March 27, 2004
Hot or Not
In the interests of excessive self-promotion
and marketing whoredom, I have signed The Daily
Mingus up for the Hot or Not blog-off. Go and
vote. If I continue to get big marks, I could
win a gasmask and a round of head from a Nun.
Oh wait, that's a different contest. Hmmm.
Is
my Blog HOT or NOT?
March 26, 2004
Jesus Two: J2
Crushing Ass in Babylon
I've heard a lot of things about this new Jesus
movie that is coming out, and frankly, I have
to say that I'm very excited about it. Apparently,
there is a lot of controversy about it and whether
or not it is factually correct. Some biblical
scholars have pointed out that nailing people
up by the hands is not factually correct, because
the right way to do it is to punch nails through
the wrists. Silly buggers! Don't they know it
doesn't matter where you put the nails? You got
to strap them up with ropes and then let em suffocate!
Yeah, crucify!
But that's not where the controversy ends. Some
concerned groups have said that the films portrays
Jews in a poor light and may encourage anti-semitism.
Some critics have hailed it as a magical work,
an epic interpretation of the life of one of humanity's
most important prophets. Other scholars have told
those critics to stuff it up their asses, cause
nobody needs more religious propaganda in this
day and age. Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and Satanists
complain that there are already a raft of definitive
works about the life of Jesus, like Norman Jewison's
(?!) Jesus
Christ Superstar and Scorsese's The
Last Temptation of Christ, and nobody in their
right mind needs to see another one, especially
when it's done in Aramaic and Greek. Agnostics
are not quite sure what to think, but are willing
to stand around and think about it. And everybody
knows the story about what happened with the financing
and the famous
man who had to work behind the scenes to bring
the film to audiences after distributors backed
away from it because it was too controversial.
By god, so much excitement around one film!
No matter what the critics and the pontiffs say,
I think that I will see the work for myself, in
all its bone-shattering, naked-body bearing glory.
In a time of spiritual and political decay, this
film may just provide the answers that I am looking
for. This may show me the light, perhaps help
me to find my path. It promises a tale of life,
death, and resurrection, the story of a unique
revolutionary, not unlike myself, who struggles
against the machinery of bureacracy and constrictive
paradigms. Yes, it is time to judge this for myself,
and I advise everyone to do so in the upcoming
months. Like the tagline
says: See the movie that's controversial, sacrilegious,
and blasphemous. But if that's not playing, see
The
Life of Brian.
 March
25, 2004
Mingus For Poet Laureate
of Canada
Now that the eminent George Bowering's term is
up and the
job is open, avid reader
Marcuse 71 has enthusiastically nominated
Mingus Tourette for
Poet Laureate of Canada. I highly suggest
reading
the article.
My favourite highlight is his interpretation of
Mingus' message to the public during my two year
term:
POETRY: BUY IT * READ IT * LEARN FROM IT
If you don't, Canada's
Poet Laureate will hunt you down....
Steal your booze, your money, your books and your
lover...
Then he'll blow yer fuckin' head off for the bloated
brain sac that it has become.
Tremendous!
I plan to apply as soon as the first steaming
pink copies of Nunt
roll off the press. Boy, is it ever going to be
fun hanging out with Paul Martin, Adrienne Clarkson,
and of course, Belinda!
Of course, this being a poet's job, the pay is
fundamentally shittier than what the kids at Harvey's
make in a year. That's right, our poet laureate
makes $12 000 a year, plus $10 000 for travel.
At least I could buy the Nuntmobile straight out.
And rail a parliamentary secretary.
In other news, Mingus Tourette was apparently
involved in yet another fracas with a sultry politician
just days after the highly reported 'Stronach
Buggery' incident. Frutiger Black reports from
Lethbridge:
Former Lethbridge City
Councillor Dar Heatherington claims that she has
had relations with the ubiquitous Mingus Tourette,
during a staged abduction to Vegas. When asked
for comment, Mr. Tourette, though admitting he
had been in an alcohol-induced fugue that weekend,
refuted the claim as unfounded. “Gas-mask
and star-spangled Under-Roos aside, that could
be anybody’s ass in that video,” said
Mr. Tourette to the media scrum, “Any wing-nut
could be under that get up! Come on people! Wake
up and smell the Munchausenesque-starved-for-attention-dipped-in-shit-and-rolled-in-nuts-insanity!!”
Mr. Tourette then punched out the mike podium
before falling from the stage, and sprawling across
an attractive, trainee-reporter from the CBC.
Previous romantic connection to the aforementioned
reporter has yet to be confirmed.
Tremendous!
And in other news:
CNN, the
Independent,
CBC and the NY
Times reported heavily on Richard Clarke's
testimony before the 9.11 commission, which stated
that George Bush and his fellow administrators
did not pay much attention to the al-Qaeda threat
because they were too obsessed by Iraq.
The BBC
reported calls for Islamic unity following
the assassination of Ahmed Yassin.
The
Toronto Star reported that the UN Human Rights
watchdog condemned Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin.
And of course, the Guardian
reported that Hamas will not attack the US, but
will actually concentrate on killing Arial Sharon,
and Israel will concentrate on killing the rest
of the Hamas leadership. As ludicrous as it sounds,
that is the truth of the day.
Tremendous!
March 23, 2004
Eine Bischen Arbeite
For all three readers interested in world politics
and the future of humanity, I would like to share
a few articles in tune with yesterday's writing
on American politics.
The Financial
Times has a tight breakdown of Clarke's new
book and the 'Bush terror strategy'. It has to
look bad, even to the average Texan, when the
man who led the United States of America's counter-terrorism
effort for MORE THAN A DECADE charges that "the
Bush administration's obsession with Iraq has
debilitated the war on terrorism and threatened
security."
In addition to this, former US President Jimmy
Carter, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize,
slammed US and UK administrations, saying:
That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations
from London and from Washington, claiming falsely
that Saddam Hussein was responsible for [the]
9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction.
To nicely underscore the overlying message of
destabilization, Hamas,
a major Palestinian organization with a lot of
weapons, made its first
ever threat against the United States. Hamas
stated that the Israeli assassination of Sheik
Ahmed Yassin was made possible by US support for
Israel, and Hamas is now vowing 'open war'.
And yet somehow, Bush still has a legitimate shot
at another four years in office. The mind boggles.
For the rest of the readers who don't give a flying
fuck about politics or the future of humanity,
I would like to share my latest haiku about whiskey
dick.
ever militant
the tireless helmet of flesh
refuses to yield
March 22, 2004
One Year Later
Last week, I resolved to lay off on American
politics. Didn't last very long, I suppose.
After a weekend of anti-war demonstrations, the
new book
Against all Enemies, by former Whitehouse
Counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke,
rolls onto shelves this week. It alleges that
from the beginning, top Bush administration officials
seemed “focused
on Saddam Hussein, focused on Iraq”
rather than on the threat from the al-Qaida network
of Osama bin Laden, and that in the days following
9/11, Rumsfeld urged Bush to invade Iraq.
After the president returned
to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top
advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings
about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke
writes in his book, he expected the administration
to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden
and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the
talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying
that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said
to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda
is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.
And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets
in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets
in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good
targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing
to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There
aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I
thought he was joking. - Read
More at CBS.
Add this to the old revelations of Rumsfeld's
handwritten notes, in which he says, on September
11th:
With the intelligence
all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered
the military to begin working on strike plans.
And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as
saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether
good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam
Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL"
– the initials used to identify Osama bin
Laden.
Now, nearly one year later,
there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved
in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are
accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the
notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all
up. Things related and not."
Add this to what
Paul O'Neill unveiled
two months ago in his book, The
Price of Loyalty, in which the former Secretary
of the Treasury made a number of allegations about
the current administration, namely that:
George Bush began discussing the invasion of Iraq
from the moment he took office, nearly a year
before the 9/11 tragedy. O'Neill portrays Cheney
as an unstoppable force, and Bush as a man who
knew little, asked few questions and gave minimal
orders. O'Neill says that in his 23 months in
the Treasury Secretary position, he saw no evidence
of WMD in any capacity.
- The Daily Mingus, January 12, 2004
Add all of this evidence together, and it becomes
almost undeniable that the top administration
wanted to go into Iraq at a very early stage,
whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11,
or whether or not Iraq had any WMD. It has been
a full year since the invasion, and no WMD have
been discovered. Zero. None. Iraq was no more
a threat to American national security than Manitoba.
And that means that the current Whitehouse admin
lied to the people of America, and in doing so,
took them to war against a foreign, sovereign
nation for no reason that has been properly explained.
In doing so, they have squandered enormous military
resources that could have been targetted
at actual terrorist threats.
The people of America cannot deny this anymore.
What is more, they have to accept responsibility
for the knowledge of the Administration's lies
and responsibility for the emerging truth about
original intent and Iraq. For a long time, I have
drawn a valid distinction between the American
Bush administration, and the American people.
However, if the current administration isn't voted
out this year, then the American public comes
into line with the Bush administration, and says,
your actions represent mine, and I advocate what
we have done. I advocate that the government can
invade threatless sovereign nations, and I understand
that I deserve the hostility and disrespect heaped
upon the government by many other groups and nations
for these sorts of actions. If Bush's re-election
comes to pass, the rest of the world need no longer
draw a distinction between administration and
populace, for we are one and the same.
I find this to be a frightening idea, that America
itself is the problem, so I watch the coming months
with an obsessive need to see and understand what
is the true character of the majority of Americans,
and I hope for what may happen, and I fear for
what may happen.
Click For Previous Week's
Daily Mingii
|
March 22 - 28, 2004