News and Musings on Writing

    I've been keeping up rather badly with my writing lately--novel-wise, that is--but I've written a lot of short pieces instead. I also won a Gold Medal in the Scholastic Writing Awards, so I'm allowing myself some dispensation for resting on my laurels.
     Otherwise, I've been working on spoken word poetry, flash fiction, speeches, etc.... (And also, because I'm the paranoid sort who hates the idea of people reading my writing over my shoulder when I'm working in a public place, I actually wrote a story in Norwegian just to avoid this. Now I've got to translate it back to English and make the sentences pretty. Since my adjective lexicon in Norwegian is severely limited.)
     I also discovered a website where you can write little essays or stories or whatnot, and this month's prompt is "weather." So I wrote a little rant on climate change. It's not so much a rant as mine usually are, but this was meant to be an essay, so it's got some rhetoric and emotion worked in. Hopefully.
     Here it is:
     http://www.stageoflife.com/StageHighSchool/Posts/tabid/72/g/posts/t/16196/Default.aspx
     (This one doesn't give you money if you win, but for an anti-capitalist, I've done an awful lot of searching for writing contests or such that could earn me money, which is a bit distressing to my principles. Ha.)
     After all these short bits, I'm hoping to get back to serious novel writing with the April session of NaNoWriMo.
     As if. That requires Time. (What's that again?...) But I'll try. 

Reposts of Venezuela commentaries

Just thought I'd throw in links for this: my Venezuela commentaries now have some official status--they exist online at Mass Peace Action's website. This is mostly for my own future archiving, since I don't expect any random users traipsing through here.

But I can feel like a semi-journalist now. Which is cool.

http://masspeaceaction.org/6822
http://masspeaceaction.org/6826

Ranting On US-Venezuela Policy, Cont.

The United States’ vendetta against Venezuela is growing more serious; more sanctions have recently been leveled at 7 more Venezuelan officials and their assets have been frozen. In response, Venezuela has recalled its top diplomat from the United States, and President Nicolas Maduro is pledging to fight this display of US imperialism.

The Guardian notes that, “With inflation last year nearing 70%, a sharp economic contraction and growing shortages of basic goods, the Venezuelan government has turned to blaming an outside threat.” While yes, Venezuela is blaming the US for its woes, this is not entirely unwarranted. Venezuela’s socialist mentality has long been under attack--why would the US not be behind a smear campaign/opposition-funding assault on it? Not all of Venezuela’s problems would be fixed if the US took no interest in the country, but certainly America is making it no easier for Venezuela to recover--only easier for Maduro to point the finger at us.

Obama cites concern over Venezuela’s suppression of political opponents and states that the country’s problems cannot be fixed by “criminalizing dissent.” This is probably true, since those political opponents won’t be so easily suppressed, likely, since the US (through the National Endowment for Democracy and other such shell groups) is supporting them.

I would also like to point out that the crackdown on whistleblowers or anti-police-brutality activists in the US could well be called “criminalizing dissent,” and US officials don’t seem concerned about intimidation of their opponents here. Additionally, Obama has labeled Venezuela an “extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States.” Really? Venezuela’s government may be a threat to the US-supported opposition, or even to its own people for whom it cannot reliably provide basic goods and services, but how exactly does this endanger the United States? Do we expect Maduro to drop bombs on the White House? Is his declaration of fighting imperialism taken so literally?

Also remember that in 1983 Reagan deemed the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada a threat to US national security. It’s a familiar tactic, and it rarely bears fruit (until, perhaps, after we intervene and then create the threat we supposedly intervened to stop… al Qaeda in Iraq, anyone?) 

And we all remember how much of a threat Grenada turned out to be… or, more likely, we don’t. History easily and conveniently forgotten, leaving “national security threat” a phrase easily bandied about to justify whatever actions are desired against whoever the newest unfortunate enemy of the week is.

On Venezuela (Also a Systematic Takedown of a New York Times article)

For my first official post/rant, I thought I'd put in a commentary I did (for school, actually, but it turned so snarky in places I don't know whether to turn it in) on Venezuela and US foreign policy and forgetting history, after our recent attempt to overthrow their government again. Etc. Since it'll probably all be lost in cyberspace, I can rant all I like. Here goes.

           ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/opinion/conspiracy-claims-in-venezuela.html?_r=1

           I didn’t initially realize that this article is from the New York Times Editorial Board, and so at first was under the impression that this piece was masquerading as actual, factual, non-biased news. That would have been appalling, as the bias in this piece is overt and almost laughably reliant on less-than-factual statements. However, it follows the tired pattern of US reporting on conditions in Venezuela--which is to say, it’s imbued with shocking hypocrisy and elective amnesia towards US history in Latin America.

The article begins by denouncing Maduro’s “ranting” about a rightwing coup attempt as “outlandish,” instantly crushing any speculation that his claims--even if exaggerated--have any historical precedent (say, 2002?) or veracity. The hackneyed lines are trotted out about how Maduro’s blaming of the US is merely an attempt to distract from the dismal situation in Venezuela. Partly this may be true, but if the finger-pointing has indeed singled out the true culprit, why should he not lay blame where it’s due? I won’t even go into this. It’s par for the course, in US reporting on anti-US nations.

       The Editorial Board further continues their pointed lambasting, calling foreign minister Delcy Rodriguez’s statement an “absurd detail," after Rodriguez "[said] on Twitter that ‘the international community should know that the coup plan included airstrikes to tactical objectives without distinction of civilians.’” Even if this claim were false in this particular instance in Venezuela, the idea that a US-backed coup in Latin America might have indiscriminately struck “tactical objectives” is hardly absurd. Remember Panama, 1989? Bush Sr.’s attack that apparently warranted destruction in Panama City for no reason other than that the country was headed by a so-called drug lord the US wasn’t fond of? The US has a rich history of not caring whether civilians are harmed in tactical airstrikes (or worse, a la the SIOP in the case of a nuclear attack, we explicitly name “soft targets”--civilians--to be eliminated), and I’d like to point out that no matter how much we dislike a country’s ruler, targeting the population in an act of collective punishment is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. I suppose the insinuation that this coup might have involved war crimes made the Editorial Board bristle in indignation. They might consider consulting the historical (and current) record before judging such claims “absurd.”

       I particularly enjoyed the deliberate designation of recently arrested Venezuelan opposition-sympathizing mayor Antonio Ledezma as “a democratically elected official.” If the deposing of “democratically elected officials” so concerned the United States, you’d think we might have partaken in fewer coups against such aforementioned democratically elected leaders. I’m sure Mohammed Mossadegh, Jacobo Arbenz, Jamie Roldos, Omar Torrijos, Salvador Allende, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and so many others would have appreciated our regard for their democratic elections, and our concern to see them remain in office… I’d also like to remind the New York Times that Nicolas Maduro was also elected by the Venezuelan people, which is the scenario we usually consider “democratic.” More so than several US elections, I might add. Yet though we protest Ledezma’s removal loudly, I imagine that Maduro’s downfall would be met with quite the lack of protest at the toppling of yet another democratically elected leader.

         The article acknowledges that the opposition movement is “poorly organized”--although it fails to mention that this is due largely to lack of widespread support in Venezuela, not for lack of trying or lack of funds from, say, the National Endowment for Democracy. It is mentioned, however, that Maduro’s “credibility is nearly gone,” never mind that opposition approval ratings are said to be equally low. The Editorial Board also simpers, “We regret that the Venezuelan government continues to blame the United
States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela.” So do I. I really regret that our country is still partaking in actions that warrant such blame.

         When the NYT recommends “[a]rticulating an attractive and viable option to Mr. Maduro’s authoritarian and erratic rule,” does that mean that they find the “transition” plan proposed by the opposition, which caters gladly to neoliberal ideals, not “attractive and viable?” I would have thought they’d be quite enamored of it. It’s just what we’ve prescribed elsewhere in Latin America. Perhaps they think the time hasn’t yet come for such measures. Or they don’t want to state it too openly, for fear of the fallout of that history drifting back into our memories.

In Which It All Begins

So.

I don't honestly expect many people to read this, but a) I figured I should have a place to write down my rants instead of just bothering everyone I know, b) if/when I become a published author, it'd be nice to have a pre-established social media-esque platform, all that, and c) on the off chance that someone does actually read this, I occasionally have things of value to say. Hopefully.

I'm a high school student currently, living near Boston. I am a reader, writer, ranter, and questioner of life and norms. I like punk rock. I am an anarcho-socialist. I am opinionated. I am often angry, and sad, and despairing about this world we live in. Some of this blog will attempt to chronicle my thoughts and actions for change.

Almost all views shared here will be my own. I may invite friends to guest-post what they are thinking too, if it turns out that this is something I want to keep up-to-date with and really pursue.

Let's quote Anti-Flag: "Reciting back their facts and numbers, that don't make you smart. There's much more to intelligence, and thinking for yourself would be a start!"

So come on. Think with me.