the oswald interview

the retired assassin grimaced

as he tried to explain how he became

a spirit spent on a soul-less paradigm

he wore expensive glasses with both lens cracked

there were bird feathers

a string of baby saliva

and lord knows what else

that stood out on his junk-wire beard.

he had the face of a world

that gave birth to a still-born Africa

he spat that the only way to kill Ecclesiastes

was to write poetry from right to left on

parchment without lines

to change the flow of red rivers, he said.

with a mischievous grin and snicker he quickly added

that he stole the idea from one of his victims and

that he probably got the details mixed up, or left some out.

besides, he mumbled, the sun really doesn’t make a distinction

between whats old and whats new…

sermons

maybe the

inflections

are not

infinite/

the rising and falling of dubbed

messiah songs.

canals that open and close

like the gates to mythical domains/

rapture’s root stretched to the limit

laid out on nightclub floors

in spilled beer and blunt ashes.

the fire now. right now.

hymn-books made of sheets of

asbestos/

no binding hallelujahs.

just amen.

again and again…

Make It Plain

 Note: This interview of Malcolm X took place in 1965 on CBC-TV’s (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) “Front Page Challenge” just a few weeks before his assassination.

he

who was

red

really ain’t dead

because his tone colors

what flows through

many veins

and arteries

sometimes clotting

because slogans

are slurred

during drunkenness

from dreams

or when

arteriosclerosis

becomes a

code name

for

agents

that infiltrate

the purification plants

and poison

the life-giving

sustenance

that is injected into

streams that are

red.

Wow, did I actually just see that on a mainstream talk show???

It’s been my experience that rarely do you see radical analysis of the political landscape take place on mainstream news or talk shows. In this country we’re usually subjected to just enough constipated conversation, distorted debate, and contrived conflict to allow us to happily wallow in our ideological or indifferent or indecisive slop.

That’s why when I saw this segment of Morning Joe earlier today it was somewhat refreshing.  It was both delightful and depressing, as well as politically incorrect, commentary on just how ugly, dangerous, and destructive politics can be. For all of us.

Regardless of your politics, Dylan Ratigan’s “rant” raised questions that it wouldn’t hurt to have answers to:

What is the difference between Wahhabism and Islam? And if there is a distinction, why isn’t that distinction being made by the U.S. government and in the mainstream media, or by Muslim leadership, when those wars are being discussed or analyzed during public discourse?

Why is the U.S. at war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and not Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers originated from, which was acknowledged by Saudi Arabia?

What exactly is the nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi governments?

Whether you are Republican or Democrat or Independent, conservative, liberal or progressive, whether you are Red, White, Blue, Black, or Green, there are certain questions and answers that should be standard requirements for debate just as driver’s licenses are required for us to drive.

After all, it’s all about the common welfare of Americans and saving lives- especially those of the soldiers and civilians in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan- isn’t it?