Emotional Revue

If you've ever thought to yourself, "man, I wish the American media wasn't biased against Palestine," you should probably be reading The Angry Arab News Service.

"News Service" is perhaps a bit misleading, because for Americans that signifies a stereotype of supposed cool, impartiality, and words like "mediated", and "balanced".

Of course, if you know even a bit about the issues, you know all of those ideals of media are a crock of shit. And this is why As'ad AbuKhalil's site is excellent, because it makes no attempts to be any of those things.

He posts the news of course, and his reactions to the news, but this is information that is theoretically already available to anyone on the internet. The reason I appreciate his site is because he adds a certain emotion to the news, which is against the idea of "un-bias", and precisely what is missing from consideration of the issues. During the invasion of Iraq, he posted photos and news reports, but he also posted poetry from Arab poets describing the emotions of the time. When I say that American media is biased against Palestine, this is what I believe is missing from the news. Its the anger, the ability to commiserate, and the feeling of suffering. We feel these things towards Darfur, or towards other genocides, or towards ourselves. But every news article about Palestine is steeped in the rhetoric of terrorism, which of course affects Americans in their own small appreciation of suffering, and immediately galvanizes the issue. Terrorism is the apprehension of horror from the perspective of the state--it makes the people a simple constitutency rather than a body, and favors pluses such as "security", "information", and "control", rather than safety, knowledge, and freedom. Americans don't know what it is like to be bombed from above, to be shelled, or to have soliders in our streets--perhaps this is simply our reverse-tragic benefit of history, for which we are not worthy. We only know reports, data, video feed--the abstractions of fear. But by reading As'ad AbuKhalil's site, we might be able to find a taste of the anger and horror of those who have, or those who have not forgotten how to have such emotion.

An example: As'ad AbuKhalil recently debated the Israeli Consul General of San Francisco. Americans, especially liberal democrats, in my experience, have a certain holy appreciation for terms like "fair debate", "free speech", and "rational dialogue." As such, I might imagine that they would be slightly horrified by emotions and actions such as these. But then, rather than having the anger he has, they have instead a great, unmediated swath of "un-bias" filling their minds. Here is As'ad AbuKhalil's own description of the debate, posted in full, so as not to break up the context (link to the original on his blog):

So I had a long day yesterday. I woke up late, but I had a deep sleep. During the day, I was preserving my voice. I had these Halls drops and would avoid talking on the phone. The few times I spoke on the phone, I had to say that I was preserving my voice for the debate. And at one point yesterday, Amer asked me about preparation. I had to say: that this is a job that I have been preparing for all my life. Two days ago, I jotted down some notes here in bed, and I had to throw the notebook after a few minutes because I got mad. Usually, when I have to deal with a debate of this kind, I remind myself of the massacres that Israel committed against our people: one after the other. I know the sources and the facts, so I only write down an outline of what I am about to say. I arrive there and I get pissed early on--which is a good thing for my debate performance. I learned there that originally one professor was going to invite the Israeli Consul General by himself, until somebody else suggested that maybe somebody else with a different point of view should be invited. I go there and I notice heavy security and police presence. I then meet the professor who was going to moderate the debate. We go to the hall and I notice that there are two chairs and two name signs: for me and for him (the Israeli representative of the usurping entity). I did not like the arrangement. So I tell her: I don't want to sit next to him. I would like you as a moderator to sit between us. She asked me whether I was kidding. I said: do you see me in a joking mode? Do you see me kidding with you? You think that this is a joking matter for me? She realized--let me just say--that Angry Arab was not kidding. She said that she was planning to make her remarks and sit in the audience. I said: that is easy: instead of sitting here, we can move your chair to separate between me and him. I also was told that she (or the university) was planning to host a reception for the two guests before somebody who knew about me told them: I can assure you that As`ad will not agree to a reception with the Israeli diplomat. So the reception was scrapped. I then told the host that I will not be recognizing or talking with the Israeli guest. She looked baffled but nervous. She asked me why do I have these positions? I said you will understand after you hear my remarks. She was getting more nervous, I could tell, by the minute. She then upset me more by saying something about "academic" environment or collegiality and then added something about "us" getting along. I was more angry at that. I got more angry (but that was a good preparation for my debate) and said: this is no joke or a game or schtick for me. This is about killing 400 Palestinian children in Gaza in three weeks. I don't "get along" and I don't want to "get along." The security and the police only got more visible and more extensive. The moderator then remarked that the security was required for "his safety" in reference to the Israeli speaker. I was here more pissed (all that getting angry before the debate was preparation as far as I was concerned). I said: what about my safety? Did that enter into the picture? or do Arabs don't deserve safety? They were searching backpacks and I was told that he notified police and various security agencies. I sat there and I was happy before the debate to see my students from California State University, Stanislaus. I had to warn them: You will see a different side to me from the one you see in the classroom, I said. I then met a Palestinain student from the University of San Francisco: probably the only one on campus. I also saw a student of mine from 7 years ago or more. While I was seated in my place (with the moderator now seated in the middle), I see the shadow of a man (because I made a point of not looking) come in front of me and extend his hand and say: Nice to meet you, professor. Hi Professor. I kept looking straight, as if there was no one in front of me. He repeated that a few times: and I kept totally ignoring him completely. He then gave up (finally) and took his seat. I can really tell you that I debated a man yesterday but I don't know what he looked like. I did not look at him or address him once. I have no idea what he looked like. And during the talk, he at one point asked me to look him, but I of course ignored him. He then looked at the audience and said that I have not looked at him and that I didn't shake his hands and that I refuse to humanize him. I muttered into the microphone: that I see them the way they see the children of Gaza. During dinner with Amer and Riad both commented to me that they would have had difficulting ignoring him the way I did but Amer added that me being so lacking in shyness, timidity, or the need to be polite helps me in those situations. It is so easy for me to be socially rude, when I want to. I had to tell them: are you kidding? These are my favorite moments when I ignore an Israeli who is trying to greet me or shake my hand. The president of the University came personally to greet...the Israeli guest. One university administrator noticed that and expressed his displeasure to me. The moderator did not even flip a coin or ask about who would speak first, but simply gave him the opporutnity to speak first. Of course, she did not know that I always prefer to go second because I get to say what I want and then respond to what was said before me. We also had five minutes to respond after the presentations. Now here you must understand that I cant evaluate my own performance or say how I did. I will leave that to witnesses or your own opinions when you watch it on video. Yes, I am told it was taped and will provide you with further information. As soon as it was my turn, I felt a rush. My voice was back in full force and I could sing Fayruz at that point. There was a woman who came with the diplomat and she was sitting in the front raw and after two minutes of my talk, I could see her squirm and look with sympathy at her Israeli colleague. I could not read her face but felt that she was telling him that "we did not expect this would happen." But it happened, and As`ad was on a roll. I can't tell you how I did but I can tell you that I really enjoyed the task and would do it at the drop of a hat, and would waive my speaking fee for it. When I came to the US and I used to watch debates between Israeli and Arab speakers, and I always found myself being critical of style and substance. I had no excuse: when I am debating, I can say what I want. So I can do it my way, and I did it my way last night. I explained to the audience about my policy: I said that I want you all to know that my pariticpation was at the invitation of the University of San Francisco and that I strictly adhere to the boycott of Israel and I call on them all to boycott Israel at all levels. I told them that I met I(armed) Israelis first under occuapation in South Lebanon in 1982, and I resolved then that I would meet them only on my terms. I explained to them that I am strict against terrorists and terrorism: that I am opposed to any deal or negotiations with Al-Qa`idah or with Bin Laden and accordingly, I am opposed to any deal or compromise with the state that pioneered the practice of terrorism in the region. And I went on. The moderator was clearly nervous. I told her that later: she was getting nervous as soon as I spoke. She told me that she never gets nervous. I said: well, I saw you nervous many times today. The audience was largely sympathetic to the Palestinian view and most were very knowledgeable of the issues and many had been to Palestine which put the Israeli speaker in a difficult position--not that I felt sorry for him. There was a British visiting professor at Stanford (who has a teaching job in France) who kept yelling at the Israeli speaker. He was so furious. Amer, and Riad and I later commented that it is rare to see an American professor venting such anger at an Israeli speaker. By the time I finished my first 20 minutes presentation, I was relieved. I felt that I did my job although I said more later. But I felt that I was pleased with how things went. I will let you know when the video will be uploaded (I am told that the first 20 minutes (the presentation of the Israeli speakr) is mysterisly missing from the university taping. Oh, and during the talk, I did criticize the moderator. At one point in the Q and A, I was making a point, and the moderator started to interrupt me. I said: look. I can tell that you have been nervous regarding my attitude since I started talking. I said that it was clear that you were not expecting this: it is clear that you were expecing an Arab who would hold hands with the Isareli speaker, and that I was disappionting you but that I would say what I want and in my own way. On the way driving back at night, they called me from AlJazeera Arabic to offer some remarks about US reactions to Lieberman's remarks. I agreed: they called me and I started yelling in my cellphone but my voice was weak by that point. It was a long day: statisfying (for me) but long. But lest we lose sight of the realities, I told Amer and Riad that no matter who won the debate, they still occupy the lands and they still kill our people.

How I spend my precious evenings...?

UPDATE: In case you figured I was just being dramatic when I accused the democrats of invoking ideology to gain political power on the back of a tragedy bigger than 9/11: here's an article that is also dramatic.

I just got home from an eleven hour day at work, and now I'm listening to Greenspan's testimony today in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

What the hell is wrong with me?

Anyway, it's really cute to hear Greenspan "discover a flaw" in his free market philosophy. He makes it sound like a spelling mistake.

We "discovered a flaw" in this handgun; rather than shoot a bullet in the direction it is aimed, it triggers a fission reaction. Damn, if only we didn't see this sooner.

But seriously.

The most interesting part to me is the introduction by chairman Henry Waxman and the "response" statement by ranking Republican Tom Davis. It is nothing really out of the ordinary; Democrat praises regulation, Republican blames big government for the problem from the beginning.

But their rhetoric is most interesting. In fact, it reminds me of rhetoric I've heard before. See if you can guess what it is.

D: "In each case, corporate excess and greed enriched company executives at enormous cost to shareholders and our economy." - blaming a isolated class of villians, attributing destructive actions to moral turpitude

R: "No one is minimizing or defending corporate malfeasance, and we share the outrage most Americans feel at the greed that blinded Wall Street to its civic duty to protect Main Street. But this Committee can take a broader view of the patchwork of federal financial regulators built by accretion after each cyclical crisis, and artificially subdivided behind Congress’ jurisdictional walls. No single agency, by action or omission, caused this crisis and no existing agency alone can repair the damage or prevent the next, some believe inevitable, boom and bust. " - pleading to not reduce the discussion to knee-jerk reactions, expressing a realist interpretation over populist ideology

D: "The Federal Reserve had the authority to stop the irresponsible lending practices that fueled the subprime mortgage market. But its long-time Chairman, Alan Greenspan, rejected pleas that he intervene. The SEC had the authority to insist on tighter standards for credit rating agencies. But it did nothing despite urgings from Congress. The Treasury Department could have led the charge for responsible oversight of financial derivatives. Instead, it joined the opposition. The list of regulatory mistakes and misjudgments is long, and the cost to taxpayers and our economy is staggering. The SEC relaxed leverage standards on Wall Street. The Offices of Thrift Supervision and the Comptroller of the Currency preempted state efforts to protect homebuyers from predatory lending. And the Justice Department slashed its efforts to prosecute white collar fraud." - blaming the opposition party's support of the transgressor for the transgression, and painting them as traitors

R: "The words “regulation” and “deregulation” are not absolute goods and evils, nor are they meaningful policy prescriptions." - please, let us think logically rather than morally! We aren't criminals for trusting them!

D: "But this deregulatory philosophy spread across government. It explains why lead got into our children’s toys and why evacuees from Hurricane Katrina were housed in trailers filled with formaldehyde." - not only are our enemies evil, they hate children and black people!

R: "In this political season, the search for villains is understandable and in some respects, healthy. While we’re at it, we might ask ourselves why this Committee didn’t convene these hearings last March, when market turbulence first turned toxic. There’s plenty of blame to go around as we try to unravel the wildly complex tangle of people, private companies, government agencies, and market forces that is choking modern capitalism. We’ve all played a part in this crisis, and we’ve all learned invaluable lessons." - can't you see, we're the reason this happened! You and me, Waxman! Aren't we, Americans, the one's who are really to blame?

D: "But the issues we are examining are of immense importance to our nation. I am proud of the work we are doing and especially the contributions of the members of this Committee." -finish up with a good ol' 'god bless us, everyone!' That unity shit really drags 'em in.

R: "But retribution needs to be tempered by wisdom. [...] We’re learning some expensive lessons, and we should put them to good use." - for god's sake, think with your head and not your asshole!


Get it? Political party uses catastrophe beyond anyone's imagination as a spectacle to attain political ascendency, where they will make a lot of noise, but generally fuck things up for eight years until it's time to do it again.

And before you question my taste in making such a comparison, think: which event will cost the most lives and well-being--the war on terror or the collapse of the world economy (far worse in the third world than here, obviously, in both cases).

And for goodness sake, I'm not republican! I just hate the obvious use of ideology, especially right out of the playbook of those to whom you are supposed to be in opposition! It's just so obvious, it makes me want to puke.

At least the liberals are seizing their moment, and not letting it pass them by. The only thing that the average american hates as much as people of another race is rich people. I guess the environment and peace are kind of wussy causes, whereas, attacking rich bankers is like shooting... well, rich people.

All kidding aside, I would really hate it if this crisis in the economy became the liberals' 9/11. What we are witnessing is perhaps one of the most profound, real-world economics lessons for which one could hope. It is the true-to-life failure of surplus value! The one thing economists always say about Marx--real ecnomists that is, because they have read Marx, even if they disagree with him; just being rich and hating communism doesn't make you an economist, sad to say--real economists say that the theory of surplus value is not in line with the realities of venture capitalism. In other words, the theory of surplus value doesn't explain how you can make money from nothing.

Now, I'm not an economist, (but not because I haven't read Marx) but it seems as if the continuous expansion of debt economics into an endless series of derivatives shows the fallacy of investments based on surplus value. You are abstracting the future; the "promise to pay". Abstracting, and quantifying. However, as we have seen, the promise to pay often does not equal the eventually payment. Surplus (being the benefit of the contractor at the expense of the contractee) that was valued as something is actually nothing, and the large-scale evaporation of supposed "value" makes a venture just a scam. It's like in the cartoons when someone is hanging off the edge of a cliff on a rope, and the person holding the rope hands it to another person who hands it to another person who hands it to no one--everything hangs it mid-air for a second, and then the person and the rope fall down the cliff.

These are the sorts of conversations that we should be having--why is the economy fucked? Because it is an economy of debt--it is an economy where contracts create surplus value (it's called usury) from nothing, and then sell this nothing to someone else. The worker is just another contractee. And if you can't sub-contract what you sold into contract, i.e., if you've got nothing other than your hands and your boot beneath your feet, then you are the real person that suffers.

Neither Waxman nor Davis seem interested in following up that at all. Then again, it doesn't seem that either of them have ever worn workboots in their lives.


[full text of Waxman's introduction here]
[full text of Davis' comments here]
[text of other testimony from the session]