fecesthrowingmonkey

Trial or Tribunal?

2010-03-10T05:26:00.000-08:00

It has been determined by the FTM editorial board that staging a military tribunal for the 9-11 defendants (or perpetrators) only serves to kick the end of the “War on Terror” down the road for years.

By holding a military tribunal instead of civilian trial denies the victims (and their families) the possibility of a cathartic moment. A civilian trial will give an official public voice for the victims of 9-11. This voice could lead to healing in the public’s sharing its story of the tragic events. These stories can symbolically bring victims to life, hereby ameliorating the public and private pain of 9-11. Apparently, this is counterproductive to the interests of war, as the wound of 9-11 must be kept open for its continued persecution.

Most opponents of a civilian trial base their opposition to giving Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) a ‘platform to air his abhorrent views.’ I find this very strange, as defendants voice their views in court all the time without any damage to society. What can KSM say that can be harmful to our social fabric? Can their greatest fear be if KSM and co-defendants appear as ordinary defendants in a civilian court?

Would holding a civilian trial will be in itself a victory? Could this victory be secured simply when the defendants sit meekly through the legal proceedings ? After all, their presence in civilian court is their public display of fealty and subservience to our system of justice. Could a civilian trial permit the public to see the defendants as weak, damaged, evil, and misguided human beings? Could this weaken the public perception of the enemy as an inhuman ‘Other’ to be subject to the application of tools like bombs, missiles, and US Marines? The public must be denied a false feeling of ‘Victory’ before the war is over. Especially a long war with many battles yet to come…

Interview with General of Afghan Army

2009-12-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

Interviewer:
What do you think of Obama’s surge?

General (through translator):

I think it is great idea. We are looking forward to all the weapons and training that the greatest army in the world, yours, will bestow on us. And we relish the day we wage war on the Taliban, and take over the entire country in the name of the Afghan people. There is one thing we can’t do: we will not do it now.

What do you mean? What thing? What won’t you do?

When we, Afghans, fight amongst ourselves, whoever we fight today or tomorrow, we live with tonight or the day after tomorrow. And we have traditions here, certain customs as you say…that must be observed.

Break in interview. Tea and cookies are brought out by the general’s 10 year-old son. The tea is drunk relining on a pillowed rug. Cookies are eaten carefully, so as not to get crumbs on the rug.

Which custom is that?

There are many customs in our country. Some can be followed some of the time, others have to be followed all of the time. Some customs have exceptions to them, some don’t. Some customs are for certain tribes and not others, and other customs apply to all tribes equally. We also have customs for men and for women, and different set of customs for chickens and goats. What USA and Obama want is for us Afghans to fight and to win the fight against each other. You want Afghan Army to defeat Taliban, right?

I think Obama said ”We will support the Afghan government in its campaign to expand government sovereignty over all of Afghanistan” in one of his speeches on the topic.

He is very much correct. To accomplish this we train and develop the Afghan Army to fight and win against the Taliban. And we (if I could speak to your readers for the brave men of our army) will win this fight. But we have one custom in this country we always try to follow: don’t fight too hard with your brother when you must conserve your strength to fight the foreigner. When foreigner leaves, no problem. I hope America gives us good weapons, and body armor. American equipment is the best, superior to Russian or Pakistani.

Press Clips

2009-11-16T08:42:00.001-08:00

The following statements were assembled from recent articles on Afghanistan. In all cases the words "Afghans", "Afghanis"" and "Afghanistan" were replaced with historically appropriate alternates.

Enjoy

"Our goal is to keep Bolivians safe by providing security, but we also want to help them get started in the right direction to be able to take care of themselves," said Reyes, a 23-year-old from Mesquite, Texas. "A lot has changed for the better. The men that were paid to dig the wells understand that we are here to help them, but they have to learn to do things on their own, too.”

Placing American combat advisers and troops alongside the Liberians will help address the governance problem as well.

The American public and its politicians may be unwilling to keep American troops in Eritrea for another decade if casualties continue at present levels.

Shortly after taking up his post, he called for a revised military strategy, focusing on protecting the Peruvian people against the Shining Path.

According to American officers in East Timor today, tribal elders will gladly take US money and assure the US that they are eradicating insurgents, but will not really take up arms against the insurgents, or even share where improvised explosive devices are located, unless the counterinsurgents can protect them and their families from reprisals.

"Given the real problems with the existing Bangladeshi judicial system, the US and Bangladeshi governments must immediately begin to establish a long-term solution that respects the rights of the detainees to have their cases heard in a court of law."

An Apologia of Pol Pot?

2009-11-11T10:38:00.000-08:00

As some of you may know, my work was included in a recent exhibition called "Art & Democracy IV". It has been brought to my attention that several members of the Visual Artist Guild, the organization which sponsored the exhibit, felt that one of my paintings was a glorification of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. My instant reaction was that it was not true. It could not be! My feelings toward Pol Pot are absolutely negative. I studied the history, visited Cambodia on one occasion, and in no way support the goals and tactics of the Khmer Rouge.
When I examined the process by which the painting was created, I realized that the VAG may have interpreted the painting correctly. And further investigation revealed that the painting’s title and premise were modified prior to its most recent exhibition.
The painting, now titled “Retreat from Ankar, 1979” (above) was begun in November 2008. I came upon the subject matter as such: I found a photograph of Pot Pot and other KR marching out of the jungle (middle image) and saw that it could be combined with one of the great paintings of 19^th century Russian realism—“The Bargehaulers” by Ilya Repin (top image). I reworked the composition at approximately twice the size of the original, while keeping the same horizon, color scheme and vanishing point.

Now for the big question: What was I doing?

The image was obviously a socialist realist heroic scale history painting—a formulation of propaganda, style and visual aggrandizement no longer in style. The biggest problem was that subject of the painting, Pol Pot, could never be (nor ever should be) celebrated. Therefore, a world in which such a painting could exist had to be created. To cryptically articulate this world, I wrote a provenance and auction estimate for this painting. When it was originally exhibited, in a show titled "Convergence" at 25th Street Armory (March 2009) the following paperwork was displayed prominently alongside:

Since the object of this painting is elucidated by this document, it should be examined as a primary source.

The following assumptions can be made:

It is an auction form. The painting was put up for sale, and authenticated by the auctioneer.
The title: In this respect VAG’s critique is wholly accurate.It is a celebration of Pol Pot’s and Nuon Chea’s achievements. But who is HK and why is he so prominently mentioned?
The provenance is the biggest clue to the painting’s meaning. Hint: the PDRK did not exist in 1997, and when it existed, it did not have a Ministry of Fine Arts and Letters.
The choice of artist (Boris Kaganoff-Roche) to execute the work is based on era, experience, style, likely international connections, and a tiny autobiographical reference: my grandmother’s maiden name was Kagan.

It is up for the audience to fill in the missing gaps of information. They may fill it with history, memory, primary sources, or a careful examination of the object for additional clues. I believe that in the end, the revelation is of a dark and tragic historical antithesis.

The piece may be seen until December 31st, 2009 at Gallery H, 222 E. 34st, NYC.

Afghanistan: The War Dossier

2009-10-18T15:18:00.000-07:00

The talking heads are in another world. This is taking up so much attention. I am incredulous when I hear discussions of strategy for this war. They clasp their hands, all grave and serious and whole-hearted in their assessments. They ponder the General’s requests (As if any general would not request more troops!) with painful pontificated addendums and conditions. Afghanistan is like a sick child in our care. They need us, we can’t leave it. We must ‘protect’ and ‘develop’ and ‘establish’ something or other in it. Our enemy was there, we must not allow them a ‘safe haven’. We must wage war in Afghanistan so the enemy can’t come back there. So they can’t plot any more attacks on our homeland…

We’ve got to call a timeout and think about it. We need to get out the wide-angle lens. We need to take look at Afghanistan. And we need to look at ourselves. And to help us, the editors at FTM have prepared a brief Q&A:

Why are we in Afghanistan? This is the simplest question to answer, and all answers are a variation of one number: 911.
Why are we still in Afghanistan? The media parrots the reasoning and response from the previous question. But let’s look back on the hazy days of October from 108 moons ago, when we rounded up a posse against the villain in our national tragedy. We acted within the bounds of international law: to re-establish a UN recognized government, and hunt down Osama Bin Laden. We failed at the latter for various reasons, and succeed at the former (more or less). But since our valiant Tajik allies, some on horseback and some in Russian tanks backed by Navy F-16s and Tomahawk missiles broke through the Taliban lines on the plains of Kabul, we learned a few things. We learned that the attackers on 911 were Saudis and Egyptians, who hatched the plot in Hamburg, who trained in Florida, who lived in Paterson and Phoenix and Minneapolis, who entered that morning from Canada, who passed through the screeners at Logan and Newark, whose leader was scion of a wealthy Saudi family, who studied in London, who may be on kidney dialysis, who is no longer in Afghanistan, who may be hiding in a mountain lair, and who may be dead.
What is Afghanistan? It is a country where our troops are fighting to root out Al Quaeda and prevent the Taliban from taking over and we are there to build up the local army and police forces and establish an honest and effective government which gives women their rights and educates its children.
What is wrong with the above answer? It does not say anything about Afghanistan, it is about our objectives and actions.
What is Afghanistan, Part II? Afghanistan is a mountainous resource-poor country in Central Asia, with no access to the sea, no large lakes, and no navigable rivers. The area had long been a transit point for marauding armies and trade (via the Silk Road). Afghanistan, as it looks on a map today, was created in the 19^th century as an administrative entity to separate the frontiers of the Russian and British Empires. Much of its recent history is comprised of wars among competing kings and leaders, with occasional assistance and interference from outside powers. Needless to say, Afghanistan’s social development has not fared well over the last 150 or so years, as most of its population lives in pre-modern conditions due to prolonged periods of war, agricultural exhaustion and isolation.
Who are Afghans? They are members of various tribes. Some are the Taliban.
Who do the Afghans think they are? People who live in Afghanistan, and belong to one of the tribes, work for the government, eek out a living, and some are members of the Taliban.
Who are the Taliban? They are predominantly Afghans of the Pushtun tribe. Some of the tribe lives across the border in Pakistan. They are fundamentalist and want impose their version of Islam on the entire country.
Why are we opposed to the Taliban? They may let Osama and his followers to come back and live in Afghanistan. The Taliban will let Osama plan more attacks against us. And we are opposed to their vision of government.
Why does the above make no sense as a reason for this war? A wanted man will not hide in a place where everyone is looking for him. It is hard to plan an attack on NY, or DC or LA, or Cedar Rapids, Iowa from a place with no electricity or WiFi (for e-mail and bank transfers and Google maps), few flights and four roads leading out. It is much simpler to mastermind a terrorist attack when one has access to a major port, an electric grid, ATMs and thrice daily connections to London, Dubai and Kuala Lumpur. As for the third point—our ideological opposition to the Taliban—we must calculate how much of our blood and treasure to expend so that a tribe 12,000 miles away fails to take over a mountainous resource-poor country in Central Asia. A country with no access to the sea, no large lakes, no navigable rivers, with nothing to trade, and no common interests.

What I've been up to during the holiday season...

2009-01-20T10:33:00.000-08:00

Feces-throwing monkey on the loose in Tampa Bay

Wed Jan 14, 8:33 pm ET

CLEARWATER, Fla. – Wildlife officials said a rhesus monkey known to throw feces when mad is on the loose in Tampa Bay. Authorities have been trying to capture the primate since Tuesday afternoon, but it managed to evade a bucket truck and tranquilizer dart.

Gary Morse with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission says the adult male is thought to have escaped from an unlicensed source. It was last seen in Clearwater.

The monkey is not considered dangerous.

A Special Shout-Out...

2008-11-05T11:01:00.000-08:00

To white men for maintaining a streak of 44 elected presidents who are either all-white or half-white. Your success in our democracy is duly commended.

To president-elect Barak Obama for not forgetting the contributions of the 'non-disabled' members of our community. As a non-disabled (god willing) person, I sometimes feel overlooked by society due to my lack of disability. Simply mentioning us in your victory speech last night warmed the hearts of non-disabled people everywhere.

To Tinker Forever With Chance

2008-10-29T16:11:00.000-07:00

Dear simians,

This summer was spent in anticipation of several occurrences at FTM headquarters: my impending nuptials, the fall presidential election and the 100th year without a World Series victory for the Chicago Cubs. In a world where individuals and financial markets ‘game the probability’ of just about anything, you could say I had a lot of skin in the game.

In August, the wedding went off without a hitch, my horse was doing well in the presidential derby, and the Cubs had the best team since 1908. Would Theriot to DeRosa to Lee become the next Tinker to Evers to Chance? Would the ninety-nine year streak of futility end before reaching the triple digits? (Keep in mind that the next digit increase of this losing streak would be at 999 years—899 years from now, and who knows if baseball would even be played then?)

At the beginning of October, my Cubbies went down like baby lambs to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 3 games. Unfortunately, since half the known universe also placed big bets on the Cubs to win the World Series, the ensuing stock sell-off to cover their gambling losses eventually mushroomed into the CDS/Sub-prime/AIG/Lehman/World Banking meltdown that shook the very principles of free-market capitalism. The Cubs loss in the play-offs, and the resulting economic collapse, caused my preferred presidential candidate to surge ahead in the polls. Does chance take away with one hand and give with the other? Or is this yet another inscrutable layer of Billy Goat’s curse?

With the Cubs and wedding fates decided, the last is the fate of the presidency. Right now America is at a fork in the road—its choice of leaders will determine which path is taken, paths perhaps to never cross again. One candidate is like an ageing Roman General, mounting his final campaign. Bruised and battered from countless battles with the barbarians, he marches in front of his troops with his garish lover, a pretty young boy, at his side. With empty phrases and threats, he prods the exhausted soldiers on to an ever-elusive victory. His Empire is a few years from collapse, its ideology sclerotic, its advantages in technology and organization fading fast.
The other candidate signals a paradigm shift in the political history of this nation. His very being symbolizes the America of immigrants from countless nations who came here to transcend their miserable histories. His leadership of a nation that contains the blood of all nations, makes explicit what was until now only implicit in the American Dream. With his election, the paradigm shifts from America, a nation settled by Western European colonists and their slaves to: America, the nation of diversity and equality of opportunity for all human beings. It marks the next stage of expansion of a Universal American/Roman Empire—by selecting him as president, America takes one step closer to becoming a world and the world takes a step toward becoming an America.

The editors of Fecesthrowingmonkey prefer to live in a Universal All-Conquering Rome/America as opposed to a Rome/America about to be sacked by the Visigoths. We will vote accordingly. Please, also, do.

Russian tanks roll into the disputed Georgian territories of South Carolina and Florida.

2008-08-12T13:14:00.000-07:00

Kremlin states reason for invading Georgia: Their wine is impossible to drink.
“Even an alcoholic can not tolerate it!” agreed one Muscovite on the eve of war.

For those confused about the recent conflict, a primer of why this war is great:

It’s great to see white Christians back at killing each other. I was getting quite tired from the Zionist/post-colonial/sectarian conflicts which have bubbled up like pus-filled corpuscles all over this warming ass of a planet.

It’s great to see a war start in such a classic fashion—by getting a bunch of guns together and firing them. I was tired of seeing wars start by kidnapping (Lebanon, 2006), no particular reason (Iraq, 2003) and allowing your guests to help their friends fly planes into buildings 12,000 miles away (Afghanistan, 2001).

It’s great that both sides quote International Law as they kill as many of the other as possible. Making certain a war follows all the procedures and protocols of International Law ALWAYS ensures optimum results. (Whatever those may be.)

It’s great to see both sides in a war say “You started it!” I am pleased that bloodcurdling slogans such as “Death to America/ Israel/Terrorism/Capitalism /Communism/ etc. etc” took a back seat on this one.

It’s great to welcome back irony: The people of Country #1 try to annihilate the people of Country #2. But where Country #2 is the home-land of a past leader of Country #1 who killed more people in Country #1 and Country #2 than any other individual leader in history…

It’s great that it’s gonna be a short one! (Got me posting on FTM quickly!)

FTM's house turkey recipe.

2007-11-16T15:16:00.000-08:00

For those of you about to embark on this year's gut stretching season--follow the recipe below for the juiciest turkey you will ever eat. The inspiration for this recipe was my friend Ihsan, who years ago decided to throw a turkey party at his apartment on 109th street. He did not adequately account for the time it took to cook, so by the time the bird was ready (at midnight) we were all rolling drunk on the floor. I think the turkey ended up on the floor too. I had such a good time though that I vowed to repeat the exercise when the opportunity arose.

That time came on November 11, 2001. I had my first apartment with an adequate stove, and space to entertain. Ihsan sent me a few photocopies from James Beard's cookbook, and the rest was experimentation. Since then I have cooked one bird a year, a few weeks before Thanksgiving. If you follow this recipe, you will not be disappointed. Make sure to have plenty of wine on hand if you put the bird in late...

THE FECESTHROWINGMONKEY ROAST TURKEY:

Buy a fresh turkey. Make sure it is killed, plucked and gutted.
The night before roasting, soak the turkey in a bucket of salt water for 24 hours.
The Stuffing: crumble 2 loaves of dry Italian bread with 2 ½ sticks of butter in a wok. Add celery, parsley, scallions, carrots, tarragon and thyme. Saute until butter melts and veggies fry up.
Stuff the bird and sew it up.
Rub the skin with butter and herbs.
Heat oven to 325F. Place 3-4 slices of bacon in the roasting pan, place turkey in pan BREAST DOWN. Put a few slices of bacon on top.
Roast turkey for a few hours, until it is about 45 minutes from ready. Take it off the pan and flip it so it is breast up (traditional presentation). Finish roasting when temperature in stuffing hits 170F.
Take out of oven, cool and eat.

Helmut 7/28/92-9/19/07

2007-09-21T13:57:00.000-07:00

Written on September 19, 2007:
Helmut died today, or was it yesterday? I’m not entirely sure. I took his nearly lifeless body to bed with us at 11pm last night and quickly descended into some strange dreams. I recall nothing of them, except their unfamiliarity. I woke up at 3am. Helmut was lying in the same position as before. He still felt warm (we propped him next to a hot-water bottle), I reached over to feel for the faint movement of his diaphragm, and there was none.

Yes, he must have died today. I recall feeling him breathing at several moments in the night. It must have been after midnight. Maybe it was a dream? His death was so gentle I did not notice it. Like someone imperceptibly turning a dimmer switch to ‘OFF’.

His sickness came on just as imperceptibly. Maybe it began in the round of puking after I carelessly purchased a box of Alley Cat food in February. Maybe, when he began to sniffle and snort after I repainted the bathroom sometime last spring. Over the course of the summer it blossomed into his fifteen year life’s one and only illness. And in the end it left him floating dead in the East River by Corlears Hook this morning.

He died of cancer? Cancer brought on by old age? All the tests were inconclusive. The doctors could tell nothing without cutting him open. I thought the cancer was somewhere in his face, maybe his jaw, his sinuses, perhaps his brain. Wherever it was, it made existence uncomfortable for the little guy. It became so intolerable that he stopped eating 7 days ago. Three days ago he stopped drinking. Today he stopped.

Soon it will be fall. These are the last days of summer. And as he died, he was born during these summer days fifteen years ago. On July 28^th to be exact (I was given the date only recently, for years I assumed July or August.) in the year of 1992. He was the runt of the litter, living in a salon of a Brooklyn brownstone on Washington Avenue. Helmut’s beginnings were comfortable, and a bit bourgeois.

At eight weeks he moved into the Pratt Institute dorms on Willoughby Avenue, just around the corner from where his mother must have kicked him off the teat. This is why he had a habit of suckling everyone he met. He suckled nearly his entire life, until he got sick…I miss his drooling and curling his claws in my lap terribly.

In the dorms he lived with his sister and a ferret. I visited my friend Elizabeth there a few times to play with the kittens. His name was Hansel back then. I don’t know if there was a Gretel, although for his sake, I hope there was. The next time I heard of him was when Elizabeth was asked by some friends to find him a home. Apparently, he lived in the dorms until May, moved to Indianapolis for the summer. There he lived in a suburban home (all homes in Indianapolis are suburban) with a dog. By time he moved back to Brooklyn in the fall, he was an ornery teen, who did not get along with other cats.

At that point, I moved into my first semi-private apartment on East 10^th street. It was two back rooms on the third floor above Sapporo East—a Japanese joint still hanging on to this day. Around the corner were two of the classic village dive bars—The Village Idiot sharing a graffiti covered wall with Downtown Beirut. They were the kind of places local pan-handlers could afford to go in and get a drink. Both were narrow storefronts, bar running the length, with a smelly semi-open toilet at the far end.

I accepted to take him into my care without much hesitation. Life was a bit lonely at the time and I finally had some space to myself. Although I did not particularly like cats, (I fought with them as a child.) I found their cleanliness and distain for scat very attractive qualities in a roommate/beast. I don’t recall the actual date he arrived, but I know the first thing I did was change his name from Hansel to Helmut. Hansel was too fruity. But the name needed to start with “H”, to make the name sound familiar to him, and remain Germanic. It was 1993, the capitalist revolution was victorious in Europe, and Germany was re-united for the first time since the fall of the Third Reich, Helmut Kohl was riding high as chancellor, so “Helmut” he was called from then on.

I lived with him for the next thirteen plus years—during which he was always free to go. But he never went away for long, a weekend at the neighbors at most. He remained a true and loyal friend until the very end: the last time he moved, he crawled from the bathroom to the floor near our bed. And he never moved afterwards. I miss you and love you little Helmut. Always will.

Recent New York Art Fairs reviewed

2007-03-22T09:48:00.000-07:00

Armory Show (on the piers)

This year’s show featured a tighter layout (one pier instead of two) and larger exhibition cubicles for the galleries. The galleries responded by installing larger work, including some museum size sculptures and paintings. Last year I recall there were many pieces which could be carried away tucked in the armpit—not so this year. The focus on the artists was contemporary, with almost everything made in the last 10 years--there were a few stray Warhol’s and Katz’s from the 80’s. No Yves Klein or De Kooning drawings were to be found gracing the temporary walls.

A few impressions stick out about this show:

Many works concentrated on perfect surfaces—the artist’s invisible hand. Much painting was done on smooth surfaces like aluminum—a surface that does not hold a photographic image well.

Painting is in brutal competition with photography for detail and color saturation.

Much of the subject matter seemed whimsical or personal in painting. And photographs were of anonymous architectural spaces. Another large cache of photgraphs were of ‘spaces in between’—the space which stands outside of conventional objects of interest: like an empty parking spot between a red and yellow Lamborghini. It is a kind of real life negative space. Ed Rusche explored it in his 1970’s photos of Los Angeles (along with some of Robert Frank’s work), and contemporary photographers seem to have tapped a rich vein with this subject.

Lack of significant subject matter allows one to focus on the technique of image making. And there were many types of photographic, computerized and hand-tooled techniques on display.

Photography overpowers drawing, but seeks the same effect—that of quick and casual image making.

Portraiture photography was medicinal—objective, well lit, detailed images—almost felt like looking at humanity in a Petri dish.

There were about 50 different artists doing Gerhard Richter. There were the feathery touch photorealist Richters, the abstract Richters, the Bader-Meinhof black and white Richters. Although I like Richter very much, I was somewhat bothered by all the artists who admire him so much that they paint nearly identically to him. Perhaps it is Richter’s cool and slick ethos that attracts many painters or collectors. His images are mysterious yet identifiable, his surfaces smooth, his paint-handling skilled—all qualities which seem to be very much in vogue. What is missing is the political context which infected his paintings with so much depth and meaning. There was no underlying stench of guilt and collaboration in this year’s Armory “Richters”, no reference to war, destruction or economic upheavals. In fact, this entire exhibition was very non-political. I’d hate to admit this, but I felt myself yearning for Barbara Kruger’s 1980s verbal pieces.

Not only was politics mostly absent, except notably, a Richter/Warhol knockoff of black and white repeated images of Mohammed Atta (I would have applied lipstick to his face), but there was a nearly complete absence of any nudes or sexually explicit work. Manet’s “Olympia” would have looked radical displayed at this year’s show. Perhaps from a contemporary collector’s perspective, owning a nude or a sexually charged piece makes too strong a statement about your morals or tastes---better get a photo of a room with white walls to put in your room with white walls. Play the cards close to the vest.

Pulse (at the Armory)

This fair was on the site of the original 1912 Armory exhibition. Very similar to the Armory show not at the Armory, but the work had less flash and more physical effort. It was still heavy on the ‘Richters’. Discovered an interesting painter—Cary Carsey, an Australian artist, and found out there was an Argentine painter doing work identical to mine (of perpendicular drips constructed into a grid with depth—an ill mash-up of Jackson Pollock and Agnes Martin) at the same time (2004) as I. Was there something in the zeitgeist? I sold mine for chicken feed and have none left, his were at a gallery (I forget the name). Should I be a better known painter? Should I have a gallery?

Scope (behind Lincoln Center)

This was the only fair at the end of February with no ghosts of Gerhard Richter. Some of the work was familiar as this was the show where I knew some of the participants personally (Shannon Lucy, Tom Fruin, Alfredo Martinez). The work here was not necessarily better than the other shows (in fact some painting especially had a ‘grad-school’ feel of large rough-hewn realistic compositions) but it did feature some interesting use of materials which I did not catch at the other two.

There was an installation of tiny trees cut out of tissue-thin metal with the shadows cast by the forest drawn on their platform. It somehow reminded me of Richard Tuttle, fragile and ephemeral. There was also a collection of tiny snapshot sized oil paintings (like old 1970’s color polaroids) of anonymous storefronts, made with I assume must be a single hair brush.

From the archives...

2007-01-29T13:15:00.000-08:00

As the four year anniversary of Georgie of Arabia’s adventure approaches, our archivists have dug up an e-mail thread from the 1^st day of combat. It follows the conversation of two co-workers FTM (jlivshultz) and Jessie Lytton. Our staff reversed the order of the thread for easier reading. Check FTM’s second response (paragraph which starts ‘Re: war’). He should have been a Pentagon consultant. Enjoy!

----- Original Message -----

From: jLivshultz

To: Jessie Lytton

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:39 PM

Subject: Re: (no subject)

Jessie Lytton wrote:
Hey freak, what’s up? I'm bored. Did you watch the news and the speech
last night? I'm sure you did. Craziness.

FTM wrote:
Jess--
I was frankly not shocked and awed. It looked more like "Survivor Bagdad".
Also, I will save my TV viewing until they show "soldier cams" or "missile cams", these static shots of the Bagdad skyline are not doing it for me.

I have decided to go on a diet of foie gras, and French wine.

How are you coping?

Any interest in going to the Washington Square vigil later?

Jessie Lytton wrote:
I'm meeting up w/ a friend after work for some pre-scheduled plans and then have to catch the train back to CT. Your e-mail cracked me up. I'm on a diet of French fries, not freedom fries.

War is a scurry (sic) thing, but prevention is key so I think it is best to stop him now. I don't like all of the young soldiers being over there, civilians being in harms way and the threat of major damage happening to Israel. I have mixed feelings on the whole thing.

R u going to Washington Square after work?

FTM wrote:
Well, the Washington square thing is not until later, the main 'riot' is taking place in Times Square at 5pm. The Wash. Square thing is a 'candlelight vigil', not sure how that will work in the rain. I generally don't like crowd mentality, but would go there for some company, or just to hang out. But, I don't know when that will be, 7pm-8pm? These anarchists are surprisingly disorganized...

Re: war, it will not really start until Tommy Franks is the dictator of Bagdad, and the Iraqis send suicide bombers against US troops and Halliburton employees (this should be in a few months).

Israel will be ok in this war (there were not, and will not be any chemical attacks) and it seems like they have the Palestinians living with a big military boot on their necks. This will be ok for a while, until a new generation of PA suicidal and homicidal maniacs are born...

This scene is working out like Osama Bin Laden's wet dream: US fighting in 2 Muslim countries, rioting in Egypt etc.

We should go for drinks one or other of these evenings (perhaps after payday!)

Jessie Lytton wrote:
I think Jeremy and Michael are trying to set something up for next Friday the 28th (my last day at Brant) so that would be convenient to go to. Otherwise when I come back from visiting Florida we can do so or maybe one night after work next week would be good. I'm going down on the 30th to April 8th to check things out.

FTM wrote:
FYI:
shock and awe is on. Same as the old "bomb the shit out of them" but with tinsel in the missiles, so they get all sparkly (like 4th of July) and make mushroom clouds when they explode. oooooh.

Battle for Bagdad is gonna be sweeeeet!

2006 Art Year in Review

2006-12-29T07:07:00.000-08:00

At this time of year, many publications put together their ’10 Best’ or ‘100 Best’ or ‘Best of…’ lists for your consumption. Here at FTM, our simian researchers have put together their personal highlights and revelations of the past year, in no particular order:

Edward Hopper at Whitney—The show consisted of the Whitney’s own collection, plus other major pieces culled from elsewhere (Nighthawks from the Art Institute of Chicago being the most notable). Although I find him a bit tedious and he shows remarkable lack of competence in drawing living faces, Hopper’s paintings capture the mood of American landscape better than most others. While the quiet alienation of most well known pieces is familiar, I was pleasantly surprised by a small room of New England seascapes, mostly set in Maine. In paintings no larger than 16” on a side, he captures a frothy sea crashing against the rocky shore with a minimal number of roughly hewn smudges. The application of paint is pure expressionism, colors are disciplined and subdued, and the total effect is stunning. Bravo Straightedge Eddie, I did not know you had it in you!

Egyptian art—Not contemporary by any stretch of the word, but since FTM paid a visit to the land of the Nile this past January, it will be included in this year’s list. Even the usual traveler itinerary is enough for a lifetime highlight reel from this place. What left the most profound impression was not the scale of the temples and pyramids but the confidence and skill of the Egyptian sculptors. I was particularly moved by one sculpture of a seated pharaoh at the Luxor Museum. Aside from its perfect state (carved from a dark gray stone around 3400 years ago) of preservation, I noticed a small but perceptible smile on the subject’s face. His eyes were wide open, and his lips were tucked in on their corners and turned every slightly upward. Standing before me was not some idol, or relic of a monolithic culture, or even a creation of god-like space aliens, but a man, perfectly and gloriously rendered in stone. And his expression said: “I’ve made it. I have achieved immortality. Thank you for your visit.” I had to agree with him. Thanks for waiting for me to come by all these years.

Armory show—In March of every year (or the past few years anyways) the art world embarks on an orgy of sales and promotion at the Armory Show in NYC. It is not held at an armory, and never was. It began as a small fair at the Gramercy Hotel in the late 90’s and moved to the piers on the west side as it got too large for its old location. I don’t know why it’s called the Armory show, as there are actually a few armories left in New York which they certainly could have used for the Armory show. But they didn’t. The only explanation of the name could be the reference to THE armory show, the one which brought modern art to the US in 1912. Its most famous piece was Duchamp’s ‘Nude Descending a Staircase’, and since the contemporary art world worships regularly at the temple of Duchamp, with daily supplications and an occasional virgin sacrifice, it is quite appropriate to name an art fair after the art fair which inspired countless subsequent art fairs. Hence, the Armory Show.

As for the art, not too many specifics jump out. Most if it was pretty good. It was clever, resulting in an occasional chuckle. Most of it looked like it could fit over the couch or in the hallway. A lot could be carried away under your arm. I recall some rather skilled Chinese painters making silly and somewhat ugly paintings—rosy cheeked Maoists doing crazy contortions. I thought it was a waste of talent. The most consistent thing about the show was the presence of Matt Dillon. Mr. Dillon, with a small entourage (a petite, well dressed female, and an unidentified man) walked through the entire fair at roughly the same pace I did. Occasionally he was one gallery in front of me, and other times I walked in on him looking over some piece or other. Although he was clearly in a buying mood, his opinion of the selection at hand alternated between “What the fuck?” and “I don’t get it.” expressed in a lovely south Brooklyn dialect. Finally, as we were getting to the last galleries (after about 3 hours of walking and looking) he found what he wanted: an Yves Klein print of a woman’s torso. Mr. Klein coated a naked woman with his favorite color (dark blue) and pressed her against a piece of printmaking paper. The result was elegant, yet erotic. Matt Dillon was ecstatic. “Finally, something I like!” he exclaimed. After inquiring about the price, he turned with disgust to his entourage:
“They want seven hundred thousand dollars for that thing! Can you fuckin’ believe it?!”
Yes Mr. Dillon, you can believe it. Yves Klein’s position in the art world was analogous to yours in Hollywood: middle of the road popularity, provocative, a bit outrageous. His pricing reflects the fame he gained from throwing himself out a few windows, and his premature death (from cancer unfortunately). I recommend you also should throw yourself out the window to cement your place in the pantheon of American cinema. Soon.

Chelsea—The standards in Chelsea were the same this year as the last: everything should be original, large, perfectly crafted, beautiful and completely useless. Extras points if you turn something useful and transform it into something useless. Double extra points if it references one of the modern masters.

Everyone in on the top of their game: Ellsworth Kelly making great Ellsworth Kellys, Robert Ryman excellent Rymans, Alex Katz making great Alex Katzs’ etc. etc. Even the younger artists are all systematic and deliberate in their work.

The feeling I get when visiting all the galleries is that everyone seems to be (pardon the baseball metaphor) bunting, moving the runners along; with no one swinging for the fences. Perhaps it is all the apocryphal hedge fund managers whose tastes the dealers and artists anticipate, but I recall little in Chelsea which is challenging, provocative or difficult. Instead, art has become the ultimate luxury object, an object which properly represents wealth and power of its beholders. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the Paris Salon during the 1850’s: a world of talented and ultimately conservative artists, with self imposed standards and limitations, catering to the tastes of a newly risen bourgeois.

There was one painting which stood out during my recent forays to Chelsea-- It was a late Warhol exhibited at Gagosian’s new space (the show was called ‘Cast of a Cold Eye’). The piece was a giant white on white repeated silkscreen of Mona Lisa (in two rows of perhaps 20 impressions each), with dimensions of each silkscreen twice the size of DaVinci’s original. Somehow that painting represented the ethos of Warhol, his ultimate fate and the art of painting in general. He likened himself to a toiler in paint, covering acres of canvas with a barely perceptible image of one of history’s great paintings, made by a man who (in contrast to Andy) produced only a handful of paintings. The white on white of the silkscreen reeks of death and disappearance, only labor’s evidence remains. Here was Warhol as a worker-artist, doing what needs to be done, covering the surface which needs to be covered, driven only by ghosts of past masters and needs whose original motivations were lost. It was sad, moving and beautiful.

Mexican Art—In addition to Egypt, FTM visited some ancient sites of our southern neighbor-the Mayan ruins around Palenque, as well as the Aztec and predecessor sites around Mexico City. If the Egyptians were sculptors, the Mexicans were chiselers. Much of the carving was primitive and blocky. Only the Mayan production stood out—the best of it was in carved plaster.

As for more recent Mexican art—the Diego Rivera’s, Frida Kahlos etc. etc.—most of it was colorful, sculptural in its rendering and somewhat naïve. The drama of common life in Mexico seems to be its overarching narrative. We are blessed with such fine neighbors.

American Dad & Family Guy (FOX, Sunday nights)—Not strictly ‘Art’ these two animated sitcoms get the zeitgeist of this country better than anything. Roughly modeled on The Simpsons, these shows present a reality in which all priests are pedophiles, all politicians corrupt, all evangelical Christians are hypocrites, all businessmen are exploitative liars and all liberals should be viciously mugged. They capture the materially abundant yet dissonant world which we really inhabit. In some ways, the animated format of these programs allows for an unabridged reality—sneakers made by three fingered Indonesian children, terrorists plotting attacks and mundane tasks of suburban families are simultaneously and frenetically presented. Watching them is like turning the moral of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” on its head: The emperor is naked, and we really like his wardrobe. We have to like the wardrobe, because it is ours too.

Netflix—I never like to be a corporate shill, but over the last year I have fallen in love with Netflix. My cinematic diet has been top notch because of it: the classics, the film school favorites (Fellini, Godard, Tarkovsky, Scorsese), and the cream of recent cinema’s crop arrive at my house several times a week.

The best thing about Netfix is that when another cinephile recommends a film, you can instantly add it to your cue. It can lead to great discoveries of never-before-heard-of films. One such film was I am Cuba, in Spanish, badly dubbed into Russian with English subtitles. Gorgeous film, with the most sympathetic portrayal of Communists you will ever see.

Of course, I am still recommending everyone see The Battle of Algiers. It has the most incredible street riot sequences of any film, fiction or documentary. The drama is heart pounding, and the lead character, a French cop played by Jean Martin reminds me of Alan Alda’s character from M*A*S*H.

Whitney Biennial –The last few biennials have been entertaining affairs—sometimes feeling more like celebrations of a clever and beautiful art audience rather than surveys of recent domestic production. This year’s was surprisingly challenging. It featured removed walls, quirky outsider art and really pathetic rough hewn installations. I felt at times like Matt Dillon at the Armory Show (“What the fuck?”, “I don’t get it.”) My mind still burns by one particular installation: in a bare smallish room are the traces of setting up an installation—a ladder, half painted walls, a piece of drywall in the center, and a swatch of grey carpet on the floor. All lit by a bare light bulb. Nothing essentially. Why is it there? I am still pondering.

The Birth of a Nation

2006-12-20T11:54:00.000-08:00

People of Iraq, welcome to your civil war! Please be advised that “civil war” is one of those oxymoronic terms like “military intelligence” or “jumbo shrimp” which do not accurately describe the reality of the situation. That is why our staff at Ftm has prepared a quick, easy to follow guide to your Civil War.

A Rose is a Rose
By far the easiest thing to do in a civil war is to name it. All civil war names follow the same formula: The + {Name of Nationality fighting} + Civil War. So you get names like The American Civil War, The Spanish Civil War, The Russian Civil War, etc. etc... Real simple. So dear Iraqis, you are no longer fighting Operation Iraqi Freedom, Gulf War II, World War IV, or The Fourth Zionist/Christian Crusade, you are fighting in THE IRAQI CIVIL WAR. Put that in your Palm Pilots and day planners.

Don’t count the dead when God’s on your side
One thing you may immediately notice about your civil war is that the corpses are piling up at a rather brisk pace. This is due to an unfortunate accounting abnormality: in most wars you count either your dead or the enemy’s dead, whereas in a civil war both tabulations of the dead fall in the same category. Therefore, the number of dead in a civil war tends to be twice as high as the number of dead in a regular war.

Two Sides are better than…
If you can, try to group yourselves into two sides during your civil war, and give each side a catchy name. Here are some examples: The Union vs. Confederacy, The Loyalists vs. Nationalists, The Reds vs. Whites. Right now, The Salafis vs. Mahdi Army vs. US Marines vs. Peshmerga vs. Ba’athists vs. Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. whomever I forgot to mention is just too confusing to ever sort out. Having too many sides to a civil war tends to keep it going—like adding sides to cube, until it becomes a sphere and keeps rolling down the mountain…forgive the metaphor. Plus, when there are only two sides, it is much more possible to strike a deal when the time is right. When there are many smaller parties each one feels like they can run away with the whole pie, and the fighting never ends.

Try not to have many guests over when the house is on fire.
If the sentence above is not an ancient Arab proverb, it should be. When foreigners are involved in your civil war, they upset the natural balance which you, the warring parties strived so hard to develop. In addition, the temptation to ally yourself with a foreign power to gain military advantage may cause greater casualties upon your opposing civil-warriors than you would care (or are able) to inflict. Keep in mind, that at the end of the day (or year, or decade) you will have to forgive and forget your losses for the sake of peace. As the civil war heads toward conclusion, those allied with a foreign power will find themselves branded “puppets” or “collaborators”. This rarely, if ever leads to political success afterwards.

The future’s so bright…
Do not despair dear Iraqis, for a well fought civil war brings many benefits. It can greatly improve the international position of a nation (USSR), iron out intractable political differences (as in our good ol’USA), or usher in a long period of stable, relatively peaceful government (Spain).

Newly discovered Kissinger Memo on Iraq

2006-10-19T13:36:00.000-07:00

Fecesthrowingmonkey's diplomatic sources intercepted a recent communique from none other than Herny Kissinger. The original PDF is too hard to read, so I had our out-sourced off-shore monkeys in Nehru type it up:

Dear George W. Bush,

This memo is to lay out possible scenarios for Iraq, including steps which can be taken as this war progresses.

Also, I would like to initially add a caveat which you may realize upon reading the analysis: The victory scenario which you define as a Stable Democratic Western-Leaning Iraqi state, ‘so our troops can stand down’, is completely impossible. You may have a Democratic Iraqi state, and Western-Leaning Iraqi state, a Stable Iraqi State—but the existence of one of these states necessarily negates the existence of the two possibilities: i.e.—you may have a stable Iraq, but one that is not democratic nor western-leaning.

1) The Maximalist Solution

This is advocated by a few right wing members of your party, and talk radio: The nuclear bombing of Iraq, repopulate the country with Texans, Arizonans and Right Wing Californians, place all surviving indigenous people into reservations and/or expel them. This obviously could lead to backlash against our interests in other parts of the globe. Also, the level of carnage may upset our coalition especially if some Iraqis who survive the nuclear holocaust convert to Christianity. The sympathy gained by these Iraqis with the American domestic public may not give us the time or the maneuverability to finish the ethnic cleansing. (Not to mention dealing with all the Hitler comparisons!) Overall, highly unadvisable. Listed here only to create a certain benchmark of what can be accomplished in Iraq.

2) The Minimalist Solution

This is advocated by your domestic political adversaries, whom you humorously called the “cut and run panty brigades” when I dropped by your father’s Memorial Day BBQ at Kennebunkport last summer. This position states that we should withdraw all our troops, (some proponents of this theory add that we should throw in some reparations) and turn over all authority to the elected Iraqi government.

This scenario would leave the Iraqi state in Iran’s and Syria’s orbit. Leaving Iraq would be disastrous to our interests in the area—as there is no way to admit defeat which is harmless to our nation’s credibility. We will prove al-Queada’s central premise correct: we are indeed a paper tiger. Further, Iraq may complicate situation more by pursing vengeance (through terrorism) or attempts at punitive reparations.

3) The Kissinger Associates solution:

This scenario envisions our military withdrawal to one section of the country, followed by material support for a faction in the ensuing civil war. Hopefully, we will pick the winning faction, thereby insuring continued influence in Iraq affairs. The only question is which faction to support.

Support the Kurds:

The Kurds have been our military allies for the past 16 years—since we offered protection from SH in 1991. They occupy the most stable and ethnically coherent region of Iraq. The problem with supporting them significantly is that they are not primarily interested in being a part of Iraq. Their leadership is a mixture of Nationalist and Leftist former rebel commanders. If they manage to secede from Iraq, we may be faced with situation akin to pre-1967 Israel—defending an isolated garrison state which has historical claims upon its neighbors’ territories (Kirkuk, parts of Iran & Turkey). It will not benefit the region to have both an Israeli-Arab and a Kurd-Arab conflict going on where we are the primary diplomatic and military supporters of the non-Arab party.

Support the Shia Arabs:

If you believe in majority rule, the Shia of Iraq is the group to support. They make up over 50% of the population, distributed over a large portion of territory, and their demographic base is near Iraq’s largest oil field and port. They also did not oppose the invasion of the country in 2003, and have been politically responsive to the democratization program.

The problem with the Shia, is as Iraq’s oppressed majority of the last 50 years, they do not have enough educated people to staff the bureaucracy of the state. Many are illiterate, superstitious and very susceptible to political demagoguery. At this point, they will need a generation before enough talented Shias emerge to successfully manage the state. This would involve a 20 year investment in their education and infrastructure. In addition we may have to peel most of their present leadership from Iranian influence.

Support the Sunni Arabs:

At first glance, this position is counterintuitive—the Sunnis were the backbone of the Ba’ath party and are currently leading the insurgency against us. On the other hand, they are dominant in the center of the country—one has to consider this if you intend to keep Iraq whole. The Sunnis are settled around the major water sources (Tigris and Euphrates) and as the former ruling classes, have enough wealth, military and bureaucratic experience to manage the country. Although they are a minority in Iraq, they are a regional majority—a very important fact to consider when you consider regional support for our plans in Iraq.

This memo is strictly confidential and I will deny its existence if questioned.

Yours truly,

Henry Kissinger

A Non-Sarcastic Special Thanks

2006-10-04T12:16:00.000-07:00

to the Amish for avoiding vengeance and retribution for the murder of your daughters. Your behavior certainly makes Christianity look good (if you forget the Inquisition, the 100 years war, the Crusades, etc.). It is good to see that sometimes religion can lead to peace and mercy, rather than punishment and shame.

Also, what’s with this explosion of child sexual abuse and child killing in recent days? Could it be our obsession with children and terror that makes child sexual abuse the perfect nexus of attention? All domestic media-hype stories seem to have a child sexual abuse element to them: Michael Jackson, Jon Benet, all the freakin’ Amber alerts (I believe poor Amber was abused and killed.), the Catholic priest child abuse scandals, the snowballing pogrom/witch-hunt of furloughed child-molesters all over the country and the recent marriage of child-molestation with the functions of government in the Tom Foley scandal!

Could we perhaps be demonizing and persecuting child abusers so much, that we may be driving them to commit such ghastly acts as this week’s massacre in Nickel Mines, PA?

On the other hand, could God himself be responsible for the violence? Could the knowledge of the laws of God be driving child-abusers to suicide for their supremely immoral inclinations? And they (the child-abusers) lash out in one last gasp of freedom to express their perversities before plunging into the eternal damnation they know they deserve?

A Special Thanks...

2006-10-03T11:12:00.000-07:00

to the Turkish hijackers of today's flight from Tirana to Istanbul. Your valiant attempt to make airplane hijacking a novel and effective method of advertising your causes will combat the stereo-type of airplane hijackers as murderous kamikazes perpetrated in the western media these days.
Again, Congratulations.
P.S. I don't see how your actions make Islam seem a peaceful, more reasonable religion.
P.P.S. Turns out the hijacker was a Turkish Christian draft dodger. Now I'm really confused...

Just what makes this Homeland of tomorrow so different, so special?

2006-09-29T12:04:00.000-07:00

There is an ancient Alexandrian proverb which says something to the effect of:
“Nothing brings great enemies closer together than a healthy, proper bout of war.”

As the Marines and the Muj perform their dark dances on the edges of the Arabian Desert, learning of each other’s greetings (“Fuck You!”, “Sa’allam”), and learning the color of each other’s blood (red, red), our own government is taking on the characteristics of the Baathist state we overthrew in April 2003. A curious spiritual cross pollination is happening as the regimes of Baghdad and Washington DC together take a deep draught on the teat of War.

Verifiying the truth of the proverb above:

The Baathist state was born of the ideal of pan-arab nationhood and linguistic solidarity. The conceptions of this state were similar to the definitions used to define new European nations at the Versailles Conference of 1918: a continuous and large-enough sustainable area populated by a similar race of people, speaking the same language). The Baathinst ideal was modernizing, nationalist (somewhat accepting of all classes and religions), and militaristic state. It was the latter tendency which proved its undoing. As its viability was left to rot on the Mid-East battlefields of 1967—it was resurrected (ba’ath appropriately means “rebirth” in Arabic) by Saddam in the form of a nation which tortured its enemies, played on racial and linguistic differences to solidify domestic rule and involved in constant military operations against its neighbors.

The recent passage of the Torture Compromise Bill, also known as codification of permissible state torture techniques, the rallying around illegal immigration to spur voter turnout in many districts and recent Congressional authorization to spend around $70 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan (good enough for about 6 months of war with each of our two closest distant neighbors) should compare well to the three tendencies of Saddam’s state as elucidated above.

Welcome to our new homeland, just like an old one.

Happy Post September 11th!

2006-09-20T14:21:00.000-07:00

My apologies for the tardiness in celebrating the annual Anarchist Crackpot-Death Cult-Conspiracy Theorist-Paranoid Delusionist Day—i.e. September 11^th, but we had a mini hurricane Katrina in our home, and had to evacuate uptown while the floors were being resurfaced. Fecesthrowingmonkey throws a special shout-out to Schneids and Cousin O for stepping up and providing shelter to our gypsy human/beast family. It was good to see that Bedouin laws of desert hospitality still apply in this urban jungle.

Now that the Monkey-in-Chief has declared an Eternal War Against Terrorism and Muslim Extremism, the I would like to examine the “victory scenarios” of both sides: i.e. what kind of world it would be if Bush or Osama were to suddenly surrender and whose opponent’s world-vision becomes a reality.

First, If Osama Wins:

OBL sees a creation of a world Islamic Caliphate. The original Caliphate, set up by Mohammed’s followers, devolved into fratricide and civil war with-in a generation, ultimately leading to the Shia-Sunni split. (The Shias were followers of Mo’s direct family, and the Sunnis of non-relatives.) It was incarnated in various forms over the centuries, only to dissolve in war and treachery again each time. The last Islamic Caliphate was considered to be the Ottomans, which led to Lawrence of Arabia and banning of the Fez in Istanbul in 1925. I guess this new Caliphate would do a bit better, perhaps being led by some kind of philosopher-king. Since Al-Qaeda and its followers are a bit thin on future plans in their policy papers, we can extrapolate what they’ll do from the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, praised by jihadis world-wide as the most perfect Islamic state:

Destroy a profitable source of income for a population: the Taliban suppressed poppy growing significantly in 1999 and 2000. Ironically, earning a $30 million grant from the CIA for being such nice boys. We can expect the Dutch pot crop to meet an untimely doom under the OBL’s Caliphate, same with Hollywood (only god make picture of people, man is not god, therefore no image of people can be made by man!), Bulgarian porn industry, along with the NFL (kicking people in the head for non-religious reasons is un-Islamic) and Anheuser-Busch (alchohol is haram). Colombia and Bolivia will revert to growing bananas and dirt, respectively.
Destroy ancient miscellaneous religious sites and/or tourist attractions: The largest public works project undertaken in Afghanistan under Taliban rule was the demolition of the Buddhas of Bamiyan (in the summer of 2001, unleashing a shit-storm of bad karma on the unsuspecting talibs). First they fired a bunch of artillery at it, and when this did not do the trick, wired it with dynamite. Their destruction had the benefit of reducing car bombings shortly after the US invasion—the talibs had already blown their wad so to speak. We can only expect the new and improved Caliphate to undertake unemployment reducing public works projects such as demolition of the Vatican, Norte Dame, the Statue of Liberty (her cast iron teats are improperly covered), the Forbidden City, Ankor Wat and of course the mother of all Islamic development projects the (much delayed) disassembly of the pyramids of Giza. Perhaps Jews ethnically cleansed from Israel could be re-enslaved for this particular project.
No dogs. Muhammad did not like them. Cats are OK.
Men get up to 4 wives, but have to wear a Ted Kazinski beard and a Scrooge McDuck nightshirt all the time.
Women get taken care of/beaten by their husbands/sons/cousins/fathers for their entire short/sexually unfulfilling/intellectually stunted lives.
Definitely no pork products. None on your dinner table, in your hair gel or the Islamic Caliphate’s highway asphalt mix. None. Forget about it.
Did we mention no bacon, proscuitto or jamon serrano?

In summary, everyone will live a life of praying, chaste Islamic family entertainment and labor which does not interfere with praying. Everyone, that is, who has not been executed for being an unbelieving-infidel-sodomite.

If Bush wins:

His vision is harder to pin down, because our prez is not as eloquent as Osama, and is surrounded by two other branches of government. But here is what I can make of it:

People should be able to live off their interest income, inheritance and dividends. Especially, if they have enough of all three to not have to work. Those who do not have enough interest/dividends/inheritance should work until they have enough or die, whichever comes first.
Abortions are bad, especially if you can’t afford them.
Dead fetuses can’t have stem cells taken from them.
The rich should pay as little tax as possible, and the poor should pay as much tax as possible.
No Terror anywhere, ever.
A 'democratic' Middle East (i.e. no welfare states, economies designed byRepublican think tanks) , with a six lane highway connecting Teheran and Cairo, running through Bagdhad, Damascus and Jerusalem (and a spur to Riyadh) with an Exxon-Mobile/Starbucks/McDonald’s at every rest stop.

In summary, everyone will live a life of chaste Christian family entertainment and labor which does not interfere with making his friends and supporters wealthy beyond belief. Everyone, that is, who has not been sent to Guantanamo for being an unpatriotic-terrorist-sodomite.

Dr. Edward Saidlove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Recent Lebanese-Israeli War.

2006-08-22T13:10:00.000-07:00

1. Lebanon and Israel are bloodied up, but not too bad. Hundreds dead are better than thousands.

2. Hizbullah’s military position is seriously weakened. Despite all the shaira-rock-star-popularity, losing a lot of dug-in defenses and having the Lebanese army move into your territory counts as loss in some war-playbook somewhere…

3. The fact that in diplomatic terms, this war was termed ‘indecisive’ actually gives Israel and Lebanon a chance to mark a mutually respected border. Hizbullah’s defense of the Lebanese border (however effective or ineffective) demonstrated one of the major pillars of modern nation-hood: a nation has to be able to defend its own borders. Both countries asserted themselves, and can now sit down for tea and polite map-making, one hopes

4. This war demonstrated that the Rumsfeldian style of warfare is total bullshit—the reliance on technology gives your side lots of good stats but is totally worthless on the battlefield. It was fought on a more defensible terrain (forested hills) that sometimes turned it into a physical test of will.

5. Although I sympathize with Israelis, it was kinda nice to see the Katyusha rockets back in the news. I always remembered them prominently in the Soviet military parades and old WWII films, bass-ass looking, on their GAZ truck launchers… made this war seem homey and familiar, like an old pair of slippers at your parents house. Their military effectiveness was always limited, but they provided great moral support to whomever was using them, whether the Russian infantry getting ready to assault the Nazis or as used by Hezbollah: to make the Lebanese (and all Arabs) feel like SOMETHING was being done against Israel. If anything can be counted as a victory by the Arab side in this war, is that they were able to launch the Katyushas every day.

6. Hizbullah’s leader is named Nasrallah, translated into Russian it means: “to shit all over oneself”. And Ehud Olmert looks a bit like the French Colonel in The Battle of Algiers, played by Jean Martin: http://dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=6033

7. This war is not over yet!

What to do with ground zero...

2006-03-31T14:22:00.000-08:00

Notes for the Ground Zero editorial:
Basic premise: The memorial and most rebuilding plans for the site should be put on hold for 10-20 years.

The reasons are as follows:
The rebuilding process has been hijacked by people either grieving, or wanting to make some kind of statement to the “terrorists”. It’s as if the site is being redeveloped to spite Osama bin Laden rather than for the people who live and work in the city.
--The Freedom Tower is too big, cheesy, phallic and paranoia inducing in its myriad of security measures.
--The Memorial (2 reflecting pools) is too minimalist for the fire department and brokerage house widows who are clamoring for it. It may be good art, but is fundamentally zen and nihilist (http://www.diabeacon.org/exhibs_b/heizer/index.html)—it will be rejected by those in whose name it would be built.
--Also, the notion of leaving a destroyed site undeveloped (the basic theoretical premise behind the ‘footprints’ memorial) is something which was done in Berlin (Kristkirche?) and Hiroshima. Both memorials were due to a nation’s wish to remember the horrors of war which THEY started. This interpretation of 9-11 is closer to Al Quaeda’s-- that the attack was revenge for bombings of Muslim civilians. Whatever my personal opinion on the attacks (it is somewhere between ObL’s and Bush’s) it is obvious that a lot of the hoo-ha patriots who talk about ‘sacred ground’ would dislike this interpretation.
-The site is also bad for a park—it is enclosed on 3 sides by tall buildings, and the 4th side is a noxious highway.

Since no one can agree, the best thing to do is to let it lie fallow until emotions cool and needs arise—
Time would allow some of the survivors to die off and mellow. Also, one does not know how the war we joined on Sept 12, 2001 will go—will America become a fascist state, making the ‘Freedom Tower’ an Orwellian joke, and the Memorial an ominous preamble? Or will there be other ‘ground-zeros’ even worse than this one—rendering the site self-indulgent in retrospect? Or will everything be forgiven and forgotten, with all irony lost in the city once called “Baghdad on the Hudson’? In the latter scenario, the memorial as it is designed now would appear shrill and unnecessary to future residents of this town.

I am not taking a position on what should be there—cultural center, office space or residential-- leave that up to the NYC real estate market to decide. But I do believe that many of the ‘9-11 families’ would be placated by seeing their lost relatives names carved in stone. A small variant of the Vietnam memorial (stone slab, with names of the fallen) may suffice in the near term.

Belarus: to be or not to be?

2006-03-28T10:34:00.000-08:00

As you may or may not know, I was born in the glorious people's republic of Belarus, or Belorussian Soviet Socialist Rebublic. I was born in Hospital number 3, in the capital city of Minsk. I am compiling a list of contacts there, my cousin Natasha Soroka forwarded me a link to this local blogger: http://bullochka.livejournal.com/185825.html
If you can read Russian, you can read this blog. Otherwise, her self-portraits are pretty funny.

Afghan Christian sentenced to death: Is this good for the Christians?

2006-03-23T09:49:00.000-08:00

NY Times this morning editorializes on Abdul Rahman (www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23thu2.html), saying something about how it is bad for Afghanistan blah blah blah. I contend that is it good for the Christians that a christian is sentenced to death by a non-christian state for his beliefs. With Easter coming up in a few weeks, it is a chance for Christians everywhere to reflect on the meaning of their faith. If you ever read the stories of the martyrs, you would see that this is also a great opportunity for Abdul to test his faith and if he gets a chance, to turn the other cheek...
Also, in Sharia law, the death penalty is a pretty standard punishment. Since Islam developed in a nomadic arab society, to imprison someone is impractical. How could nomads maintain a prison? Also, in a state such as Afganistan, with very limited resources, to feed someone imprisoned for years is too expensive. If he is judged to be mentally ill, the ruling would be quite soviet: during the 1970's dissidents were often condemned to insane asylums. After all, how could someone be opposed to the benefits Communism after all these years? They must be nuts.

Opening salvo.

2006-03-22T07:41:00.000-08:00

This blog is for politics, culture and timely observations. Feel free to comment or offer anything you wish. The name of the blog comes from a phrase I repeated to myself leading up to the 2004 elections--it was "fecesthrowingmonkeybush". As it happens on occasion, what we see in our enemies is something within ourselves.