In reading Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie, Reverend Mother holds a seminal point of gravity in the patchwork of characters for his fictional tale. Naseem Aziz not only imbues the culture, gender, sex, nation and history of India, but as wife to Aadam, also becomes the symbolic mother of India.
Reverend Mother, like Christian patron saints, holy Hindu gods and sacred Muslim shrines, is exalted above the masses through deeds and words; she lives in “an invisible fortress of her own making, an ironclad citadel of traditions and certainties” (p. 40), where few souls dare challenge her bearing; her name alone commands profound respect; authority and power over her dominion: home, children and by extension, nation.
Her five children, Alia, Mumtaz, Hanif, Mustapha and Emerald are Reverend Mother’s dowry to India; and through fits and starts, the children add their individual footprints to the historical narratives.
Reverend Mother nourishes India according to customs and traditions; and what meals she doles out are exclusively within her domain of power; and when errant children or husband offend her, she can withdraw life-sustaining provisions until the matter is resolved to her satisfaction.
In the novel, readers come to know Reverend Mother through her willful acts of defiance, delusional self-righteousness and petulant self-denial; but in the end, readers also see a Naseem who remains faithful to her initial core; and her fidelity casts a light on her intermittent silence, almost as if to pay homage to periods of time when mere words betray through misstatements; when only “whatitsname” can convey the deepest breadth of her thoughts, the “fortress” of her mind.
For what are readers to make of Reverent Mother’s extemporaneous use of “whatsitsname” with every sentence, as an adjective, noun or verb? Could this “leitmotif,” as Saleem calls it, be much more than a musical recurring passage, but in fact the recurrent failure of words to express the fullness of truth she beholds? (p. 41). After all, Reverend Mother had the power to invade dreams (p. 58-59) and had often foretold future family woes (p. 312). Had she been able to define all the whats that are in a name, would anyone have believed her? Did they believe Saleem?
Rushdie, the expatriate writer flawlessly fits the “intelligentsia ‘intellectual’” constructed by Mira Yuval-Davis in Gender and Nation by “creat[ing] and reproduc[ing] nationalistic ideologies…of oppressed collectivities” (p. 2). Reverend Mother is Rushdie’s symbolic “border guard” who “identif[ies] people as members or non-members of [his] specific collectivity” (p. 23). Moreover, Rushdie “restore[s] the past to [himself]” (p.10) with the “vivid colors” of Reverend Mother’s personality and allegiance to her truth.
Yes, rather than acquiesce, Reverend Mother chooses the sword of silence to “remain immured” against her perceived family follies. By her silence, she speaks her unimpeded truth as keeper of the faith. And yet even when speaking, her razor-sharp tongue also communicates her integrity, such as when the actress wife of her son, Hanif (pp. 277-278), who would later betray her husband, received her wrath; or when the ill-fated wedding of her daughter, Mumtaz, to Nadir Khan disintegrated in futility and she spoke after three years of silence; or when Ahmed refused to address his financial ruin and, Reverend Mother jumps into action and commands, “This is no time to hide in bed…Now he must be a man, whatsitsname, and do a man’s business” (p. 157).
Quite possibly Reverend Mother’s greatest gift to the story and by extension, India, is her relational “extension of kinship” (p. 1) to “undesirables” by way of Saleem. Nazeem, the matriarch, precedes her sex. And her act of kindness to Saleem precedes genealogy (p. 8). With one sublime clutch of the poor boy to her “bosom,” Reverend Mother “legitimized [Saleem]; there was no one to oppose her” (p. 324), even though Saleem did not have one drop of her blood, he had the blood of her nation, which he was rightfully claiming. .

In a self-directed online poll by Virginian-Pilot, respondents were split on the idea of lifting a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the Virginia coastlines.

Should Gov. Kaine veto a bill that supports lifting a federal moratorium on oil and gas drilling off Virginia’s coast?

Yes
47.47%
No50.38% Not sure 2.16%Total: 4359 votes

Poor environmentalists, doesn't look like their campaign to ring the alarm is working.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that Kaine is not committed one way or the other; he indicated he had not read the full bill and could not comment on whether he would support the bill or not.

A Kaine spokeswoman, Delacey Skinner, described Wagner's bill as "very complex" and said the governor will look at it "very closely" before responding.

In the past, Skinner said, Kaine has "indicated a willingness to discuss the possibility" of offshore drilling but with "clear parameters" to protect the coast. Kaine must act by April 10.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach; beach property owners are none too happy with Señor Wagner; tourism, after all, is their number one cash crop.

In a self-directed online poll by Virginian-Pilot, respondents were split on the idea of lifting a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the Virginia coastlines.

Should Gov. Kaine veto a bill that supports lifting a federal moratorium on oil and gas drilling off Virginia’s coast?

Yes
47.47%
No50.38% Not sure 2.16%Total: 4359 votes

Poor environmentalists, doesn't look like their campaign to ring the alarm is working.

The Pilot reports that Kaine is not committed one way or the other; he indicated he had not read the full bill and could not comment.

A Kaine spokeswoman, Delacey Skinner, described Wagner's bill as "very complex" and said the governor will look at it "very closely" before responding.

In the past, Skinner said, Kaine has "indicated a willingness to discuss the possibility" of offshore drilling but with "clear parameters" to protect the coast. Kaine must act by April 10.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach; beach property owners are none too happy with Señor Wagner; tourism, after all, is their number one cash crop.

The Bad Guys are Us

Accustomed to seeing Bond movies and Russians with bad accents as arch villains, or Arab terrorists on Fox's 24 as the updated version of evil, it's alarming to note how pop culture in other countries increasingly portrays Americans as the bad guys.

During any clash between countries and cultures, each sees reality through their nationalistic rose-colored glasses; and true to form, the Washington Post writes this morning about the unfavorable light of our government is depicted in plays, movies and television in the Middle East.

In "The Night Baghdad Fell," a new popular film in Egypt, America comes across as the Ugly American. In the movie, loomings of a US invasion prompt a teacher to recruit his former student to save the nation by building a weapon to stop the intrusion; but alas, the weapon fails as the hash smoking would-be soldier dreams about wild sex with Condoleezza Rice on his wedding night.

Can you think of anything so gross?!? Even Egyptians feel the sentiment goes too far.

It seems during the last couple of years, Americans have started to be depicted as "bullies, rapists and mindless killers." And that's on the light side. In story after story thread, "yanks emerge as [the] bad guys," with one play using ushers dressed as "wild-eyed" Marines, and another one blowing up the Statue of Liberty.

Yes, "We're the heavies," the Post admonishes.

Guess we can't complain too much in light of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA secret renditions, and Lord only knows what else.

Introspection during the last year has led a few disenchanted Democrats to begin to blog; it certainly guided me to start daily rants at Howling Latina; and to that end, I recently wrote about the pesky question of spirit, chance, war, chaos, Bush and Iraq.

For people of faith, the topic of war and suffering is difficult to reconcile with a loving Higher Power. God allows bad things to happen, even Billy Graham acknowledged as much during an interview with Newsweek.

Yet even the most hardened agnostic cannot deny the sacred synchronicities in their lives – for good or ill – including the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

If they're honest, the cynical nonbeliever must concede that in 2000 the universe aligned her planets against Gore. I mean, with a third party, left/center candidate, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, bad Gore press, what else could have gone wrong except a loss in spite of win?

Equal to task for John Kerry, 2004 had an ill-wind union with a frightened nation, supine media, baseless swiftboating and bin Laden's improviso right before election. A little bit of this and a little bit of that, a Gore or Kerry win, and the whole war business might’ve have been avoided or already concluded.

So what are we to make of this mess called the Bush presidency and his bastard child, Iraq? How will thousands of lost lives in Iraq bring about a greater good, if one believes that goodness ultimately prevails? And how will a Republican Congress, White House and now Supreme Court work together towards greater equality and social justice for all?

When I first wrote about the subject, I had no answer, only questions. Yet after reading Graham's words and writing about the soon-to-come third anniversary of the Iraqi War, I found my answer in both the sacred and secular.

First the sacred:

“Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God. You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives (Genesis 50:20).

And now the secular, accepted scientific theory:

In perfect symmetry, the universe incorporates atoms in time and space made of negative charges in the electron, which are then held together with positive charges in their nucleus.

Both schools of thought promise balance in the end; and so it stands to reason that everything we now decry in the Middle East and the Bush presidency will come to pass; and be offset by its dual beneficence.

Yes, the shock and awe we felt when we watched America march to war as if it were a Fourth of July procession with spectacular fireworks as a backdrop will eventually be neutralized by equally dazzling forces.

And along the way, we use our passion to the cause; fellow travelers in time and space, working to restore the universal equilibrium: PEACE.

Ahlam Mosteghanemi, the author of Memory in the Flesh, writes her work of fiction with a distinct male voice, using male mental processes to frame her drama; and with the blood-soaked voice of Khalid, the male conscience of Constantine and Algeria remembers the “innumerable offensives” and offenses suffered at the hands of the French during the struggle for independence and what followed afterwards. .

Khalid’s words pay tribute to personal sacrifices by the sons of the movement, his loss of one arm, the loss of life for others; and with his narrative, Khalid also tells the cost of Pyrrhic victories for both colonizer and liberated; for not only does Mosteghanemi show how in spite of winning daily skirmishes France ultimately lost her colony, but how along the way to self-determination, far too many Algerians disremembered their history, their inner-voice and self-destructed.

Indeed, throughout Mosteghanemi’s narrative, the words of Fanon are visible at every turn. Liberation means the right to make mistakes; and as the new nation blunders her way through fits and starts, rife with corruption and poor choices, from Ahlam’s choice of marriage partner to the sad obsession of Hassan to find an administrative job, (when teaching – an honest profession was his authentic design), the blood of Algeria gave her sons and daughters “the right to govern themselves badly” and make folly.

Mosteghanemi tells readers in her novel that every artist comes to “understand the world” through the eyes of one precise linear point. With Hemingway, the locus was the sea; with Moravia the spot was desire; with Al-Hallj the moment was God; with Miller the mark was sex; with Baudelaire the pin-point was sin and damnation; and with Khalid, the summit was a bridge from which to leap over or fall, fight or surrender, love or hate; live or die, in the wretched dichotomous realm of nations and people’s souls.

From the beginning, the activist artist searched for a way to resolve the triadic conflict that raged within the walls of his mind: the guilt of initial leave-taking, the sorrow of present circumstances, and the angst to return home; and with colors and shadows, Khalid worked out his deliverance in an artistic rendition of a bridge that first took him to the mountains—a representation that would forever span time and space, and visually render his spirit free to come and go.

Nationalism in the novel travels the promise of release from oppression and slavery to ultimate disillusionment. As told by the words of a former warrior, his countrymen are in a self-indulgent stupor of “petty daily concerns” and fail to pay tribute to history. Forgotten are the revolution heroes, men who sacrificed sight, limb and life for liberty; and this loss of memory gashes the collective nucleus of nation; and the original mental splendor as conceived by her founding martyrs.

The hopes of a nation lie on the shoulders of a former warrior, a warrior’s son and his daughter, and the consciousness of city and country. Khalid’s call to life is truth, free of shadows; and it is embodied in Khalid’s only commandment to nation and daughter, “Consider only your conscience, because in the end, it’s the only thing you live with.” The shadows are the “uniformity” of thought, as symbolically expressed by his countrymen’s garment; for uniformity ran counter to Si Taher’s highest hope, a “dream…to see Algeria freed from the superstition and worn-out tradition that had oppressed and destroyed…” Indeed, Algeria forgot to ask, “What did our revolutionary martyrs die for? And instead wore “the same sad and gloomy colors” of life as their coat of honor.

In post-colonialism, women “wrapped in their black veils” no longer symbolized “a mechanism of resistance,” but rather a society that lacked color of imagination. The “dragged…lost steps” did not lead to a “deepening [of] consciousness” but rather to “ill-tempered customs officials” with petty dreams of a morally worthless higher government post.

The narrative of nationalism as told by Mosteghanemi is an ongoing tale with past heroes who return home; and through fate and death, Khalid replaced his brother’s corpse; he would now instruct his brother’s children, provide for his brother’s wife, and record his account of history. The shadows of his former self stayed behind with his paintings, no longer needed, for Khalid not only returned to a location, but his homecoming also hailed the return of spirit to his initial call. ““Don’t love bridges anymore,” he says, for history has called him home.

Reconciling God’s Will with the ’00 and ’04 election and the Iraqi War

For the last few months, a dry spirit has set over my soul; and as usual, when I seek the voice of my maker, menacing thoughts crop up. But as always, by pressing forward during quiet moments, sweet revelations follow; and in a moment of receptiveness, I came across a news blurb from BBC. It talks about how Prime Minister Tony Blair “prayed to God over Iraq,” before going to war.

"When you're faced with a decision like that, some of those decisions have been very, very difficult, most of all because you know these are people's lives and, in some case, their deaths.

The only way you can take a decision like that is to do the right thing according to your conscience."

Anti-war campaigner Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon died in Basra in 2004, said: "A good Christian wouldn't be for this war. "I'm actually quite disgusted by the comments. It's a joke."

Yes, skeptical folks might think Blair is nothing more than a “spiffing” liar; yet any leader with a scintilla of spirit had to weigh the heavy moral costs before committing his nation to war. And no, that does not include you, Karl Rove.

If they're honest, Democrats must also concede that in 2000, the universe appears to have aligned the planets against Gore. I mean, with a third party, left/center candidate, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, bad Gore press, what else could have gone wrong except a loss, in spite of a win?!?

And equal to the task in 2004, the campaign season had an ill-wind union with a frightened nation, endless accusations, a docile media and the ultimate bin Laden’s postscriptive blow only hours before election, sepulchering Kerry’s loss.

Yet for believers and followers of the Good Book, the ultimate end is foretold; and what at first glance may appear evil, God promises to use it for His ever-greater glory. “

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

So what are we to make of the mess called the Bush presidency? How will the thousands upon thousands of lives lost in Iraq bring a greater good? And how is a Republican Congress, White House and now even Supreme Court supposed to work together for greater equity and social justice for all?

Like the young’s boy’s father filled with an evil spirit in the New Testament, “I do believe;[I just need some] help me [in] overcom[ing] my unbelief!"

Yet even without the dim light at the end of the tunnel, there are still too many sacred synchronicities for this old soul to ignore.

There's something happening here

What it is ain't exactly clear

There's a man with a gun over there

Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong

Young people speaking their minds

Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat

A thousand people in the street

Singing songs and carrying signs

Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep

Into your life it will creep

It starts when you're always afraid

You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Stop, now, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Stop, children, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Courtesy of Allison at My Space.com. It's not just for kids!

Republicans in Richmond Live in Glass Houses...

Raising Kaine via the Washington Post wrote about whiny Republicans who insist Gov. Tim Kaine rebuke his chief of staff for earlier comments about how Kaine "planned retribution against Republicans who do not support his transportation plans." The Roanoke Times today has a follow-up story.

All rightie, Kaine will be happy to apologize when Jerry Kilgore, Robert McDonnell, Bill Bolling, George 'Gomer Pyle' Allen, and every Republican elected official apologizes for their over-the-top rhetoric each campaign cycle.

Times reports Kaine has already apologized to House Speaker Bill Howell of Stafford County, but the Republican blowhard wants to extract political blood.

Well, here's something you hypocrites might understand, how about if Kaine openly dresses down his chief of staff around the same time when your Liar-in-Chief at the White House dresses down the folks responsible for outing a CIA operative; in other words, when hell freezes over!

Gestapo-light in Denver

Our civil liberties are being strippped away in a perpetual drip, drip, drip of daily news that threaten to overtake us; and with strip-search Sammie on the Supreme Court, expect the drips to become daily douses as our nation drowns in sorrow.

In the latest outrage, CBS reports that a suburban Denver history teacher has been suspended for telling the truth about Bush's State of the Union address to his students.

About 150 students at a suburban Denver high school walked out of class to protest a decision to put a teacher on administrative leave while the school investigates remarks he allegedly made in class about President Bush, including a comment that some people compare Mr. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

The protest came Thursday as administrators began investigating whether Overland High School teacher Jay Bennish violated a policy requiring balancing viewpoints in the classroom, Cherry Creek School District spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

Not to worry, Amole assured the media. The teacher is on "paid leave" and the suspension was not at all "punitive," but simply a chance to hear from all sides of the story.

A future Karl Rove had taped the class for about 20 minutes and turned it over to his Gestapo-like father. It seems what truly infuriated the crybabies was that darling conservatives were not allowed a voice.

Well thank goodness! Especially if the baby necons were trying to contaminate the class with Republican talking points like the administration has a clear plan for victory when it's obvious the situation in Iraq has ignited a Civil War; or Iraqi forces are "increasingly capable of defeating the enemy," when only last week the lonely unit capable of fighting without US help was downgraded; or arguments that Bush will continue to give ear to Democratic members in Congress, when he has never done so; oh hell, don't take my word for it, read the president's SOTU address for yourself and then tell me why any Bushie should be allowed to have equal time when facts clearly contradict everything he said and anything a baby neocon might argue.

I guess there are no classes in the entire school with a conservative bent. I say, truth to power!

Bush gives his crap-filled State of the Union address, a teacher points out his lies and mentions how some people (like myself) think the Bush administration is trampling on our rights, much like Fascist Germany, and to prove the teacher wrong, the school suspends him.

Now there's a lesson for students to learn.





Makes sense to me, no...?


"After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view," she said. The student who made the tape agrees. "I've been his class four weeks," says Allen, "and I've never heard another side."

Another Sad Day in the Union Saddam moved his weapons of mass destruction to Syria;
as Congressional hearings illustrate (arbitrarily and abruptly ending just as Democrats are set to speak);
or that the state of our union is strong while Bush unimpededly continues to tap into our phones;

Where in the World is Sen. George 'Tin-Ear Allen?

A quick look at news articles during the last few days shows George 'Tin-Ear' Allen, as usual, not doing much. Unless you consider his wife throwing a tea party this coming Sunday at The Bull Run Republican Women's Club in Gainesville as a feather in his cap.

Before we get to what he's been doing, let's talk about his upcoming schedule. In the latest stupid move, Allen plans to celebrate his 54th birthday with his bestest buds in the lobbying business. Robert Novak of the Chicago-Sun Times reports:

Although members of Congress are keeping an arm's length from lobbyists, Sen. George Allen -- a possible Republican presidential hopeful -- will be celebrating his 54th birthday the evening of March 8 at a Capitol Hill fund- raising party hosted by Washington lobbyists.

Scott Corley, a registered lobbyist for Microsoft, and Frank Cavaliere, Vonage's vice president for federal regulatory affairs, sent out a letter to fellow lobbyists asking $1,000 per political action committee or individual. Also listed as hosts were lobbyists for Clear Channel Communications, BWX Technologies, AT&T, VeriSign, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Broadcasters and the United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association.

Sponsors and hosts are expected to produce more than $50,000 for ''Friends
of George Allen,'' and other guests would provide more. This money could be used
foreither Allen's 2006 re-election effort in Virginia or a presidential campaign
in2008.

Hmmm...I wonder who will be picking up the bar tab?!?

Lest fellow Virginians think Allen is all party and no work, there is a little gem of an op-ed in the Washington Post, where he defends Bush's latest tax-give-away in the form of tax breaks for the "uninsured."

Critics who claim that rich people gain most from HSA tax breaks should look at the data: Of the 3 million Americans enrolled in such plans, more than 30 percent were previously uninsured.[...]The tax benefits associated with HSAs do reduce government revenue in the short term, but this money, when used by tax-paying citizens for personal health care, will save the government money in the long run.

Without calling Señor Allen a fat-out dissembler, the logic of his "fact" makes little sense. Especially since people who benefit the most from tax breaks are those making the largest income.

What is a tax credit to someone without income?!? Or for the lowly-paid uninsured worker? Does Allen think a $700 monthly tax break is going to offset the unavailable disposable income of $700 plus the cost of the high-deductible insurance premium?!?

I rather doubt it; moreover, the senator is likely including the recent wave of uninsured seniors who may have signed up for HSA as part of their new Medicare program in his deceptive bait-and-switch demagoguery.

As someone who knows the insurance industry intimately well, any health savings account will not, repeat, will not help anyone except corporate conglomorates like insurance companies, who can then lower their over-all health care cost by shifting first dollar expenses to their hapless employees.

And for the poor sap who has a preexisting condition, good luck trying to find a company who will insure him at a reasonable cost; what's more, if he has the misfortune of ravaging cancer or some other terminal disease, no deductible will be high enough to lure a carrier. Period

Oh yea,and before I forget; today Allen made his way to the Senate floor and voted for the Patriot Act.

Lethal Taliban-Christians

From Sojourners latest e-mail is an interesting article by David Batstone about the latest attack from the Taliban-Christians on poor young gals.

Seems Brother James Dobson and The Family Research Council don't want schools to tell young girls about a little vaccination that's 100 percent effective "in blocking a major cause of cervical cancer," designed by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.

Last fall, The Independent reported the vaccine should become available within one year; and now we learn that a "growing movement of public health advocates [that] wants all girls to be inoculated" have hit a snag; Dobson and his "merry band of meddlers," as Daily Kos refers to them, are "leading a charge of Religious Right groups to halt any such national inoculation program. "

Religious Right groups are not seeking to ban the drug. They simply do not want the vaccine to be slotted as an inoculation that every child receives as they presently do for polio and smallpox.

Because these groups link cervical cancer so intimately with illicit sexual activity, a mandated vaccination feels to them like a family values choice would be imposed upon them by the state.

You see, abortion as Firedoglake wrote has never been about life; it's punishment from God for naughty women who spread their legs; and if you, your daughter, or your wife die because some wingnut thought inoculation was equal to sanctioning, oh well, their god is just!

Judge Rules Cubans Illegally Removed by Coast Guard

A U.S. District judge in Florida ruled the Coast Guard should not have sent Cubans back to their country.

Fifteen Cubans had reached an old shattered bridge off the Florida Keys that no longer connected to land; but according to CBS, a new bridge attached to U.S. soil was a mere 100 meters away, and the way the "wet-foot, dry foot" government policy works, if Cubans reach U.S. soil, they can stay; if not, they are returned.

In his ruling, Judge Federico Moreno wrote that although he "sympathized with the difficulty the U.S. Coast Guard faces in making split-second decisions at sea...'those Cuban refugees who reached American soil in early January 2006 were removed to Cuba illegally.'"

Well, I guess it's probably helpful when a Cuban-American judge decides whether a brethren stays or goes, but the "wet-foot, dry foot" policy is patently partisan policy and plain wrong.

I mean, why should Haitians, Mexicans, Jamaicans, Nicaraguans, Nigerians, Somalians, and a bevy of other nationalities be deported, but the favored Cubans allowed to stay if their toe touches land?!?

Yet to hear Cuban-Americans complain, the policy itself is an egrigious inequity.

Republican Sen. Mel Martinez [is] calling for an overhaul of U.S.-Cuba immigration policy. "The policy is wrong and it ought to be changed," he said.

With Florida as the proverbial swing state, don't expect the judge's decision to be appealed by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District; after all, the political balance of power might be at stake.

"This will have an effect of reducing the numbers of Cuban-American voters that would blindly follow a Republican candidate," Cuban American National Foundation President Pepe Hernandez said. "Cubans are going to realize that both parties come when they need us but tend to forget our pledges when they don't."

Hear ye, hear ye, Democrats and Republicans, you've been duly warned!