One Tin Soldier

(NOTE: I put this up last night, and them imediat;ey took it down. And now, I'm like, "Fuck it, I'm putting it back up." I really need to just stick to my guns and post whatever I type. This is just brain-droppings anyway, not some profound political and social endevour.)

So, here I am blogging, listening to music, trying for the 1000th time to sing all of "The War Was in Color" without my voice faltering (becasue I'm on the verge of tears) and I came across THIS rather interesting AMV for "One Tin Soldier." 

It's certainly not perfect. Not at all. It makes the tragic mistake of depicting Saddam Hussien as a sympathetic character.  Well, no. That much is bullshit. [***actually, see note below!] BUT, aside from that, it really uses some cool images, and draws some very apt symbolic parallels between this song and how it applies to the Iraq War.  It's not my favorite cover of the song, not by a long shot, so I don't know yet if I'll put this one up on my music page, but I think it's worth a listen.  (And if you really want to gag, go read some of the comments on the original YouTube page. It's amazing how the Right just so consistently manages to get it wrong.)



I find this to be a much better interpretation, by several orders of magnitude, than any of the other goofy, jingoistic, war-mongering, anti-Islam videos that I found that placed pictures of 9/11 in the background of the song, along with the faces of the terrorists, as if the whole point is that somehow the wars that resulted were justified. Don't get me wrong, you can certainly argue it... (well, Afghanistan anyway, not Iraq...) but you can't use THIS SONG to do it!

This song is not about rationalizing war, but rather a criticism of those who would rationalize it. (Like the very morons making anti-Islamic, 9/11 videos from it!)

[NOTE: I just noticed something.  That picture of Saddam that comes up? On the line "pay the price and we wiil share?" That's a much EARLIER picture of him, and that guy he's shaiking hands with is DONALD RUMSFLED! So that was beck when Saddam was our BUDDY.  So much for the AMV creator depicting him as a good guy!  Shit, that was REAGAN and CHENEY and RUNSFELD'S doing! I take back what I said: This AMV IS perfect!]

Utopia, Chapter One, Cover Page Posted

I guess this means I've officially started, even if it IS just the cover page.  I'll link to the new pages from here, but if you're interested, you can see them all (rigth now, just this one) over at: http://niceguy-eddie.deviantart.com/. (For now.  I don't know if I'll stick with Deviantart or not.)

The comic is titled, "Utopia." The complete (and more pretentious) title is, "Utopia: What Would You Do with Absolute Power?"

Anyway, here's the cover page for Chapter One:

(click to enlarge it)

I DO have to fix the lettering, and probably add a border I guess, but this is the picture anyway.  I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.  The cover pages will typically (always?) feature some piece of architecture, with the Title and Chapter Number placed somewhere on it.  There will also be a quote, which sets up the theme of the chapter.  This is a representation of an anceint set of chortens, from Nepal.  The royal family once worshiped at the particular one I was using for inspiration.  The quote, in case you live under a rock, is from The Lord of the Rings.

On Biographies...

I'd like to pose an open question: Why does one write a biography about another person?

It seems to me that a good biograophy, regardless of the subject and independant of any other property, should endevour to present a full, well rounded view of the person.  It should talk about their great triumphs but also honestly explore their trials and tribulations.  If it lionizes (or vilifies) the subject, it should do so while at the same time HUMANIZING them.  To do that, you have to explore their motivations, their conflicts, their strengths and thier flaws openely and honestly without regard for or fear of what you might uncover.  It is not an easy task, but it is the only way to produce any kind of meaningful work.

Becuase no one should feel so strongly about a person that their biography reads like 400 pages of fauning and ass-kissing, (or a vilification of all of their critics.)  For example - my post a week or so ago about Harry Chapin.  Now THAT was pretty fauning.  Could I write a more extensive work, and actually take a more critical look at my hero?  Yes.  I could explore his flaws.  I could explore his failures.  And in exploring those I would only paint a more complete and human picture of this person that I find so amazing. For example: He worked himself to DEATH, leaving basically no money set aside for any kind of long-term support for his charities.  He was DRIVEN, but he was RECKLESS in his planning. See? It's not that hard.   Another example: Jim Rice is my favorite baseball-player.  If I were to write a biography of him, it would include not only the amazing highlights, but also the flaws - how later in career he jealously guarded his position on the team, alienated the younger players, and not beign a team player.  Does the fact that he's HUMAN diminish him in my mind? Not a bit.  Even if I were writing a bio on HITLER... Does it serve any purpose to just wrtie another 400 pages talking about how evil and crazy he was?  Not really - we already KNOW that! For any work about Hitler to be meaningful at this point, it would have to endevour to humanize him somehow - to look at what was going on at a very personal level.  I'm not saying it would have to be an apologist work or a revisionist one; only that 400 pages of "Look how bad this guy was" wouldn't CONTRIBUTE anything to the conversation that's not already there.  It would have no raison d'être; no reason to exsist.

Now... An AUTO-Biography, that's different.  You might expect an auto-biography to be a bit more self-serving.  It would still be crap, but it would hardly be surprising.  Likewise, publishing one's memoires, even  if done by someone else, you wouldn't be surprised to find that to be a one-sided presentation.  But a BIOGRAPHY should not read as a 400-page advirtisment for a person.  Hopefully at this point you understand and on some level agree with what I'm saying.

Because that's why I feel that Zev Chafet's biography of Rush Limbaugh, One Man Army is beyond crap: it has no reason to exsist.  It's nothing by a 400 page advirtisment for [Limabugh.]  Now, before anyone starts to think that I'd feel this way about ANY work that didn't outright vilify Limbaugh, please go back and consider what I've said above.  There is little doubt that Rush Limbaugh has accomplished astounding things.  That he is a phenonmenon.  That, for better or worse, he is a powerful voice for conservatism.  If you want to give some sense of the man from a positive standpoint, it would be pretty easy from the POV of simply looking at what he's accomplished.  It becomes utter crap however when you start getting into to the well-known controversies and not only present only his side of thigns -his VERSION of things, more accurately - but do so as strongly or even more strongly than the man himself would!  MMFA has a pretty extrensive list of falsehoods in the book itself.  Here's another long list of falsehood from Limbaugh himself.  And niether is anywhere near an exhaustive list as MMFA seems to document half a dozen new items every DAY.  Now... it's one thing to agree with someone politically.  It's one thing to paint and overall positive picture of them in a biography.  But to go SO FAR to spin so much blatant controversy in their favor and just outright disappear so many distortions and falsehood on their behalf... That goes beyond a Biography.  That's just propaganda.

I think it's pretty clear that neither Rush, nor the Republican Party, nor the Conservtaive movement in general has any interest in taking a critical look at the Right's defacto leader. They have no interest in humanizing him, or doing anything short of lionizing him.  This is an indication of not only extreme intellectual dishonestly and cowardice on their part, but I think it's also evidence of just what a despicable peson he is, and what despicable people so many of them are.  To take a critical look at HIM, would mean taking a critical look at THEMSELVES.  And they have never shown themselves ot have the stomach for that.