but they can distract us and help cause us to ignore that we live under what is rapidly approaching a fascist, corporate controlled government who won't stop at crushing even that "little island" for their own gain.

"[S]uch disasters are generally exploited by states and companies in the vicious and predatory way that Naomi Klein outlines in The Shock Doctrine. Perhaps a lesser known example of this is the way in which in the wake of the tsunami in late 2004, the Indonesian military took the opportunity to ramp up repression in Aceh. A more obvious example is the depraved way in which the Bush administration (and the local Democratic party) effectively ethnically cleansed New Orleans and turned it into a haven for developers and construction firms after Katrina. So, what depraved agenda is going to be more forcefully thrust on Haiti in the middle of this catastrophe? Obviously, there is no danger of Obama allowing any impoverished immigrants into the US on the back of some rickety boats. You might recall that after last year's hurricanes, his administration continued to deport people, even in the middle of urgent legal appeals."

As Lenin pointed out in another post, which I'm too lazy to locate right now, the military really isn't expecting a fight as some of the major networks have claimed. Why expect a fight from people who are already impoverished, and, on top of it, have experienced one of the worst earthquakes in history? A population and consequently their economy is much easier to handle if it's already decimated.

Quotes of the Week/We're Screwed

Two quotes I've appreciated this week (one spoken, one written, respectively):

"The masses will be drinking Coca-Cola up until the day we're all living in tents."

"Who wouldn't want to wear dress shirts, watch television, and work in an office?"

The latter was a sarcastic (REALLY!) comment mocking the power structures that keep the "middle" class in dazed, thankless servitude when they attempt to perpetuate this way of life on other civilizations, or something worse. Specifically, the author was talking about Haiti's history and the US's oppressive involvement in it. It is from an otherwise unsavory article on eXiled online. There are some little nuggets there sometimes, though.

Take for instance their article on California's water problem, which will soon transfer into a problem for all of us. I've kept putting the monstrous issue of the privatization of water in the back of my mind because it spells disaster once robber barons not only control our government, but the water we need as well. I recently found out how close it has personally come, too; a friend's monied grandfather has been offered an "investment opportunity" in Branson, Missouri's rural water system. Basically, private companies are making up paper money based on water that *might be* there in the future, and are selling it back to the citizens they stole it from. Will people finally march on the DC corporatists with torches and pitchforks once we no longer have access to water? As my first quote indicated, it's not likely. We are a broken people.

And that brings me right back to that sense of stifling dread I've been feeling that's been echoed elsewhere on blogs I regularly peruse. Everything sucks. We're fucking over poor brown people the world over, again, and it's certainly clear that this isn't a democracy. I'm sure I could hyperlink myriads of posts and articles that have fueled my demoralized anxiety, but I don't even want to bother. Every where I look, shit sucks. We're screwed. All of the headlines combine and form one amorphous reel of shit that plays in my head over and over again until I lose any ability to articulate the whole mess piece by piece. And now, why bother.

My options are to actually do something or sit and chainsmoke and despair or to keep myself occupied with cooking, reading, tending to my plants, writing, etc. And taking my meds to remain pliable and manageable. Hell, I opted to go to a chamber of commerce dinner tonight just to occupy myself. Get my mind off shit. This was not meant to be a "woe is me" article, but it kinda turned out that way, huh? I just wish I was bionic and had the capital to help make the changes necessary before everything implodes.

Easy Chickpea Soup

It's back to school for me, and I am glad for it. I truly get into new depths of laziness every time an extended break is offered. Along with hitting the books comes the opportunity to find new meals to cook that are [at least kind of] healthy and fairly painless to make. This recipe is an adaptation of Stylish Cuisine's chickpea soup, which she also adapted from elsewhere. And I just now noticed she posted a newish Moroccan spiced chickpea soup, omg. My tweaks aren't too earth-shattering, just a little quicker and dirtier since I didn't have the canned plum tomatoes it calls for. I also added a little more o' tis and tat.

Makes two to four servings.

5 whole garlic cloves, peeled
1/3 cup extra virgin olive oil
2 teaspoons dried rosemary leaves, crushed as much as you can
1 8 oz. can of tomato sauce
1 15 oz. can of garbanzo beans (chickpeas), drained and rinsed
2 cups vegetable broth*
1 bay leaf
splash lemon juice
salt and pepper, to your taste

Heat the olive oil in a pot large enough to accommodate all of the ingredients. Add the garlic cloves and saute until they are nutty-brown in color and then remove them from the pot. (I'm sure they'd save well for...something else, maybe.**) Add the rosemary, give it a stir, then add the tomato sauce and let it simmer for about five minutes. Add the chickpeas and allow to simmer for another five minutes. Then add the broth and bay leaf, allow it to come to a boil, bring it back down to a simmer, and cover. Let the soup cook for fifteen minutes. Salt and pepper to taste, turn off heat, then stir in the splash of lemon juice. Serve.

I think I'll try it with the plum tomatoes next time while keeping the tomato sauce, and up everything else, possibly doubling the batch. It's a really tasty soup and it doesn't take that much salt to get a multidimensional flavor. The oil does make it a little buttery and that can be adjusted if you so desire.

*I've gotten accustomed to making my own veggie broth; I usually have enough odds and ends from the vegetables I routinely use in my cooking to make a batch after a couple of months. Of course, I keep them frozen in baggies until I cook 'em up! I use what I call my "pot method" of cooking my batches--it all fits accordingly just up to the brim of the pot I always cook soup in. Here's a handy recipe I've recently used as a guide. It's simple to make, and mine is always more flavorful than what I buy at the grocery.

**Oh yeah! I think they would be great to spread on a hunk of sourdough to dip in the soup since it's kind of brothy. Once that thought came to mind, I decided I had to make some sourdough. I'm getting my supplies to get the starter going and those loaves will be incorporated into a couple of meals I'll cook next week. I'll let you know of the delicious consequences.