PM Pick

Ho-hum, nuclear war. Whatever.

This entire post by the indispensible Billmon is worth reading, but it will probably ruin your day. He makes a convincing case that it's hardly inconceivable that America may start an unprovoked nuclear war, and not only that, few in America would bother to notice, or be too troubled by it.

What I'm suggesting here is that it is probably naive to expect the American public to react with horror, remorse or even shock to a U.S. nuclear sneak attack on Iran, even though it would be one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable, short of mass genocide. Iran has been demonized too successfully thanks in no small part to the messianic delusions of its own end-times president А for most Americans to see it as a victim of aggression, even if they were inclined to admit that the United States could ever be an aggressor. And we know a not-so-small and extremely vocal minority of Americans would be cheering all the way, and lusting for more.

More to my point, though, I think it's possible that even something as monstrously insane as nuclear war could still be squeezed into the tiny rituals that pass for public debate in this country the game of dueling TV sound bites that trivializes and then disposes of every issue.

His last point is especially chilling -- "news" is a way of wishing things into the cornfield. Is it too cyncical to view the corporate media as a massive rationalization machine designed to stupefy a population and reassure them that the unacceptable is normal? When a population wants reassurance, can we expect the media not to manufacture such a valuable commodity, one which only grows in value as the maniacs in charge of the American government grow more desperate?

One would have thought, also, that the despicable shame of Abu Ghraib would have made Americans want to rid themselves of an adminstration which has brought our national reputation to its lowest point, but instead we responded by reelecting it. So there is no degredation we won't accept in our hubris and blind confidence that our leaders can't really be madmen. Torture, pre-emptive unprovoked war declared for false reasons, diplomatic decietfulness: this is the legacy the Bush administration has already built for itself; why won't it try to hit for the cycle and add nuclear war to the box score?

But anyway, never mind. There are more important things to worry about. After all the X-Men sequel is coming out soon, and Angelina had a baby.

And, via Belgravia Dispatch comes this list, quoted from report by Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. Al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, of all the fun things we can expect after our excellent Iranian adventure:

Х Retaliate against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan overtly using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads

Use proxy groups including al-Zarqawi and Sadr in Iraq to intensify the insurgency and escalate the attacks against US forces and Iraqi Security Forces

ť Turn the Shi'ite majority in Iraq against the US presence and demand US forces to leave

Attack the US homeland with suicide bombs by proxy groups or deliver CBR weapons to al-Qa'ida to use against the US

ť Use its asymmetric capabilities to attacks US interests in the region including soft targets: e.g. embassies, commercial centers, and American citizens

Attack US naval forces stationed in the Gulf with anti-ship missiles, asymmetric warfare, and mines

ť Attack Israel with missile attacks possibly with CBR warheads

Retaliate against energy targets in the Gulf and temporarily shut off the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz

* Stop all of its oil and gas shipments to increase the price of oil, inflict damage on the global and US economies.

Will any of this rouse us from our collective daydream, or disrupt the debut of Mission: Impossible III? Probably not.

I know it's unfair to expect the rest of the world to shut down just because our president is threatening to start World War III, and I'm sure to expose myself as a hypocrite when I go right on commenting on other comparatively insignificant things in subsequent posts. But let the record show that on this morning, I'm pretty freaked out.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.