Carville's First Corallary

I was lucky enough to have the following piece run in the opinion section of Emerson's school newspaper, The Berkeley Beacon. I hope to write for them something like every three weeks or so. I'll post my pieces here, but they may need a little contexualization. The following piece may not hold true at other institutions of higher learning, but I think that that the criticism is fair. In general, young people do not understand the economy, and make no effort to understand it. A few years ago I was having a survey discussion of all things poltics. Abortion, the war, same-sex marriage, and capital punishment all got their due, but when we came to the economy, this is what one person said: "I'm for the economy, I support it. A good economy is good." And that was it, we moved on to censorship. The entire economy summed up in one, meaningless sentance. Damn we were idiots. The following is my draft, not the edited version that appeared in the Beacon. This one is about 150 words longer. I'm really not that good at that whole brevity thing.

Since I arrived on campus this fall, I have heard the same words being used to describe Emerson College students. “Creative,” “Diverse,” and “Eccentric?” Yes, yes, and yes, I agree completely. “Politically active and aware?” Actually, not really. Although we Emersonians are passionate, the scope of our political knowledge is narrow, and when politics is discussed, we usually harp on the same, tired subjects.

Being politically aware does not mean knowing about and holding strong opinions on two, three, or four issues. It means having a handle on all aspects of current affairs, and being able to apply and discuss the government’s desired role (or desired absence) in every facet of your life.

Our student body tends to be concerned with social issues, especially abortion and same-sex marriage. As Emerson students may soon find out, putting “Legalize Same-Sex Marriage” on the campaign issues of their Facebooks does not count as political awareness.

There is another elephant in the room, and no one is talking about it: the economy. The state of our economy is the most direct determinant of the well-being and mood of the people of our country. Nothing is more crucial in the day-to-day lives of working Americans. Whether or not you have a timecard to punch and money in your pocket reigns supreme all other political issues. Three months worth of unpaid rent and an empty refrigerator sort of makes the debate over gay marriage seem petty.

This is not to say that political activism on the issue of same-sex marriage or other non-economic subjects is not admirable or not a public service. It certainly is. But there are a myriad of other issues that need to be addressed that are vitally important to our entire population, not just a small stratification of it.
Advocates for same-sex marriage argue that because the issue only directly effects same-sex couples, the rest of the population should lay down their arms and let the people whose lives it will impact have what they desperately want. It is frequently said that it is irresponsible and unfair for Congress to put so much time and energy towards efforts to abolish gay marriage. If this is true (and it is), then it is also irresponsible and unfair for intellectually gifted college students to expend the majority of their political energy on this issue and a few others.

To be completely transparent, I am personally opposed to same-sex marriage (but support legal partnership rights). Yet whether one fights for or against these social issues is irrelevant. Both sides of this debate are polarizing, and poison our political climate. We need to put things into perspective. We need to reprioritize. As a country, we have not reached the point where we can endlessly quibble at each other over these relatively inconsequential issues. We have too much left to solve, and too many problems that need solutions.

While they are important to many people in our country, the debates over gay marriage and abortion have grown into all-consuming monsters, and dominate the nation’s political discourse. After debating the issue of same-sex marriage, people are in no mood to talk about anything else. As a result of this, nothing gets done, and the maintenance of our economy has been halted in its tracks.

Anyone want to talk about our trade gap? Outsourcing? Big Oil? The estate tax? The national debt? Social security? The housing gap? CEO pay? Eminent domain? Our porous borders and hapless immigration system? I hope so. These are the exact kind of issues we need to be talking about when we are forming our generation’s vision for the future of America.

There is an economy going on, and we all need to understand it, because within the next four years, we are going to be a part of it, looking for a job. My Dad has always told me (more often in my more liberal days) that “when you grow up, you’ll understand money and you’ll understand politics.” I do not know if Emerson College students truly understand either of these, but understanding of the first leads to understanding of the other.

Emerson is an extremely liberal campus, and that is fine, as long as we look at issues all across the political spectrum, not just the “hot button” issues of the day. As James Carville once said: “It’s the economy, stupid!” I do not wish to insult the intelligence or intentions of Emerson students. It is because of our conviction and our enthusiasm that I know we can do better. So next time when you are complaining about Bush, be comprehensive: bash last year’s overtime law or CAFTA or something. Now if only we can find a way to form a Facebook group to protest corporate corruption, we may be on to something.

Democratic Majority...stop laughing, it happened.

This election was, as Jack Cafferty put it, about “Americans choosing what kind of bad government they want to have: one-party rule that will rubber stamp President Bush’s agenda, or a Congress with Democrats in charge, and nothing but gridlock and frustration for the next two years.”

Well, Americans chose door number two, and it won’t be long before we see if we have won a new car or a croquet set. We must realize that Democrats won back Congress last week in the same way the Tortoise beat the Hare: statistically, but not in their own right. Most of the Democrats’ campaign strategy comprised of shrinking quietly into the corner while Republicans floundered about in a perfect storm of political scandals and corruption. This election was very much like the elections of the Palestinian Authority last January: Fatah was corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas happened to be the only other option, so by default, they won.

I am not thrilled about the idea of a Democratic Congress, it just isn’t very inspiring. As this campaign was mostly a reflection of the implosion of Bush and the Republicans, Democrats did not have to present a cohesive set of policies. That may be a good thing for them, because if asked, they probably couldn’t have done it.

What changes will the Democrats make—what exactly do they stand for? CNN’s election exit polls tells us that the issues on voters’ minds were corruption, terrorism, the economy, and Iraq (in that order), yet the campaign yielded little in the way of Democrats’ solutions to these issues.

Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has laid out a laundry list of to-dos for the first 100 hours of the next Congress, calling it the “New Direction for America.” It is sort of like a new “Contract for America”, except made by Democrats, and heard of by no one.

Pelosi’s “New Direction”, according to HouseDemocrats.gov, includes an overhaul of ethics rules, which would, miraculously, “make this the most honest and open Congress in history.” Also on the list are raising the federal minimum wage, adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, passing a stem-cell bill, cutting interest rates for college loans in half, giving the government power to negotiate for lower drug prices, eliminating tax loopholes that outsource jobs, rescinding subsidies for Big Oil, putting money towards alternative energy sources, and adopting rules for a “pay-as-you-go”

Got all that?

If anybody happened to be wondering, 100 hours ago (if today is Thursday) was Sunday. Apparently, Nancy Pelosi is going to drink seven cups of expresso on Monday morning, lock the doors of the House chamber and not let anyone leave the floor until all this stuff gets done. If she can pull this off in one workweek, we can only imagine how much she will be able to accomplish in two years.

Now, I realize this is mostly political grandstanding. Pelosi is trying to shoot the moon, and if she falls short, so what, she has the rest of her term to work with. In my mind, if she can get two or three of these things accomplished in her first week, it would be a success. But is how she expects things to work? That she can throw some pixie dust in the air and effortlessly pass a bill? I sincerely hope that Pelosi is not as naïve as this list of 100 hours’ work suggests.

Mrs. Pelosi, take note—it’s not as easy as Schoolhouse Rock. Republicans had majorities in the House and Senate and Bush in the White House this past term and got nothing done. The Democrats’ majorities are smaller, and they will have to get through President Bush to pass anything, as they certainly will not be able to override his veto. The Republicans—still a very formidable minority, will make every effort to block the Democrats’ agenda, just as Democrats did to Republicans for the past two years.

It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can garner enough support to apply their agenda, however ambiguous it may be. For six years their job has been to stand in the way to slow down the charge of Bush and Company. Have their offensive muscles atrophied, or can Democrats present a political philosophy that connects with the concerns of the American people?

One thing that troubles me about the New Direction is that there is nothing regarding terrorism or Iraq. No assault rifle ban? No port-security measures? No discussion on what we can do go get out of the snake pit that is Iraq? Republican pundits may be right: the Democrats can take America in whatever direction they want, but if they ignore these key issues, a Democratic Congress might be the best thing for Republicans to run on in 2008.

How are The Sopranos and Jews connected? You'll never guess...

If you're reading a blog, I'm sure you've seen Loose Change.
It is a video that is part of the 9/11 Press for Truth organization, a loose collection of bloggers, forums, public speakers and videos that don't have any stated goals except to "expose the truth." Loose Change's creator and narrator, Dylan Avery, spliced together footage taken mainly from CNN and FOX News, along with additional footage from the Naudet Brothers (who made the documentary 9/11). Loose Change has grown in popularity since its creation, mainly spread by word of mouth and over conspiracy theory websites. In 2006 alone it had over 10 million viewers.

Immensely popular, Loose Change or its creators have made appearances in Vanity Fair, TIME Magazine, Empire Magazine and assorted smaller magazines. It has been aired on television in Pakistan, Portugal and Australia.

Dylan Avery was not a very successful man before Loose Change. He'd grown up in Oneota, New York, and by the age of 19 had applied twice to Purchase College's Film School and been rejected both times. He still holds only a high school diploma. It was his dream to be a famous director.

In May, 2002, Dylan was working construction when he ran into James Gandolfini at an opening party. That's right, the actor who plays Tony in The Sopranos. Dylan Avery apperantly cornered James Gandolfini and talked to him about his troubled film career (Dylan's, not James. James film career is going great, I hear he's getting a million an episode for Sopranos). Dylan paraphrases Gandolfini as saying, "if you want to be a successful director, you have to have something to say to the world." That month Dylan started working on Loose Change.

Originally Loose Change started as a fictional story about a group of friends that discover that their own government was behind the attacks of 9/11. Dylan himself has admitted this in an interview with "Movie Minutiae: Loose Change" :

"It was supposed to be making a fictional story about me and my friends discovering that 9/11 was an inside job, and doing something about it, and basically that happened in real life."

That fictional story was called Loose Change, and while Dylan changed the genre from fiction to fact, the name stayed. That right there is every college kid's dream, becoming famous, making a difference and living in a James Bond-type world all rolled into one. Except that it never happens.

But Dylan Avery was becoming more convinced the more old footage he surveyed. The first edition of Loose Change cost 2,000 dollars to make and is basically an hour and a half long Powerpoint. The first edition was not as well cut as the edition that followed, and Dylan was distributing it on cds that he was selling. When it was put on the internet it was originally funded and set up by one Phil Jayhan. Phil Jayhan runs letsroll911.org, a website that features Loose Change prominently. It also features a conspiracy theory that George Bush and Dick Cheney entertain male hookers (not kidding).

Loose Change is available on Google video, and held the top ranking position of most watched video until mid 2006. A Scripps Howard and Ohio University poll in July 2006, in the height of Loose Change frenzy, came up with these numbers. 16% of the respondents said "it's very likely" or "somewhat likely"..... "that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings." And 12% said that they "suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than an airliner captured by terrorists."

How just is it to promote such theories? The families of those aboard Flight 93 have been regarding their dead loved ones as heroes for years, and now there is a new view, on the most watched online video, that their loved one is alive somewhere, kept in an unused NASA station (this is actually asserted in the video). Is this an appropriate message to be sending to the public? To decide this I took a look at the 9/11 Truth Movement and its intentions.

Phil Jayhan, another member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, runs the website letsroll911.org. There he promotes Loose Change and other conspiracies. He is also known for suggesting that the September 11th attacks were caused by Jews. That's right, letsroll911.org suggests that a cabal of Jewish bankers control the world and orchestrate events like this to steal money and manipulate nations. He is also intensely anti-Israeli, and on his site you will find links to anti-Zionism sites that portray 9/11 as an attempt by Israel to gain more leverage in the Middle East. The words "Zionism" and "Zionist" pop up a lot on sites like letsroll911.org. And that site is considered a prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

And Loose Change is heavily connected to the 9/11 Truth Movement. In Loose Change there is a part where it states who the film is "Featuring Research" from. One of the four researchers is a blogger whose forum name is Killtown. The following is a quote by Killtown, posted on a holocaust forum.

"I've always had a problem with the claimed number of Jews that allegedly died there [Auschwitz]. I keep hearing "6 million" or "1.5 million" that alone is a HUGE discrepancy. Some say the number was as low as 280,000.
Suspecting what the Israeli/Palestine conflict is really about, the strong evidence Israel was involved with 9/11, and seeing how 9/11 was faked in general, it makes me wonder how much of the Holocaust was true or not."

All through Loose Change the screen zooms in and circles or focuses on one article of text. But almost all of those articles are articles that appeared in The American Free Press. The American Free Press is a political magazine that many have declared to be neo-Nazi, and takes a very strong anti-Israeli stance. It also features articles about a Jewish takeover of the world.

If one looks deep enough into the 9/11 Truth Movement, if one clicks on the links on the side of the many sites, there is usually a shadowy underground of anti-Semitic views, bigotry, and sometimes utter insanity.

A constant criticism of Loose Change has been that it cherry picked facts and photographs. I see little difference (in terms of moral intent) in cherry picking facts and photographs to promote a conspiracy theory or to promote a way in Iraq. This is called a documentary and thus degrades all documentaries. Loose Change makes it so when real independent investigative journalism comes along, the American public is likely to dismiss it.

Dylan Avery now appears constantly on talk shows and in news articles, and is becoming a recognizable face. on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 he was portrayed as a leader of the crowd of people standing outside Ground Zero. But he still has a facebook account. Reading an excerpt from that, it is easy to see the teenager with a high school diploma behind this phenomena.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006.
"its my birthday. again.

yeehaw i'm 23. i can.... be a year older. when i turn 25 i can rent a car, so there's something to look forward to.

thanks for all the well wishes, guys. i read almost every single one. don't be concerned, btw, just because we're driving around los angeles and meeting with charlie sheen doesn't mean we're letting fame get to our heads. it means we're making the necessary moves to get the truth into theaters next fall. that's all.

i'll always be a hippie from upstate new york. :D"

Dylan Avery was a hippie from upstate New York. While working construction because he had been rejected twice by a film school he got advice to shock the American public from Tony of the Sopranos, then he spliced together a fictional film about a group of friends finding out that 9/11 was an inside job, then he became convinced that his fictional film was real and started marketing it online to people like Phil Jayhan, who runs an anti-Semitic website, then he used sources from an anti-Semitic newspaper in his once-fiction-now-fact documentary, and research from a Holocaust-denier, and then it became one of the most watched videos on the web, and four years after he started in May 2002, he is riding around Los Angeles meeting Charlie Sheen.

Dylan Avery is certainly living his dream as a great director, with his own studio company and his own star power. But is it really clear that he's doing this to expose the truth? Or is he just living out a fantasy? And if he is just living out a fantasy, is it right to take the American public along for the ride?