Dreamworlds...

In Sut Jhally’s documentary film, Dreamworlds 3, he depicts an astoundingly unrealistic portrayal of gender roles seen in the tragic frame using the medium of music videos and what they represent in today’s culture.  Jhally makes very clear the ways in which this society accepts the normative actions in these videos, as he also makes abundantly clear that these are no longer actions that are limited to the “dream world,” but instead, these ideologies are also wrongly internalized and seen as socially acceptable in every day life.  He uses Burke’s understanding of the method of perspective by incongruity, along with juxtaposition, and decontextualization to make evident the serious effects that this type of thinking and objectification has on the roles that society constructs for gender and the responsibilities or lack thereof that accompany that construct.

            In order to understand the points that Sut Jhally conveys in his brilliantly assembled documentary, Dreamworlds 3, one must understand the methodology that he used to portray the tragic frame-Burke’s perspective by incongruity.  Perspective by incongruity is essentially an attitude or way of thinking that is not in harmony with or cohesive with its surroundings or what is thought of as one’s norm-in “lamens terms”, thinking outside the “box.”  There is more than meets the eye to everything that is known to one as familiar, and with familiarity, comes a sense of comfort that keeps people from looking at the world through other perspectives, even if just to better understand their own.  In Dreamworlds 3, Jhally challenges the viewer to see that the music industry influences the way society accepts the justification of women as well as the simplification of men by simply watching disturbing music videos and accepting them as normal when in fact they should be looked at as anything but typical.  In using Burke’s theory, Jhally was able to explain in narrative form, how society becomes polemical when attempting to understand anything outside of the normative references that are typically relied on.  The way that gender is perceived through the tragic frame is wholly accepted in today’s mainstream, pop idolizing society, where it is completely acceptable to see a half naked woman on her knees in a submissive position while a shirtless, muscular man towers above her on a billboard.  In Dreamworlds 3, Jhally uses the realm of what is seen as entertainment to depict how women are consistently objectified as men and some ethnicities are also simplified.  In music videos, as seen in Jhally’s documentary, women are happy to prance around in bikini tops and mini skirts while washing cars for men who are pouring alcohol on their already wet bodies as they are also having dollar bills thrown at them.  If this isn’t a clear form of objectification and over sexualized portraits of womanhood, what is?!  Men are seen in these same videos as aggressive, sex obsessed, dominant figures pushing women onto beds while the female singer is singing of purity and innocence.  This is not innocent, and this is not pure.  

            In using the strategy of juxtaposition, Jhally makes the anything but subtle comparison between what is glorified and glamorized in the music industry and the events that occur in real life that are influenced by the subjugation of feminine and masculine roles in this medium.  What happens when those behaviors are projected into real life situations?  Teens grow up watching these popular musicians and celebrities star in these flashy videos where women are dancing bare breasted with fast, expensive cars, while shopping in impossibly expensive stores….this is showing young people an image of a nearly unattainable reality and that it’s ok to want these things and to accept those same behaviors.  An example lies in the way that Jhally placed a scene from a hip hop music video where women were allowing men to pour alcohol all over their faces and practically bare bodies, while they were dancing around and having their asses slapped next to a scene from the Puerto Rican Pride Festival in Central Park from the early nineties.  In the scenes from the true-to-life festival, women were shown while men slap their asses and their shirts were being torn off and men were chasing them down and pouring liquor all over them; however, in the real world version, the women were less than thrilled about it, and they weren’t glamorous video vixens, rather they were sexually victimized women.  There has to be a point where the industry takes responsibility for promoting the ignorance and lack of respect that they show towards gender and race, and Jhally uses juxtaposition to truly bring much needed attention to this point.

In the strategy of decontextualization, Jhally also uses Dreamworlds 3, as a way to disassemble what is seen as the societal norm and puts the same material in an unfamiliar territory, making the viewer feel somewhat uncomfortable as the old images are being put into a newer, less socially normative context.  Jhally did this by taking the music videos that society sees as acceptable, and turning them into another medium that doesn’t appear as entertaining to the viewer, but more as a public service announcement.  He put the videos to the background of more serious and ominous music, not the music originally corresponding with the video.  He also adds in his even more ominous narration, creating a much more somber tone than the original music would allow.  This presentation takes what society would typically see as normative media and places it in an unfamiliar context that elicits feelings that the viewer would not usually associate with watching a music video.  When a perspective is changed and things are forcefully put out of place, it changes the entire meaning of the story, and this is made evident by Jhally’s use of de-contextualliztion in Dreamworlds 3.

                        Upon watching Dreamworlds 3, the viewer is forced to see that nothing is as it seems, even in the mythical, flashy, and impossibly unrealistic world of music and entertainment.  Perspective by incongruity, juxtaposition, and decontextualization are strategies that were used by Jhally in order for the viewer to walk away from this notion of the "dream world" with an understanding of the ways in which socially accepted media can be more harmful to society than most would ever begin to understand.  By objectifying women, simplifying men, and by misconstruing the roles of gender and race, the music industry as a whole is responsible for projecting these misleading images to the youth in society today, thereby creating a generation relying on false information to make decisions that will possibly misshapen their futures and redefine what they believe their roles to be in society.

LGBT Support

I am not gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, but I certainly believe in supporting people who just want to be happy being who they are.  Today was a special day as it stood as a movement to honor those who have taken their lives because of being bullied as a result of their sexual orientation...by wearing purple one could stand today as a "safe zone" if you will (which the idea of a solitary safe zone is ludicrous-but that is another issue).  I am a huge gay rights advocate I guess you could say.  I feel that it is an individual right that we all have to pursue the things that make us happy and that are innate in our beings, as long as it does not cause anyone any physical harm.  I was proud to wear purple today as it represented something that should be acknowledged everyday.  No one should feel so cornered by society that they feel the need to take their own lives in order to free themselves from the isolation that our society makes them feel.  I truly hope and feel in my heart that someday, LGBTs will have their natural human rights-to marry, adopt with no issue, be proud to come out vs being scared-as all minority groups are held back somehow and then later (usually) released from oppression.  I hope that I live to see that day.  That is all.

Culture Jam

Porn As We Know It : Putting Porn In Perspective

            There are other forms of pornography, besides what it is known to be-sexually explicit material, that contemporary popular culture chooses to see as appropriate or normal when in fact it isn’t any more appropriate than the inside of Hustler Magazine.  Consumers are exposed to it through countless mediums, and society’s spectators choose not to see these very common images as pornography…the question is why not?  Why is a picture of a bloated, water logged Hurricane Katrina victim floating face down in the water, being rushed down what used to be a street by the current, acceptable to see on the cover of a news magazine?  Why is it ok to see pictures of Jessica Alba and her baby swiping her debit card in the grocery store as she is buying diapers and formula, when that is supposed to be her moment, vulnerable and striving for normalcy?  What makes these images any different from those that are kept hidden behind the checkout counter because they have Hugh Hefner’s newest set of girlfriends posing, scantily clad and provocatively, on the cover?  Is one worse than the other, and if so, why?  Who gets to make that distinction, and why do so many people choose to look the other way or to literally buy into this ideology that fuels the media to see these types of materials as acceptable and even worse, as profitable?

            In this “Culture Jam”, images that any member of the consumerist culture would see on a daily basis (of celebrities, natural disaster coverage, and sexually suggestive images) were selected and détourned in a way that would reflect the image being seen from different sets of eyes, in different perspectives, and how those different eyes and different perspectives represent smaller parts of a whole.  Although everyone is not always heard and not everyone always chooses to voice his or her opinions, every individual still represents a small part of the “whole” of society and every individual image chosen in this project is representative of that.  The images were mirrored against one another for the visually aesthetic aspect of the project, but the original images were also altered to embody the concept that nothing is as it seems, especially in the media.  The public rarely sees profound truth in any visual representation that the media chooses to unveil to the public.  The mirroring affect was also used to represent the instances that one may see the same image that another sees, and that while it holds a particular connection for one, another can foster a completely connection to the same material.  From the popular media’s perspective, consumers are simply bystanders who wait for media to feed them the smut that they selectively release to masses every second of the day.  The images chosen for this project were selected from the most prominent factions in media; images that are culturally relevant and that are responsible for the pornography that is globally ingested-images captured from natural disasters, paparazzi, and of course, good old fashioned, sexually explicit porn.  These three “factions” of the media were elected due to the idea that they are typically the most easily accessible and influential forms of media.

            This project particularly holds the significance as a criticism of pornography by seemingly mocking its definition.  Porn is defined by Merriam Webster’s standards as: “TV programs, books, or other forms of media, regarded to catering to a voyeuristic or obsessive interest in a specified subject.”  A voyeur is thereby defined as “a person who gains sexual pleasure or enjoys seeing the pain and distress of another, especially those who are naked” (http://www.merriam-webster.com).  One could see “naked” as being a term of endearment here, and that it can be left open for interpretation as someone who is vulnerable in any way can also be seen as being figuratively naked.  Détournement is defined by Tom Vague as “…. within the old cultural spheres…a method of propaganda, a method which testifies to the wearing out and loss of importance in those spheres,” (“The Boy Scout’s Guide to the Situationist International”).  In this project, the collection of already amended images that were then détourned, were used as a means of propaganda to signify the “wearing out” and desensitization that society has become accustomed to in viewing these images and automatically dismissing them.  The images have literally worn out their intended significance only to come to represent something else entirely, something that may not even embody the reality behind the intended meaning.  The media uses pictures of victims of 9/11 covered in soot and ashes, covered head to toe in scrapes and blood, wearing torn clothes and ultimately unrecognizable; they use these pictures to shape what is brought to mind when forced to recall the awful events that ensued that day.  Upon recollection, one doesn’t only think of the event itself, but instead they may associate that day with these images that represent the pain and suffering of all who endured loss on September 11, 2001. Although these people who were photographed (and thereby exploited) did experience trauma, it speaks on many levels that what is usually associated with the event itself are the images the media stamped into the minds of so many Americans.  What instantly comes to mind for most is not the fact that the day in question was an attack on American soil that founded a deep seeded hate U.S. culture has developed for not only the acts that were committed against the nation, but at an entire culture that seemed to be represented by the actions of the attackers themselves.  Pictures of Elin Nordegren are on any given day plastered all over the cover of People Magazine.  This is the medium for which she is seen as the victim of infidelities by one of the most famous golfers to ever live, rather than seeing her for who she really is.  If anyone wants to know why, it is because the media doesn’t care who she really is, and neither do consumers.  The media doesn’t care to represent her as a real woman but rather as a woman who is now a divorcee, financially set, a mother, and an ex-wife scorned and merely a headline maker.  She is their front cover story that will sell them millions upon millions of issues, making them more money than they could hope for.  Although celebrities do exploit themselves to some degree, the media has to be held responsible for their salacious misrepresentations.  They exploit people’s pain and distress so that all of the voyeurs in the world can sink their claws into the grueling anguish that the newest front cover personality is experiencing. Perhaps people buy into this type of “news” coverage because it is a distraction from their own pain or because they take pleasure in seeing someone else hit rock bottom; this way, they don’t have to face their own unattractive qualities.  It is a sick, twisted, and insanely coveted form of entertainment that is more perverse than anyone would like to admit. 

            The representations chosen for this assignment were seen as suitable because as Debord, a man truly ahead of his time, wrote in 1957, “We should not simply refuse modern culture; we must seize it in order to negate it,” (“Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action”).  Here, the idea was seized, and it negated the illusion of tolerance and intolerance in the media by the means of mockery.  The images were not meant to attempt to revolutionize a spectator’s interpretation of the images themselves, but more so to alter one’s perspective as to what should and shouldn’t be seen as inappropriate, acceptable, artistic, and as graphical imagery or pornography and to leave the spectator to question why the media is given the power to decide what is visually appropriate.  The intent of this “Culture Jam,” was to bring awareness to the desensitization that global culture endures at the hands of tactless media outlets in terms of exploiting human emotion and reaction, along with seemingly intimate moments.  Debord wrote of revolution, “It must abolish the exploitation of humanity, but also the passions, compensations and habits which that exploitation has endangered.  We have to define new desires in relation to present possibilities…. We now have to undertake an organized collective work aimed at a unitary use of all the means of revolutionizing everyday life,” (Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action).  If Hustler is porn, then Time, Newsweek, People, US Weekly, and all the rest of the smut-ridden magazines and news programs are in the same genre of publication; sex still sells.  Voyeurs are everywhere; it just depends on whose eyes one uses to view them.

            The détourned images used in this project were posted in two grocery stores, around the UTD campus, at St. Monica Catholic Private School in the foyer of the school’s entrance, and also at the Dallas Public Library locations on Preston and Royal and on Midway and Timberglen.  As had been suspected, the posts at the grocery stores and the Dallas Public Libraries got no noticeable attention, even staying posted for over a week and half.  This goes to show a demonstration of society’s desensitization to images like the ones used for this project, or the fact that no one pays attention to anything anymore.  In Texas, people pay attention to football, food, Republicans, the NRA, and border jumpers, so maybe one shouldn’t go as far as saying no one pays attention to anything anymore.  At UTD, the images displayed were immediately taken down, at least within a day or two…also as suspected.  At St. Monica, the posted image was actually written on and then moved to the very front bulletin board at the school.  “God bless you,” “good point,” and “Hallelujah,” were written in red marker on the bottom of the page.  Upon returning a week later, the image had finally been taken down.  Through what is defined as urbanism by Debord, in this “Culture Jam,” a medium of art was used to contribute to the composition of a view of society.  In terms of unitary urbanism Debord had this to say: “It must include both the creation of new forms and the détournement of previous forms of architecture, urbanism, poetry, and cinema,” (Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action”).  It can be said this “Culture Jam,” accomplished both of those goals in unison.  In The Society of the Spectacle Debord noted, “The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.”  In this project, the spectacle is truly mediated by images, leaving this as a distinct example of the understanding behind Debord’s teaching of this case and point. 

            Societal views of how pornography is understood to exist will continually be debated being that the understanding of this medium depends largely upon individual interpretation.  Taking that ideology into account, in accordance with the fact that society will never completely agree with any one perspective and that the media controls most of what is exposed publicly, it can be said that porn as we know it is only truly understood by putting it into one’s own perspective.  Viewing media and categorizing it through graphical means is an individual as well as a collectivist responsibility, as is understanding the effects that such graphic representations have on culture as a whole.

Works Cited

Debord, Guy.  “Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International             Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action.”             www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/report.html.  Situationist International Online. 

            June 1957.  20 August. 2010.

Debord, Guy Ernest.  “The Society of the Spectacle.”             http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/16.  Nothingness.org.  1967. 

            20 August.  2010.   

Vague, Tom.  “The Boy Scout’s Guide to the Situationist International.”  The Effect the             S.I. Had On Paris ’68 And All That, Through The Angry Brigade And King Mob             To The Sex Pistols.             http://sami.is.free.fr/Oeuvres/boy_scouts_guide_to_the_s_i.html.  Textz.com,             sami.is.free.fr.  2001.  20 August.  2010.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Ghost In the Shell....I think I did it wrong, but here goes nothing....

Ghost In the Shell Narrative – Short Writing #2

Gender Construction and Societal Implications

       In the film, Ghost In the Shell, the idea of “the self,” is thoroughly examined as the main character, Major Kusanagi, battles to define who and what she is or is not, while also dealing with the conflicts that plague her identity: character vs. self, man, society, and machine.  While the film as a narrative lacks coherence, it holds fidelity in understanding the moral implications that riddle the story’s foundation.  In Ghost In the Shell, Haraway and Silvio’s ideas that society constructs the elements of gender, are depicted accurately in the intimate construction of characters, including Major Kusanagi and Batou, while in a modern society, one struggles to define originality within the self when being besieged by societally and technologically manufactured ideas pertaining to sex, gender, and formal identity.  Can a post gender, post-modernistic world truly exist?

            In contemplating the feminine and masculine roles that society dictates so clearly, one can’t help but notice something said by one of the commanders talking to the Major in the opening scenes of Ghost In the Shell.  He says to her, “What’s with the noise in your brain today?”  Her response, “It must be a loose wire.”  This is an obvious comment to the way women’s thoughts are viewed by a masculine world and how it is acceptable for a man to speak to a woman in that way.  It is doubtful he would have addressed such a question to a male colleague.  In a patriarchal society, men thought women to have unorganized, meaningless thoughts, preferring them to be quiet, and this is how the comment made by the commander can be looked upon.  The simple fact that she has a lot on her mind, and those thoughts could be heard in the film rather than them remaining silent, indicates that in a man’s opinion there is too much going on in her female brain.  Haraway states, “The cyborg is a kind of disassembled and reassembled, postmodern, collective and personal self.  This is the self that feminists must code” (205).    This thematic element is highlighted throughout Ghost In the Shell, as the cyborgs, Major, and Batou, seem to be exactly that.  Major doubts herself, her existence, her relevance, and her validity in a scene where she is on a boat tossing back beers with Batou and they are discussing this exact premise.  Haraway also makes the statement “…gender, race, and class cannot provide the basis for belief in the ‘essential’ unity.  There is nothing about being ‘female’ that naturally binds women” (197).  This ideology lends truth to the argument that gender roles are socially constructed as in the scene mentioned previously, Major, who is a source of knowledge and power in the narrative and also holds a masculine position in her career, is sitting on a boat drinking beer with a male coworker.  This seems like something that would be a “manly” endeavor, yet in the film it is marked with a female shell.  Here lie some examples as to how the coherence of the film as a narrative did not hang together in a very constructive way.  Seeing as how the film was based on animated cyborgs fighting a technological crime, it is obviously far fetched.  The underlying theme of sexism, reliance on technology, and fabricated gender roles does hide underneath the fiction, just not on the surface. 

            As far as the fidelity behind the ideas that emerge in Ghost In the Shell, they ring true as there are good reasons to understand the moral implications that are conveyed in the story.  A cyborg is attempting to defend something they believe in, to fight for their survival, only to see in the end that what they were fighting may have been what they were actually seeking all along.  There is substantial value in the messages in the film and also in Silvio’s writing.  He makes a good argument to the role society plays in establishing gender roles and sexism by making clear that the film challenges the traditional role of feminism by depicting the extremes of both the masculine and feminine qualities in Batou and in Major.  By the end of the film, Major is less confined to her identity and eventually lets it go completely, while Batou takes the risk of offering what he has to give to Major-although she does not accept.  She speaks of the “sense of me,” which confines her within a set of limits she is not comfortable with in the beginning of the movie and also struggles with until the end.  At that point in Ghost In the Shell, Major is left with no specific role or identity, only the “self” that most struggle to identify with in reality, truly lending the narrative fidelity and truth.  She leaves behind the shell and the function it served to progress to a post gender, postmodern world with an understanding of her innate qualities as well as the social ideology defining gender.  It is typically not that simple in the “real world,” but more social implications define that simplicity.

            As a culture, the masses mostly depend on society to give instruction or to encourage direction in order to gain acceptance.  Social construction defines the identities that most harbor to be their own, original selves, and society depends on technology and outsourcing of information to define everything else that is seen as culturally relevant.  Haraway, Silvio, and Ghost In the Shell, confront the argument that gender roles are constructed, thus making it impossible to find a genuine, original self without the weight of normative societal construction manufactured by technology weighing down on a sole identity.  This idea thereby makes all who exist in society cyborgs-humans who act as robotic offspring to the overload of information available at their fingertips and the wealth of superficial ideas behind what it means to be masculine or feminine.  

Annoyances

I know that no one probably cares too much about what I am about to say, but I do, so I don't care.

I think of all the things in the world that really get under my skin, there is one thing that has to do with school that gets me the most....
you know when there is that one guy/girl that won't stop interrupting class to make "valid" points because they want to make themselves seem smarter than everyone else?  You know, "THAT guy/girl?"  It really makes me mad.  I understand that we all pay good, hard earned money to go to school-or at least most of us do-and we all have the right to interact and capitalize in the learning experience by participating, but there is a boundary that should be drawn.  When you argue with the teacher for 30 minutes of the class time that not only me, but 50 other people paid for as well, that is just down right disrespectful.  If you have a problem or question that you can't get your head around, that is not the class' problem and you should talk to the professor about it at a different time.  Everyone else is there for the same reason generally....to learn from the PROFESSOR, not from some twenty-something arrogant narcissist.  Just sayin....

DADT

     I don't get why it is such a bad thing for people to be able to openly admit their sexual orientation....if this is a free country, then why do people have to zip their lips just because they are in the military???  Isn't that a contradiction in terms?  
     I don't get the whole DADT thing at all.  I mean, if someone is willing to fight for our country and defend our freedoms-one being that we are free to be gay, straight, lesbian, or whatever-then, why can't they be honest about who they really are?  Shouldn't we be able to respect them anyway.  I really do not get why in the military, these heroic men and women are not allowed to discuss their preference.  That is like saying, "Hey-you join the military and are not allowed to talk about religion or your family or your political views."  I think it is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of, and of course the crazy 80something year old man McCain is coming to the rescue of the repeal.  Why does he care?  It's not like men and women are going to be running around with rainbow fatigues yelling that they are gay and waving rainbow colored flags around instead of the US flag.  I mean, come on....
     This whole thing really pisses me off and makes me feel, yet again, like I live in a country with a bunch of closed minded cowards who will never really be progressive to change-at least when it comes to politics.  It is 2010 people....who the hell cares?!  Does it really bother people that much that someone who has the balls to go and fight for our rights is gay?  Why does it even matter and as far as I am concerned, it is none of our business and is irrelevant?  Why is this even something that is up for debate?  First, the government bans gay marriage and tries to define marriage and now they are trying to reSUPERban servicemen and women from being able to be honest about who they are?  Isn't it just a characteristic or quality-like eye color or religious preference.  Sometimes, I just want to take my daughter and move to Europe so that she doesn't have to witness such hate and mistrust and debate over stupidity.  I don't because I am not foolish enough to believe that it is THAT different anywhere else.  I would rather her grow up in an overly open environment where people aren't encouraged to lie blatantly about who they are.  We promote equality and say this is the land of dreams and truth?  Yeah-fucking-right.  This place is so backwards.  Don't get me wrong.  I love my country and I believe in the US, but something I have lost hope in is the "American Dream."  Sorry folks-that is a myth and what is left of it it is dying by the second.  

Media Fueled Frenzy

Ok, so as I already highlighted the influence that media has on the graphic images that we are exposed to as a culture, I am now going to discuss a story that has been pissing me the &%$# off but is directly related to the media spectacle.

     Rev. Terry Jones is an ass.  I get his point that he has the right to free speech and all, as we all do, but he needs to get a grip.  How can anyone, especially a "holy" man, justify the burning of ANY religious document?!  I think that is hypocrisy at it's best.  I have heard this over and over while hearing this story, and dammit George Stephanopoulos (oh, how I love his politics), you were right when you said it this morning...JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.  Does he not realize it is a big damn deal when the General of the Army of the United States of America, who is in Afghanistan with our troops that are defending our freedoms right now, asks and nearly pleads in warning that he should not burn the Koran because it would put not only our troops overseas, but all of our country at risk for mass chaos and rebellion with the Islamic community and the international community as a whole?!?!?!  To top it off, he says that if any backlashes were to occur, that he wouldn't take responsibility?  What an idiot!!  I would normally not comment on things of this nature only because I don't like to sound like a political whiner, but I had to voice my opposition of his planned actions, or should I say his now "suspended" actions.  Even the President asked him not to go through with this....why would ANYONE feel the need to evoke this kind of anger and frustration only to get some attention?  As I am sure that he too has supporters, he needs to think about the implications that his actions could potentially have on everyone else.  If he wants to burn one in the privacy of his own home or church or whatever, that is fine....let him do it.  He has that right, as he has made abundantly clear to the entire world.  He does not have to make a huge internationally public spectacle over it, does he?  Did someone drop him on his head when he was little?  Maybe his parents didn't hold him enough....who knows, but all I do know is that I think he is a pompous, stupid, arrogant, self centered a-hole who is selfishly trying to make a point that most people just want to see go away.

     Why do people feel the need to breed hate?  I thought the purpose of most religions was to bring people together in unity, understanding, and peace, not to reek havoc on the whole country on one of the most sensitive days of the year to represent our resentment towards what happened on Sept 11th nearly a decade ago.  I am sure that if you asked a number of the victims' families that have suffered unimaginably immense amounts of pain, if they support his skewed vision of justice, they would plead with him not to go through with this.....it isn't going to bring any of the people who died that day back and it isn't going to bring any of the soldiers who have lost their lives since that day back either.  It is only going to fuel a fire that doesn't need any fuel and breed hate in a world that certainly doesn't need anymore hate.

     His worship center is called the Dove Outreach Center and has fifty members...really??  THIS guy stopped the world in its tracks and gave him this much attention?  I mean, he is getting what he wanted-look how pissed I am, and I am hard to get stirred up.  Although he has suspended his super cool plan for now, the fact that he even took it to this level is absurd.  He says he cited his belief that "the Koran is evil because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims."  I wonder if he even knows what a hypocrite is?  I guess him choosing Sept 11th as the day to turn the international community upside down is a mere coincidence....I mean, what is to be expected from someone who says the person he respects most in the world is George Bush?  Oops....did I say that out loud?  Yes, I know....I am a whimpering liberal.  Who knew?