A Mighty Girl: A Poem for Mehreen

A Mighty Girl

There’s this girl, fearless and strong

Who gets up early at six

To her the whole wide world belongs

And which she intends to fix

Smiles like an angel to the monsters

Under her bed

They know better than to bug her

Or she’ll see red

Totally loves to go for ice-cream

When coupled with chocolate

Just don’t fall for a daydream

And take her there late

Razor focused when studying

Wants to ace at everything

She misses her grandma when she’s away

But LOVES it when grandma comes back to play

Mom and Dad love her to bits

She’s always fighting zits

(She’s a teenager after all)

But when it comes to choices,

She always makes the right call.

Has two little brothers she loves

With all her heart

And has a hard time

Keeping them apart.

But mostly, she has the greatest of hearts

Would always make the world whole, never apart

If you see her, what a champ, oh boy!

She’s one of the aces at the school of Troy!

She’s the greatest little girl the world has ever seen

She’s none other than our little Mehreen!

Disjointed Thoughts

Hal Varian

Next it becomes the thing for her.

Straight is another name for bent.

Crooked is the skyline.

Nothing else is getting bounced.

I maim nine men in Saginaw wan, I mine nine men in Miami.

"What a pity, Tarquin Superbus is not in the paddocks. After all, when everyone else is enjoying themselves I don’t see why Tarquin shouldn’t get his afternoon out."

It was a dark and stormy morning.

It was a bright and sunny afternoon.

Quietly, she got out of bed.

I want to have sex with her.

Take a chill pill

Apropos to a drink.

Never and never my girl riding far and near

Necronomicon. Cryptonomicon.

Sacred brides of the dark tower.

Author, author.

Lest we forget, there but for the Grace of God.

Nine lives.

Nuts and bolts.

I have to take my blood pressure.

Norma Jean, Norman Mailer, Neiman Marcus.

It is what it is.

The world chooses to gobble up the gentle ones.

Hecklers are not the worst thing about being an unfunny comedian.

Positive thinking should give rise to homicidal mania. In others.

Do or don’t do. There is no try.

There is no tie.

There is no spoon.

I have a giant headache.

Sequential addresses give me migraine.

I am the fool of the world.

And it is my poor fool that is hanged.

I get the tune.

Tune in for the next interview.

Radio makes me feel connected to the world.

I can’t be the only one who likes this music.

I see two authors on stage, dancing.

Release the Kraken.

Driving from LA to San Francisco through Highway 5.

Pacific Coastal Highway to Seattle.

The mountains of Montana are grey in the winter.

The lakes of Minnesota in the summer is the place to be.

No one likes happy stories.

Everyone wants to be happy.

Does that mean everyone does not want to be in stories?

Ask me another, ripe begonias.

Neanderthal is not the same s Cro-Magnon

Tiny hands and tiny feet, pitter patter of the rain.

Eight ounces of cocaine, sneezed on.

And I would walk five hundred miles. And I would walk five hundred more.

Ted Koppel’s hair is like that of Donald Trump.

I do not watch CNN..

I walked up the stairs to her apartment because the elevator was busted.

Knowing five people in heaven is knowing five people too many.

I keep getting distracted when I try to write my novel.

I do not think starving artists are sexy.

Moscow does not believe in tears.

Paris is a creaky old town with bad plumbing and even worse civil engineering.

No one cares what the night life in Murther Tid-ville is like.

Parachuting in to the Sacre Coeur.

Taking a dump inside the Notre Dame is not an artwork.

Art is an industry.

No one understands art.

The cat from Calais can try to swim to Dover. It takes the Channel tunnel instead.

Des Moines is a very sleepy town.

Snowball fights are not a fun activity…they must be won at any cost.

The apple trees growing near the forest next to my apartment sway in the winter gale.

In the summer the ground beneath is littered with apples. They are very sour.

But the grapes I seek are in the vineyard.

Red wine is height of sensation. It is beautiful in taste and texture.

Fish can be fried with breadcrumbs, with a slight dip in eggs.

I can hardly see the picture in my living room. It is still half ensconced in the bag I brought it in.

Eternal sunshine for the spineless ego.

Nobody handles Handel like they handle Handel.

Noir is as noir does.

The river runs through campus.

I like the style of Hemingway.

But I write in long, tortuous sentences.

Fuck, fuckity fuck.

Philosophy is the alternative to holding your dick in public.

Is there a point to this?

Miles to go before I puke.

Not in our name. But whose? We paid for that shit.

Bars o my phone are not indicative of the quality of the voice call.

Headphones. Because killing wankers who play loud and bad music is illegal.

There are two kinds of music: German and bad.

No one really wants to pay the fine but everyone wants to get on the ride.

Why can’t Disney come clean about the serial killers prowling around its grounds?

Why is there never an essay on licking the anus?

I am not Charlotte Simmons.

I don’t even own a white suit. (Totally LOL)

If you need me, me and Neil would be hanging out with the Dream King.

I have to try harder for a peek in to your soul.

I want to wake up where you are.

Nobody, not even the rain has such small hands.

Moon River, wider than a mile, I’m crossing it in style someday.

On a long enough timeline the survival rate of everyone falls to zero.

Why oh why oh why is it so wonderful to be a Tigger?

Sunset and Hollywood are parallel universes.

Text messages written on a flip phone are less important.

Nebraska is very flat, indicative of its native populace’s brain scans.

Grand Canyon makes Dali paintings seem meaningful.

Nero Wolf now takes out ads on LA Weekly, next to the ads of escort services.

Leave the money on the night stand.

Double shots of bourbon, neat. Single shot of Scotch with soda.

Kneeling in front of the Nativity Scene in front of St James’, lighting a candle. The statues are made 

from flammable material.

Pushing the shopping cart beyond the parking lot of the grocery store.

Jaywalking in broad daylight in busy street.

Therapist or the rapist?

Marriage counseling is the ultimate act of cruelty.

Sixteen men on the dead man’s chest.

Night of the living.

Yogurt in the morning, fruit salad for lunch, supersized fries and cheeseburger for supper.

Dying is an ancient art of avoiding responsibility.

On the origin of stupidity.

The descent of bad ideas.

Scheherazade and Dunyazade: twisted sisters.

Don't Pray for Paris

Don't pray for Paris....
Write a poem
Eat cheese and baguettes
Kiss someone you love
In public.
Don't pray for Paris
Argue about the meaning
Of Life.
Make love in the langurous
Small hours of the morning.
Linger over wine and a
Five hour lunch.
Don't pray for Paris.
Tell bawdy jokes.
Finish your goddamn novel.
Plant a kiss at Oscar's grave
(Wear lipstick while you're at it)
Don't pray for Paris.
Really, don't.
Paris deserves so much
Better of those who love.

Secular Humanism: The Best Hope for Religions?

Does the Secular Movement have an anti-religious agenda? Since the engine of the movement is primarily lead by atheists one can forgive the religious amongst us to be wary of a group that is as fundamentally different in outlook as to be entirely from a different planet. However, they are mistaken in convoluting the atheists and the secular.

The religious make the mistake of thinking that the Secular Movement is another religious view and is aimed as an attack at the very core of their world view. They think that Secular Humanism seek to replace all religion in public life and impose itself as the one and only true faith. It is understandable why they think that given the nature of religious belief itself.

The very nature of religious belief is all encompassing and absolute. If you choose to believe the doctrines of one faith, they would like to insist that it is a take-it-all-or-leave-it affair. One must adopt all the doctrines of faith if one is to claim to be of such persuasion. There is no room for compromise.

The reality of course is different. Modern life poses innumerable challenge to the faithful in terms maintaining doctrinal purity. As usual with human ingenuity, the religious (not the religion, mind you) develops a behavioral pattern so delicately flexible that it would be of envy to any Olympic gymnast. The late Christopher Hitchens, in an inspired bout of sardonic wit, used the term “religion a la carte”  to describe this notion of religiosity.

So the majority of people lead their lives in a semi-pious state and can look themselves in the mirror without feeling guilty. The churches they belong to may have horrendous theological views but they are not really serious about it. Most people attend church once and week and glaze over the more intransigent opinions espoused by their faith.

So why attack them? Why, in the name of all that is good, can’t secularists and atheists leave matters well alone?

Well, this may come as a surprise to the likes of Baroness Warsi and her ilk, but atheists and secularists are not trying to destroy religion. It is not about the Secular Humanist movement having the same status as any other faith either. It is not about tolerating each other’s eccentric worldviews in a multi-cultural environment.

What the Secular Humanist movement wants is more fundamental in nature. Matters involving public affairs apply to everyone in society. Therefore only ideas that can survive empirical examination should be given due consideration. It is all very well to suggest that prayer, holy water, crystals or even animal sacrifice could protect a child from polio. However, the tried and true method is through vaccination that has been achieved through scientific experiments. We could use the religious prescriptions in terms of public health, education and building infrastructure (the Bible does tell us that the value of π (pi) is 3.0) but the end result (as seen in the last two millennia, if not the last ten) is disastrous. We are much better off sticking to the scientific method in solving problems in matters of public affairs.

However, that does not mean that religious opinion faces mandatory banishment from the public square. Everyone is welcome to bring their religious viewpoint into the public discourse. However, such opinions are no longer given special protection. They are fair game in terms of empirical evaluation and must compete with other ideas in terms of efficacy. If they fail, they must, as is the case in the Scientific Method, be discarded.

This is a great act of liberation for religions. All of them are to be treated equally and they must compete with each other and non-religious ideas. Whichever turns out to be correct in empirical terms, prevails.

   

In the Liberal school of thought there are many who are loathe to criticize the religious, feeling that such attacks are unwarranted. People should not be pilloried for their faith. I happen to agree that people should not be unfairly singled out for the opinions espoused by their faith. However, whenever the odious principles of faith itself are examined, these Liberal thinkers point out that most people are not interested in doctrines; they don’t take them seriously and just want to lead their lives in peace.

If that is true, then criticism of the doctrinal nature of faith itself should not be a problem for the faithful, right? After all, the average church/mosque goer hardly notices the contradictions that they hold in their lives. Pointing them out surely would do no harm but act as more informative form of public service.

Secular Humanist movement simply wants to remove the special status that religious superstition have in public life. Societies all over the world are held hostage by these faith doctrines that are not open to challenge and hamper public debate by limiting its scope. If religion can be challenged and asked the question, “Where’s the evidence for your position?” when they come up with doctrinal prescription that applies to everyone in society, it can only be an improvement. All it would lead to is more debate and discussion. The only rule would be that no one can hide behind the phrase: “It is my faith, my holy book tells me so and that’s the end of the discussion.”

No society has been harmed by more debate. When discourse is limited by appeals to authority (natural or supernatural), immense harm can result. The examples from societies that live under the yoke of theocracy are too numerous to mention here.  

                So the religious face the question: who do you trust to defend your right to practice your faith?  A religious environment where the dominant faith would seek to frame public discourse in favor of its own doctrines; or a secular environment where all religions are given the same status i.e. no special privileges at all?

How would the religious react to this proposition? Will they be enthusiastic?

I will not hold my breath.  

Should you waste your time and money on the movie Anonymous?

Does it take a university education to be a great writer?

If yes, then we should cross out quite a few names from our lists, starting with Homer and going onto Shelley, Keats, Austen, the Bronte sisters, Dickens, Eliot (G), Orwell and on and on.  Interestingly, Dan Brown, Danielle Steele and Stephanie Meyer all went to prestigious posh universities.

This brings us to the elephant in the living room, the one name that I have not included in the list. Did the Bard really write the thirty-eight plays that he is credited for? Or was Shakespeare merely a front man for other men of higher birth- such as Francis Bacon and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford?

So, a man from a humble background and no posh education could not have written about foreign places and historical events. Only an aristocrat, a man of noble birth and education, could have written something as profound as “… the better part of valor is discretion.” It takes an aristo to understand that the plebs of London would only be swayed through bawdy jokes such as : “By my life, this is my lady’s hand: these be her very C’s, her U’s, and her T’s; and thus makes she her great P’s.”

Yes, you have to be quite the cunt to miss the obvious, eh, you Shakespeare lovers?

Who among us would ever disagree that the Romantic poets wrote their own (profound albeit self-indulgent) verses? Would anyone think that Elizabeth Bennet had stolen her wits and disposition from Lady Catherine De Burgh? Would an aristocrat lady write the words of anguish: “Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless?” Would any aristocrat be able to depict the horrors of the poor house in Victorian England?

So why do we keep coming back to this absurd notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays?

We know that he was not an obscure behind-the-scenes figure. He was always credited as the author on stage. He had enjoyed friendships of Ben Jonson and quite possibly Christopher Marlowe- expert playwrights with substantive contribution to Literature themselves. Do you think that these gentlemen of immense ego would have tolerated as a friend someone who had no literary merit and yet claimed such a thing?

A man of humble birth from Stratford, having been married at the age of eighteen, went to London to earn a living. He became an actor and stage manager and began writing his own plays. They were designed to be crowd pleasers- full of dirty jokes and royalty and the most profound of human emotions: love, hate, jealousy and ambition. He made a fortune as a writer of these tales and then went home to enjoy the twilight years of his life in company of his family.

But this story is not enough for those who think that only rich people can accomplish great things. According to these people, Steve Jobs would have been the bastard child of a Rockefeller or a Kennedy. Einstein was probably stealing the work of a Rothschild.

Why not make a movie about those two?

Gilad Shalit’s Return Home

A rare thing happened today: celebration at both Gaza and West Bank and in Israel itself. Sgt. Gilad Shalit has been released after five years in Hamas captivity. This release was brought about after Israel agreed to release over one thousand members of Hamas. Palestinians are cheering at having their loved ones back and the whole of Israel is celebrating the return of their son.

Good news all around, you could say. Hardly.

First of all, the prisoners released under the agreement have all been convicted of violent crimes and attempts at acts of terrorism.  Israel just released a group of people who have gone the extra mile in proving their dedication to its destruction.  In terms of security risk alone this may have been an unacceptable price to pay.

However, the values of the Israeli society, particularly that of its military, are to be considered. No soldier is to be left behind in the field and Israelis would rather have their boy soldier back and face the consequences. The positive optimism of this act may have brought the whole country together.

Secondly, the political ramifications on both sides are going to be formidable. The release of the long held captive has bolstered the position and popularity of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His hard line stances on the peace process and continuous expansion of the settlements have always been a major obstacle to the peace process. His Likud Party has allied itself with Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party and together they have taken an uncompromising stand on expanding the settlements on the Occupied Territories. The net result of the prisoner swap may be that the hardliners in Israel gain more political currency.

There is a glimmer of hope in this regard, though. Mr. Netanyahu had always been dismissive of negotiating with the Palestinian Authority. However, his willingness to engage with and pay the price asked by Hamas, the most hardline Palestinian political group is itself a positive sign. If he is willing to incur so much cost in negotiating with Hamas, he may be willing to do business with the PA after all. A surge in popularity may give him the wiggle room to distance himself from Lieberman and other hardliners.

The winner of the situation is clearly Hamas. They have demonstrated that their policy of non-stop violence against Israel has brought more results than the non-violent and cooperative policy of the PLO. They have reason to celebrate today because they have handed their rivals, the Fatah, a crushing political defeat (and this time they did not have to throw them off rooftops).  President Mahmoud Abbas was forced to have the West Bank leader of Hamas, Sheikh Hassan Yousef stand next to him during his speech welcoming back the prisoners. The next election of the Palestinian Authority may not bode well for the peace camp in both Palestine and Israel.

The greatest cause for worry is the small terrorist groups which are being tolerated by Hamas in Gaza. They have already vowed to make more attempts at kidnapping Israeli soldiers. They may be happy in Israel today but by accepting the terms of Hamas, they may have opened a whole new can of worms.

The frail and malnourished condition of Sgt. Shalit may give us a lot of pause as to how Hamas treats its prisoners. In the five years of his captivity, he was not allowed a single visit from the Red Cross- a severe breach of the human rights conventions as well as Geneva conventions. Hamas’ treatment of Palestinian prisoners who are political dissenters is even worse. Yet they may stand to gain the most from these circumstances.

Celebrate if you like, for today has been a rare good day for both sides. But don’t hold your breath for the peace process.

On Occupy Wall Street

It has always cheered me up to note that Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man was written as a direct response to Edmund Burke's derisive criticism of the French Revolution. Burke's reference to the people's revolt in Paris as the 'swinish multitude' was typical of the contempt felt by the ruling class towards the feelings of the poor on whose back they built their fortunes. Paine's passionate defense of the Revolution was the beginning of the intellectual fight back against the reactionary old order.

One could say that the spirit of Burke lives on, especially in the conservative media and its coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The scribes of right-tilting newspapers, magazines and cable TV stations poured scorn over the protesters and questioned their motivations, intentions and even rolled out the old chestnut of questioning their patriotism.

Political classes can get complacent and comfortable and often need a short sharp reminder of who and where their responsibilities lie. However, that is not to say that any political action in protest of the status quo is acceptable.

The movement that calls itself Occupy Wall Street has decided to stage a continuous protest at the Zucotti Park in New York City. They are calling for punitive measures towards the corporations and banks as a response to the downturn of the economy. The protesters are mostly college students, young graduates who are yet to find employment and professional political provocateurs. They are calling for all debt to be forgiven and higher taxes on the wealthy.

However, one thing that stands out to anyone who observes the protests is that they are incoherent and ill informed. The protesters are angry about the prospect of unemployment and a lowering of standards of living- a sentiment well justified given the circumstances. But they demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how the economy works.

Their demands are fantastic and impractical: a 99% tax on the billionaires and a total debt forgiveness may sound nice but the consequences would result in the destruction of the global financial system and the subsequent destruction of the world economy. They are protesting but not getting involved with the political process that could bring about real and substantive change.

They say they want change but what they want is their life back. Given a choice between a fundamental political change or a well paid job, they would settle for the latter. They are riling against corporations but are happy to subscribe to technology developed by Apple or AT&T.

The overall mood of this protest is less of anger and more of petulance: a vague sense of being cheated out of the American dream and a feeling of entitlement sans the accompanying responsibility.

We have seen this before: barely had our 44^th President taken the reins of the government did the right wing began the Tea Party movement- a political storm based on the ideas to be found on the right side of Genghis Khan. The 2010 election was a vindication of the idea that if you yell loudly enough, you may get your way with the politicians too spineless to stand up to the political equivalent of bat-shit crazy.

The political left has chosen to imitate the success of the extremists on the right by launching their own version of extremism. Occupy Wall Street is clearly a mirror image of the gun toting, costumed hicks of last year, only with a more festive mood, better songs and topless dancers (an improvement in my opinion). The tea party was the visible reminder of a new political maxim of America: all politics is yokel. The political left is following it up with a aphorism of their own: all politics is petulant.