An interesting thing came up in the debate between Republican candidates for President Tuesday night: blowback.

I found something very interesting in the film I watched the other day on that very subject. I wish I could express myself more clearly tonight, but this is something that I think is very important and it's something that I have always suspected since the very first few days after 9/11. Chalmers Johnson, a CIA expert, had some very interesting things to say about "blowback" in the documentary Why We Fight (which have been conveniently posted on this blog for you to see for yourself):

There is a direct connection between events that happened more than 50 years ago and the War in Iraq today. In 1953, the prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq became extremely irritated the British were ripping off his country's national resources, he wanted a greater share in it. The British came to the new president, Eisenhower, and asked for help on this. Eisenhower very conveniently declared Mossadeq to be communist and we then set the CIA to overthrow him.

The result was we brought the shah to power and he created an extremely repressive regime that within 20 years had led to a revolution against him. The Ayatollah Khomeini creates a government that is violently anti-American.

In the after-action report by the CIA on what they had done in Iran in 1953, they said "we're going to get some 'blowback' from this."

We then made a puppet out of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who was a friend of ours. He was an asset in the CIA's computers. We did so because he was anti-Iranian. He was very fearful that the revolution in Iran would spread into his county. He therefore went to war with Iran. The war was extremely bloody, went on throughout the 1980's. Unfortunatly for Saddamm Hussein, he began to lose the war.

At that point, in comes the United States in the form of Donald Rumsfled sent to Saddam Hussein by President Reagan to tell him, "We will provide you with intelligence, we will supply you with the weapons you may need thorough covert means." It is why cynics in Washington say "We know Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We have the receipts."

This is what we mean by blowback. He remained a friend of ours right up to his invasion in the summer of 1990 of Kuwait. We became alarmed when he invaded Kuwait that he could also go on and invade Saudi Arabia itself, the largest reserves of oil on Earth. We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. It was a mistake in every sense of the term.

Remember, Osama bin Laden had said, "I resent the government of Saudi Arabia for using Americans to defend Saudi Arabia against Iraq." At that point we began to fear we were going to lose our position in Saudi Arabia. Well the second largest source of proven reserves on earth are in Iraq. This leads us now to demonize our previous ally and to prepare the American public for the thought that we must take him out.

Presidential candidate and Texas Representative Ron Paul brought up the issue of "blowback" in the debate last night and has since been blasted by conservatives for daring to suggest 9/11 was in any way our fault. I believe he handled himself very well in harsh light day on Hannity and Colmes last night (hat tip to Crooks and Liars).

I never understood why it was so outrageous to think that the terrorists who attacked us on that horrible day had some defensible vendetta against the United States. I for one do not believe we should lump "terrorists" into convenient categories such as "evil-doers." I certainly don't think they have a legitimate excuse to attack Americans, I'm just saying their reasons, given their unique, individual experiences with U.S. foreign policy seem to explain why a certain group of people in this world hate us.

They don't hate us because women can vote. They don't despise us because we have the right to speak freely. They have simply experienced the day-to-day hell that has been inflicted, either directly or indirectly, by our government's actions in the world. Look at what happens in Iraq day in and day out and tell me you can't understand why someone would take arms against our country (or dare to attack us on our own soil). Again, not to say I defend their reasons...I simply acknowledge that they have a position.

I think what Ron Paul said last night at the debate is what Americans need to hear in this national contest: honest, frank conversation that seeks to uncover the root of the problems that our forces are facing today. Maybe if we considered things like "blowback" when we decide to unilaterally impose our will on another country, things like 9/11 would not happen. Again, wrongs made by elements of the military-industrial complex and not everyday Americans who somehow invited tragedy on that fateful day.

I find this incredibly entralling and it would be even more interesting to see more of this in our national debate.

It turns out Jerry Falwell, founder of the "moral majority," has died at the age of 73.

Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority Founder, Dies at 73
By Peter Applebome
New York Times

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the fundamentalist preacher who founded the Moral Majority and brought the language and passions of religious conservatives into the hurly-burly of American politics, died yesterday in Lynchburg, Va. He was 73.

His death was announced by Liberty University, in Lynchburg, where Mr. Falwell, its founder, was chancellor. The university said the cause had not been determined, adding that he died in a hospital after being found unconscious in his university office yesterday morning.

Mr. Falwell went from a Baptist preacher in Lynchburg to a powerful force in electoral politics, at home in both the millennial world of fundamentalist Christianity and the earthly blood sport of the political arena.

As much as anyone, he helped create the religious right as a political force, defined the issues that would energize it for decades and cemented its ties to the Republican Party.

Am I sad that Jerry Falwell is dead and gone? Hell no. He was a hateful, narrow-minded man who empowered a generation of hateful, ignorant, like-minded bigots to rise up against innocent people they disdain and refuse to accept. Would you honor the life of a racist man if you were black and witnessed first-hand the effects of polarizing hate perpetuated by that one man?

I find it insulting to read certain red blogs that are playing "gotcha!" with other left-leaning sites for taking a shots at the holy man. If my prayers would be for anyone, it would be for the man's family and loved ones. They are the ones who deserve mercy, but not that hateful man, one who spoke these shocking words after one of our country's most tragic events:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' ~ Jerry Falwell, September 11, 2001

In the coming years, that man will be remembered more for his hateful, polarizing rhetoric against gays and lesbians than for his upholding of the faithful tenets of Jesus Christ. Anyone who hesitates in this fact will grow to regret it in the coming years and decades. This man is a dinosaur and the world is better now that he has passed.

One of those "green vegetable" films I've had on my Netflix queues for a while is the 2005 documentary Why We Fight. The film explores the now long-established American industry that makes war and purports to defend this nation from threats both foreign and domestic — an entity dubbed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander during World War II and two-term president, as the military-industrial complex.

The concept of a military-industrial complex is something not easily grasped by someone from my generation. The apparatus itself is not wholly visualized in a government building or agency. It is not limited to one group of people or particular creed to statue. The first time I ever heard the term was in my high school history class where my teacher went to the extraordinary precaution of closing the door and swearing us all to secrecy while he divulged his theory as to who was really responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The movie never directly addressed these controversial judgments of history, but it did hit on one event that I will likely fully conceptualize throughout my entire adult life: The Iraq War.

Ever since I was a young boy, I have heard of the evils of Saddam Hussein and how imperative it was to U.S. interest to eliminate him from the world. I have never been personally slighted or directly influenced by the evils of this man, but I have nonetheless heard the steady drumbeat of war coming from the mouths of politicians, whether on Capitol Hill or on the Sunday morning talk shows, since the early nineties and to the final days leading to March 19, 2003, when George W. Bush ordered U.S. military forces to end the Iraq regime and uncover the fabled "weapons of mass destruction."

I remember that day very well. I was in my hotel room on my spring break vacation in New Orleans. I was with my friends Missy, Sonya and Ilya and we had just recently arrived in New Orleans and were preparing to go out for the evening. I paid particular attention to the television screen that evening as the opening shots of the war were fired. I remember hearing Sonya ask why I would watch something so uninteresting and I couldn't help but point out the seriousness of history that was occurring at that very moment. That moment was as serious then and it was a turning point for all Americans, whether they tacitly approved of our involvement and turned their televisions off that evening and slept soundly or if they very earnestly tried to convince their politicians to change course and sat awake fearful of the results of our actions.

The film seizes on this shared experience we all have and attempts to connect the invisible, faceless machine that is the military-industrial complex the Eisenhower choose to warn Americans about in his waning days in power. The film attempts to explain why America fights in conflicts around the world and tries to uncover the shifty, mysterious agendas of public figures, corporations and shadowy think tanks that collectively built the machine that paved our way into the conflict.

As an concerned American and journalist, I look at the Iraq War, like many, with increasing impatience and anger. Is this the conflict our president said was ours to fight in the wake of 9/11? Did we truly enter this war with no exit strategy or were these policymakers neglecting to tell us the whole truth on the subject — that we would never leave.

The role of the military-industrial complex might not be the whole bogeyman the film paints it as. There are some conclusions drawn in the war, especially regarding American motivations at the end of the Second World War and at the beginning of the Atomic Age, that my roommate and I openly objected to while watching the film. But the film's detailed exploration of the military-industrial complex, from the larger conflict today to its affects on ordinary people with ordinary lives as military contractors, soldiers and weapons engineers, is very accurate and eye opening, especially to someone who might be completely unaware of the beast that lives in breaths in and out of our government today.

No one should watch this movie without an open mind and willingness to engage the facts in open discourse. As Eisenhower said in his closing address, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." While many in the annals of history have failed their countrymen in this endeavor, anyone hoping to conceptualize today what Eisenhower warned of so long ago cannot do so blindly and without a firm grasp of the facts at hand.

Please watch this film.

They may have passed quietly, but I heard it. And thankfully the sound is still ringing in my ear.

New Order, one of the most enigmatic and inventive bands of the last 30 years, have finally called it quits. The band formed from the band Joy Division after the suicide of Ian Curtis. They have produced hits such as "Blue Monday," "True Faith," "Crystal," "Age of Consent" and "Bizarre Love Triangle," by far my favorite. Bassist Peter Hook announced the band's split on his MySpace blog on Wednesday:

life goes on!
http://myspace.com/180575671

well here we go again another action packed week.

i suppose it was the interview with clint boon that started it all off hed asked me for a few words on perry farrells satellite party single dogstar [which he thought was great] so i went on and lo and behold mentioned the N>O> split so i suppose because it was me sayin it it was out at last. im relieved really hated carryin on as normal with an awful secret so lets move on shall we?

It was as recently as Friday night that I was driving with Natalie rocking out to "Age of Consent" on the lonely drive back from Fresno. I've even turned her on to the band, burning her a copy of Power, Corruption & Lies, the bands seminal 1983 album that beget "Blue Monday," which still influences artists in the realm of Trance and House music.

New Order is part of my own personal trifecta of musical groups that I'm always citing: garbage, New Order and The Cure. Garbage announced Friday that their long-expected greatest hits album Absolute Garbage would be hitting stores soon and The Cure have been riding rumors of a new album since the whole of 2006. I had heard New Order was keen on releasing a new album from their Waiting for the Sirens' Call recording session, but now that is a big question.

This isn't the first time New Order has ducked from the music scene. Between the release of Republic and the recording of Get Ready in 1993 and 1998 respectively, New Order seemed a lost relic of the '80s. Hopefully they can demonstrate the resilience and fortitude to reunite and forge another album to close out the decade, or at least bring us into the next. They are talented and timeless musicians and I am very sorry I may never have the opportunity to see them play again.

For now, I'll leave you with the video for "Krafty," from the Waiting for the Sirens' Call album, which helped to rescue me from a endless, consuming depression.

"You caught me at a bad time / So why don't you piss off..." ~New Order, "Your Silent Face," Power, Corruption & Lies

When a classified ad appeared in the Fresno Bee last month looking for the owner of a lost goldfish, David Letterman couldn't help but bite. But the Fresno Bee bit off a little more than it could chew:

'Reunion' turns out to be just one big fish tale
By Cyndee Fontana
Fresno Bee

Did you hear the one about the fat, blind goldfish rescued off a lawn and reunited with his owner?

Turns out it was more than just a fish story. It was a hoax.

Wednesday -- when The Bee published an article about Charley the goldfish's reunion with his owner -- some readers called to blow holes in the story.

Charley is real. So are Lori Igasan and Bernadette Planting, the two women featured in the article. But they're not strangers to each other, as they told reporter Will Albritton, and good old Charley never was lost or discovered on Igasan's lawn.

"Journalists are trained to be skeptical, but at some point we have to take people at their word," said Betsy Lumbye, executive editor and senior vice president of The Bee. "We're disappointed that these ladies weren't honest, and disappointed that we didn't catch the hoax."

Both women said they meant no harm with their yarn, which started with a classified ad in The Bee and achieved minor notoriety on "Late Show with David Letterman."

To Igasan and Planting, friends for several years, it was simply a joke.

"It was not our intention to hurt anybody," said Igasan, who launched the hoax with an ad that read: "Found: Large, obese goldfish. Approx 11yrs old, blind as a bat."

Igasan said the ad was part joke, part genuine effort to unload a fish she no longer wanted. She said she received about 150 telephone calls.

I know it's kind of hard when the sources are working against you, but you've got to admit the story sounded a little fishy from the get go. This particular story got my attention mostly because they did a video story on it and that's interesting to me because I'm our newspaper's new multimedia reporter. The story was so-so, and now it's a complete fraud.

I think more should have been done but whatever. It was fun while it lasted.

I'm kind of in one of those funks at the moment but I feel it may soon translate into some more entries. Hooray! Next week should be better!