Anti-War Rhetoric

I want to go on record as saying I'm personally against the War in Iraq, but not against the War in Afghanistan.

That said, what I read in the Seattle Times today just caught me by complete surprise and makes me question the intelligence of some members of the anti-war movement.

The headline reads:

Police fire pepper spray in anti-war protets at Port of Olympia

The article goes on to say that shipments of Army gear and supplies were being shipped from Olympia out to the troops in Iraq, and anti-war protestors lined the complex and tried to interfere with the shipment. While most of them were relatively peaceful, a number of protestors became unruly to the point that police had to fire pepper spray to disperse some of the crowd. And that was after repeatedly being warned that they would have to use pepper spray.

One of the protestor's comments were: ""It burned. I couldn't open my eyes for 20 minutes. My face is burning. I dunked my face in water and in Puget Sound." {Rachel Graham} as she rubbed watermelon on her face. (Quote courtesy of Seattle Times)

After acknowledging that they really couldn't do much to influence the shipments another protestor remarked that: "I think Olympia can be an example. If multiple communities begin to emulate these kinds of actions, it might gum up the gears a little bit." {Sandy Mayes}

I believe in the freedom of speech and the right to protest. But at least be educated in what you are trying to accomplish, and be aware of the best way to accomplish your goals.

What Ms. Mayes states when she made her comment above sounds very much like a call to other people to be unruly and disruptive. Peaceful protests are one thing, but causing a public disturbance, blocking the Port of Olympia from conducting normal operations, and trying to trespass on private property show a lack of understanding of what it means to peaceful and calm protest.

I do not have much compassion for those who complained of burning eyes, when they were repeatedly warned, and were breaking the law. If you choose to do so, then you also choose the consequences of your actions. The Revolutionaries, during the Colonial Times, chose to revolt despite the possibility that if they lost they would be executed.

More importantly though, what is really bothersome about this particular protest, is that these protestors are trying to keep supplies from the soldiers in Iraq. It's one thing to protest the war. But those soldiers are still out there risking their lives, whether by choice or not. Some agree with the principles that lead us to this particular war. Some do not. This type of protest targets both, and targets both unfairly. Regardless of where you stand, those people over there still need help and protection and supplies.

It's bad enough our own government sent troops out without adequate body armor. We don't need to add to that problem by trying to delay shipments of much needed supplies. If you really want to put an end to this war, try to get a new President elected next election. If you really want to protest this war, protest this war peacefully. Don't try to stop much needed shipments. You're ony hurting those who have no say in what happens to them.

Unless of course Ms. Mayes and Ms. Graham actually want the troops over there to injured. And I doubt that's what they really want.

A Moist Dream Come True

A Review: Cupcake

Cupcake: Justin Sund and Ethan Newberry

Welcome to Cupcake, the Seattle Improv show who's main goal is to offend. Or so they say.

On that note, their material certainly could offend some people. In the last few months, I have heard this improv show discuss finding Narnia inside of a vagina, Spider-Man firing off not webbing, but semen (from his wrists), and various jokes about Mexicans and Asians, and practically every other ethnic group out there.

Oh, and they like to kill improvised puppies on stage.

Cupcake is an improv show in Seattle, located just above 55th and the Ave. It's a show that starts at 12:30 at night. A midnight show... which means they can do practically whatever the hell they want to do.

It's a show created by two of Jet City Improv's cast: Justin Sund and Ethan Newberry.

And the show is hilarious.

Cupcake welcomes the audience, usually by offending them

They usually start the show with a choregraphed dance, followed by greeting the audience. Their claim is that they are hear to bring your moist "cupcake" dreams come true, while offending you.

Of course, they don't necessarily try to offend. It's more of a offend with absolute ridiculousness and wit. Case in point: Zombie Jesus, in which Jesus rises from the dead as a zombie and they try various approaches to kill him.

Offensive, possibly. But ridiculously so. And maybe that's why it's so damn funny.

But the humor isn't all about being offensive. It isn't all about being able to swear on stage... to say, "fuck, shit, bitch, cunt, TAINT!" (go to a show, you'll understand). Because that, by itself, isn't all that funny.

It's Justin and Ethan. It's Justin and Ethan playing off of each other... or playing with each other. It's hard to say sometimes. But in the end, it comes down to on-stage chemistry.

A week ago, Ethan was away for his brother's wedding. That left Justin to do Cupcake on his own. He brought on a few guest improvers, all from Jet City Improv. All great improvers... but on Cupcake, something was just... well... missing.

The guest cast: "Dougie", "Doctor Malicious", "Mentally Retarded Sarah", and "Hotatello"

To be honest, Cupcake was flat that week. There were only one or two really good set of jokes. The rest... it just didn't vibe. Not even with the hardcore Cupcake audience members who are always there. Myself included. Each character just didn't seem to fit what the Cupcake audience has come to know and love.

They did the same. They swore. They were offensive. But... they weren't as funny.

Doctor Malicious stares down the audience.

The same was true nearly a month ago, when Justin was out of town and Ethan had to do a show with a guest member. While it was funny, it lacked the same feel that the Justin-Ethan Cupcake combo had.

If you don't mind being offended a little, and you can stay awake 'til around 1:30 - 2 in the morning... check out Cupcake on Saturdays.

Cupcake: Offensiveness at its funniest.

Proud To Be An American

Switching gears ever so slightly from the Immigration topic, I thought I would mention something that very few newspapers (and other media outlets) have reported on.

Namely: Stephen Colbert.

Now, I love comedy. Comedy of all types. Comedy comes in flavors, and each flavor gives a different experience. But I think of all flavors of comedy, the one I most appreciate is that of satire. Great satire is hard to be. And lately, thankfully, it seems that people in general have been embracing it. South Park and the Colbert Report are two examples of the general American public's tastes for satire. Both programs are in the top ratings gatherers for Comedy Central. South Park has been running strong for now ten seasons and the Colbert Report has continued to do strong since it's inception late last fall.

But this isn't an editorial on comedy. Not precisely anyway. It's on Stephen Colbert.

Stephen Colbert did something amazing two Saturday's ago (April 29th. 2006). He satired the press and the President. He criticized them using his most powerful weapon: his gift of satire. And he did it well. And he did it in a timely fashion.

I have always argued that the freedom of press, and the Press in general, are our unofficial fourth 'check and balance' in America. They are the ears of the public. They let us know what is going on in government.

Or at least they should.

Times have changed since the days of Edward R. Murrow. It feels more and more like the press has forgotten it's primary duty: to report the news, to question and investigate. This isn't to say all of those out in the news-gathering business has fallen from duty. But many have.

I'm not saying that the press should become the paparazzi. They shouldn't. But they should be the ones that bring those who are in power and act corruptly to task. They need to ask the questions that we, the lay-people, cannot.

But they haven't. (With the notable exception of Helen Thomas, at least.)

And then, on April 29, someone reminded them of what it was like to stand up and actually have conviction. And when he did that, hardly ANYONE reported on it.

For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, check out Google Video and type in "Stephen Colbert". Find the video on the Washington Correspondent's Association Dinner. Watch it.

That man made me proud to be an American. Because that's what an American is supposed to do. Question. Stand up and make a statement when your rights are possibly being intruded upon. Whether or not this truly is a government "for the people, by the people", at least he's trying to live by that credo.

He took his ONE opportunity in front of the President, and instead of pandering to him, he laid into him.

So where was the press? Well, they were standing on the sidelines looking uncomfortably shocked. So shocked, in fact, that they didn't even report on Colbert's antics. Only one news outlet did: Editor and Publisher. Only days later did any major news outlet report on it.

So yes, I'm proud to be an American... but that pride teeters delicately.

One Man's Thoughts

Yesterday I went into a local Ritz (or Kitz) Camera to exchange a camera bag that was falling apart prematurely. After talking with the agents of customer service for a bit, they offered to give me a credit toward a new bag.

While I was looking for another bag, I began having a conversation with one of the employees at the camera store, mentioning that I wanted a sturdy bag for when I go taking pictures out and about. I also mentioned that I went to the rally and took pictures (the rally on May 1st). I will have a picture-post of those later in the next few days.

He then asked me what I thought of the rally, and I gave my opinion, which basically was that it's a fairly broken system and unfair to all involved.

His opinion was that "we should kick them all out". His reasoning was because years ago he had to stand in line for hours, pay the fee, learn the language and know the Pledge of Allegiance.

I have noticed that many people who are against illegal immigration and favor "kicking them out" have been called racist or unfair. But this man brings up a very good point, and a point that I have a feeling most anti-illegal immigrants share: it is simply unfair to all those who followed the rules to get into the country. To them it is insultive and as unfair as illegal immigrants say treatment toward them has been. And it's not hard to understand why. If I worked hard, paid money and sacrified to get in legally then I too would be insulted, and feel quite stupid, that I could have just ran across a border and demanded my right to stay.

I'm not saying I agree with the man completely. Because I don't completely agree with him. It's a tricky situation to say the least. And there are nuances to both sides that can't simply be ignored. Laws are great, laws keep order. But the best laws are not static but rather quite flexible. I remember hearing that in an episode of Star Trek once (and for the record, I have a good memory, I don't watch Star Trek episodes over and over again). The comment was simply that, for laws to be successful, and for society to evolve, the law has to be flexible. And it's true. What worked one hundred years ago... or two hundred years ago... may not quite work the same way as now.

Whether we like it or not, the country's economy does run on illegal immigrant workers. If we want to cut back on the influx of illegal immigration, we need to start attacking the roots of the problem. There are many people who probably would do those jobs, but at a fair price. If we want to curtail illegal immigration, one idea might be to force workers to pay their employees a fair price. But since I'm no economist, I don't know if that's even a feasible idea.

Still, intelligent debate and dialogue would be a better alternative than simple band-aid style solutions and suggestions.

Immigration Revival

So before I start, I need to apologize for not posting on here in a regular manner.

Actually, I need to apologize for not posting... at all. That's been my fault, partly due to being extremely busy, and partly due to laziness. I won't get into the percentages of either, because I fear it would be slanted toward laziness.

So now, onto this whole immigration thing. Or for the moment, maybe just the language thing.

The President has said that it should be an imperative (as I try to remember how to spell that word) that all Americans should learn English.

I can't believe I find myself saying this, but I agree with him. (And yes, I think he should try learning it too).

I think they should learn English, as soon as possible upon entering this country, whether legally or not. The reason I feel this way is not because of some ethnocentric belief that English is the best langauge or that to be an American means you absolutely have to speak English. It's more a matter of their own good. To be in this country and really survive, you have to know the language. That's a truth for any place that you live, be it France, Germany or Pakistan. If you want to not be taken advantage of, then you have to know how to communicate.

And it's important to talk to the people that you are trying to effect change with in their native language. I wouldn't go to Mexico or Italy asking for equal rights, or any rights, in my own language. I would try to communicate in their native language, or majority language. It's important to learn to talk in the language that the laws are written in.

It may step on some toes, and sound unfair, but if you want to survive, then it's a necessity.

And then there is the the simple fact that it's more effective. Take today, for instance. Apparently some Spanish radio outlets have composed a Spanish-version of the Star Spangled Banner, to be sung as immigrants march today. To me this seems like a backwards approach. If you want to ask for citizenship and rights of a country, you should do it in the same language that the basic laws of the land are written in. You should respect the cultural bounds of the country that you want to be a part of. That's not to say that you can't bring your own flavor of culture into the mix, especially since this country was founded on such principles (culturally, in ideal at least).

It will be interesting to see how today's demonstrations play out. But I will say this: those demonstrating today will score more sympathy and understanding points if they march under an American flag, sing the American national anthem, and conduct themselves in a respectful manner.