Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

https://medium.com/media/e77a449b9255716f43270f02a139cf0a/href

Of the many awful warmonger comments President Biden made in his State of the Union address Thursday night, arguably the worst was when he reiterated the US empire’s position that it is fine and good for the IDF to keep murdering Gazan civilians until Hamas bows to all of Israel’s demands.

Biden did this by lamenting the “heartbreaking” death and starvation of civilians in Gaza while in the same breath stating that Hamas could end all of this violence by laying down arms and surrendering those responsible for the October 7 attack.

“Israel has a right to go after Hamas,” Biden said. “Hamas ended this conflict by releasing the hostages, laying down arms — could end it by — by releasing the hostages, laying down arms, and surrendering those responsible for October 7th.”

“This war has taken a greater toll on innocent civilians than all previous wars in Gaza combined,” Biden went on to say. “More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of whom are not Hamas. Thousands and thousands of innocents — women and children. Girls and boys also orphaned. Nearly 2 million more Palestinians under bombardment or displacement. Homes destroyed, neighborhoods in rubble, cities in ruin. Families without food, water, medicine.”

hasanabi on Twitter: "biden's takes on palestinian lives are disgusting. no other words, he mentions the 30k+ killed by the idf as though they are victims of a natural disaster. / Twitter"

biden's takes on palestinian lives are disgusting. no other words, he mentions the 30k+ killed by the idf as though they are victims of a natural disaster.

“It’s heartbreaking,” added Biden, referring to the genocide that he himself is actively backing and could choose to end at any time.

(Democrats love babbling about how “heartbreaking” Gaza is. It’s their favorite thing to do. They love nothing more than to weep publicly over the death and starvation and unfathomable human suffering they themselves are directly responsible for, as though it’s some kind of natural disaster and not a US-backed genocide that is only happening because this Democrat-run administration actively facilitates it.)

We don’t talk enough about how horrifyingly evil it is that the actual, stated position of Israel and its immensely powerful allies is that all of the killing and starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is entirely the fault of Hamas, because Hamas has not acquiesced to the military demands made by Israel. In effect, it is saying “We will kill thousands and thousands of children until you give us everything we want.”

I mean, imagine if Russia did that. Imagine if Putin started raining military explosives on parts of Ukraine known to be densely packed with children, and then saying the mass-scale child-killing will continue until Ukraine surrenders and that all of the child deaths are actually the fault of the Ukrainians because they still haven’t given Putin everything he wants.

I think we all know that if such a thing were to happen it would be the subject of worldwide condemnation, and justifiably so. Such a tactic is not meaningfully different from lining up children on their knees on the battlefield and shooting them one by one in the back of the head until the enemy unconditionally surrenders.

Aaron Maté on Twitter: "New: The Biden doctrine in Gaza: bomb, starve, conceal, deceive, by @aaronjmate https://t.co/h2LNbDoXal / Twitter"

New: The Biden doctrine in Gaza: bomb, starve, conceal, deceive, by @aaronjmate https://t.co/h2LNbDoXal

They’re not just doing this with airstrikes and bullets — they’re doing it with food as well. Aaron Maté has a new article out titled “The Biden doctrine in Gaza: bomb, starve, deceive” which picks apart statements from White House officials about the temporary pier this administration is planning to build on Gaza’s coast over the next several weeks, ostensibly to allow for the arrival of more aid into the enclave.

Maté writes the following:

“The US military pier, Biden claimed, ‘will enable a massive increase in the amount of humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza every day.’ His own aides acknowledge that this is a ruse. According to the Washington Post, administration officials quietly concede that ‘only by securing the opening of additional land crossings would there be enough aid to prevent famine.’ And given that the pier will take at minimum 30 days to complete, that ‘[raises] questions about how famine in Gaza will be staved off in the critical days ahead,’ the New York Times notes.

“The White House has given the answer: rather than compel Israel to open those land crossings and prevent famine, it is instead adopting the Israeli position that the land crossings can be used as a tool of leverage against Hamas — and that Israel can control everything that gets in. In ceasefire talks, Israel has demanded that Hamas release hostages in exchange for, at best, a six-week pause to the massacre.”

Maté explains that Vice President Kamala Harris recently gave a speech in which she said Hamas needs to agree to a hostage deal in order to “get a significant amount of aid in,” which is the same as saying Israel and its allies will help starve Gazan civilians until Hamas capitulates to their demands.

“The very fact that the delivery of ‘a significant amount’ of aid is conditional on Hamas accepting Israeli demands underscores that Israel, with US backing, is using that aid as a tool of coercion,” Maté writes, noting that this directly contradicts Biden’s admonishment to Israeli leaders in his State of the Union address that “Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip.”

Washington’s role in the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza makes a lot more sense when you stop looking at it as a reluctant passive witness to Israel’s crimes and begin viewing it as an active participant. US officials will occasionally wag their fingers at the Netanyahu government and act like Israel’s worst atrocities are being carried out against the beneficent humanitarian wishes of the United States, but if you mentally mute all the narrative spin that’s being placed on this thing you just see a giant concentration camp packed full of children being murdered at mass scale by the most powerful empire that has ever existed.

_________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Featured image via Picryl.

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

https://medium.com/media/916028c9985cb67aef09cd28b80c568e/href

There’s a deeply moving interview on Democracy Now with a friend of Aaron Bushnell, the US airman who fatally self-immolated outside the Israeli embassy while screaming “Free Palestine” in protest of his government’s facilitation of the genocide in Gaza.

Bushnell’s friend, a conscientious objector named Levi Pierpont, met Bushnell in 2020 during basic training at an air force base in Texas. When you watch the interview you can immediately see why the two clicked; Pierpont has the same tender, gentle air to him that Bushnell displayed in his final video, very much unlike what you picture when you think of members of the world’s most murderous and destructive military. Neither of them belonged there, and they each took their exit in their own way.

Toward the end of the interview, longtime Democracy Now host Amy Goodman asked Pierpont a question which drew an answer that’s worth highlighting and reflecting upon.

“Would Aaron have described this as suicide?” Goodman asked Pierpont.

“No, absolutely not,” Pierpont replied, adding, “He didn’t have thoughts of suicide. He had thoughts of justice. That’s what this was about. It wasn’t about his life. It was about using his life to send a message.”

Democracy Now! on Twitter: "Would Aaron Bushnell have described his self-immolation as suicide?"No, absolutely not," says his friend Levi Pierpont. "He didn't have thoughts of suicide. He had thoughts of justice." pic.twitter.com/2EJW8lQIOf / Twitter"

Would Aaron Bushnell have described his self-immolation as suicide?"No, absolutely not," says his friend Levi Pierpont. "He didn't have thoughts of suicide. He had thoughts of justice." pic.twitter.com/2EJW8lQIOf

This point is worthy of our consideration at this time because as soon as it became clear what Aaron Bushnell had done and the impact it was having on our collective consciousness, there was a mad rush to pathologize his act of protest and frame it as something other than what it was. The phrase “glorifying suicide” came up over and over again from Israel apologists desperate to mitigate the damage Bushnell’s act had done to US and Israeli information interests, and we constantly saw Bushnell described as mentally ill and suicidal by spinmeisters acting in bad faith.

What Bushnell did isn’t what people think of when they hear the word “suicide”. It’s not the sort of thing suicide prevention hotlines are set up to deter. It’s not what mental health clinics are built to prevent. It’s not what the designation “suicidal” is intended to point to.

When you say someone is suicidal, you are saying they don’t want to be alive anymore and are in the process of making plans to bring about that result. They want to kill themselves because, in whatever way and for whatever reason, it hurts to live.

That isn’t what happened with Aaron Bushnell. There is no indication that he was mentally unwell, or under any psychological stress beyond that which was inflicted upon him by the moral quandary of being a member of a war machine that is backing an active genocide. From what we can tell about his internal state given the information available to us, Bushnell would have been perfectly happy to go on living. He just prioritized peace and justice over his own life. He was no more suicidal than a rescue worker who died trying to save the lives of others.

In the case of suicide as we conventionally understand it, death is the goal. It is the both the means and the end, in and of itself. Bushnell’s self-immolation was a means to a very different end: a free Palestine and the cessation of an ongoing genocide.

Such an act can’t rightly be lumped in with those who kill themselves because they can’t bear to go on living. It is different in every meaningful way. It is different in how it is experienced. It is different in how we should regard it as a society. It is different in its goals. It is different in its effects. The only thing it has in common with the conventional understanding of suicide is that it was brought about by one’s own hand.

I don’t enjoy quibbling about definitions or playing pedantic word games. Those who wish to frame what Aaron Bushnell did will object that it was a suicide per the technical dictionary definition, and they can feel as correct in doing so as they want to feel. My point here is that their continued use of that word in this context is done in bad faith, and in a way that is not conducive to truth and understanding. Far more conducive to truth and understanding would be to call what Bushnell did exactly what he himself called it: an extreme act of protest.

I will leave you with a quote that’s been rattling around in my head these last few days by Ita Ford, an American Catholic nun who in 1980 was raped and murdered by a US-backed death squad in El Salvador:

“I hope that you come to find that which gives life a deep meaning for you. Something worth living for — maybe even worth dying for. Something that energizes you, enthuses you, enables you to keep moving ahead. I can’t tell you what it might be — that’s for you to find, to choose, to love. I can just encourage you to start looking and support you in the search.”

__________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Featured image via Elvert Barnes (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Caty Borum‘s The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power considers how comedy intersects with activism and drives social change. Borum’s accessible text draws from case studies and personal experience to demonstrate how comedy can successfully challenge norms, amplify marginalised voices and foster dialogue on issues from racism to climate change, writes Christine Sweeney.

The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power. Caty Borum. NYU Press. 2023.

Can you teach comedy? Can a sense of humour, charisma, delivery, stage presence and timing be learned? Comedy programmes popping up in universities across the world would say, “Yes, yes it can”. If the question is, “can you teach comedy as a tool for social change and civic power?”, Caty Borum has an entire book which aims to provide an answer.

The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power by Caty Borum explores the intersection of comedy and social activism, delving into the question of whether comedy can be taught and used as a tool for social change. Borum discusses the role of creativity, cultural power, and participatory media in driving social change and how postmillennial social-justice organisations collaborate with comedians. Serving as a follow-up to Borum’s work co-written with Lauren Feldman in 2020, A Comedian and an Activist Walk into a Bar: The Serious Role of Comedy in Social Justice, this new book is a how-to manual with case studies on integrating comedy into social justice efforts.

[The] book is a how-to manual with case studies on integrating comedy into social justice efforts.

Borum reflects on her own comedy career, drawing from experiences working with sitcom legend Norman Lear on get-out-the-vote campaigns in the late ’90s and early 2000s like  Declare Yourself. While these campaigns engaged young people and demonstrated the power of comedic efforts, Borum notes that the impact on electoral outcomes was limited. Though 2004 saw the largest turnout (nearly 50 per cent) of voters aged between 18 and 24, that demographic still accounted for just 17 per cent of the total voter population, and Bush beat his democratic rival John Kerry to secure a second term.

Although mobilising the public through comedy for direct political action may be too great an ask, Borum emphasises comedy’s narrative power in shaping public understanding and influencing cultural attitudes. The book explores the evolution of comedy in the participatory media age, especially its increased visibility during the pandemic and its role in challenging societal norms. The rise of independently produced content on social media has challenged the authority of networks and studios, boosting the democratisation and creative agency of comedy “content”. Though Borum acknowledges the benefits of social media for amplifying marginalised creators, she falls short of critically examining its impact on mental health, the spread of misinformation and biased algorithms. Despite this, she underscores comedy’s potential as a cultural intervention empowered by the participatory networked media age.

Positive deviance, according to Borum, is the quiet power of comedy that journalism lacks.

The book discusses the comedic response to political events, particularly the rise of Donald Trump, positioning comedy as a force for social change by offering fresh ways of undermining the status quo. According to Borum, comedians say what journalists cannot, thinking of Michelle Wolf, who at the 2018 White House Correspondents dinner pointed out the mutually beneficial cycle of journalists covering then-President Trump’s near-constant news feed. Positive deviance, according to Borum, is the quiet power of comedy that journalism lacks.

Comedy also serves as a creative space for marginalised voices, providing an alternative narrative and critique that traditional journalism may lack. Borum highlights the importance of optimism in comedy. Comedy provides a space for an alternate reality, for example the TV series Schitt’s Creek portrays a world where the LGBTQ community is fully accepted. In this sense, optimism can be a survival tactic. As Borum suggests,

[C]omedy as a force for social justice breaks down social barriers and opens space to discuss taboo topics; persuades because it is entertaining and makes us feel activating emotions of hope and optimism; serves as a mechanism for traditionally marginalized people to assert and celebrate cultural citizenship through media representation; acts as both social critique and civic imagination to envision a better world; and builds resilience to help power continued struggle against oppression.

Borum provides an in-depth, well-researched review of cultural entertainment activists, tracking the power of the entertainment industry to affect how people feel. “Pioneering cultural entertainment activists pushed for ‘mainstreaming’ oppressed people – including and normalizing their lives and lived experiences in entertainment.”

The book is something of a documented workshop, drawing from the experiences and insights of leaders across social justice activism and comedy to emphasise the power of media.

The book is something of a documented workshop, drawing from the experiences and insights of leaders across social justice activism and comedy to emphasise the power of media. Its instructive aspect lies in Borum’s description of running comedy workshops and writers’ rooms, offering a practical guide for both comedians and social activists. These collaborative spaces aim to translate key messages into comedy routines through storytelling, making complex issues more accessible. The author uses climate change and the opioid epidemic as examples, demonstrating how comedy can humanise and mobilise audiences to address pressing challenges.

Borum examines a case study of youth political activist group Hip Hop Caucus which aims to communicate a basic awareness of climate change to Black, Indigenous, and other People of Colour, who are the most affected by, and yet contribute the least to, climate change in the US (and globally). Even if this comedy work may not reach the oil companies responsible for the brunt of climate change, it serves to educate and mobilise audiences. In this sense, the messaging of the book goes, culture is important because it is the mechanism by which we relate to each other. Although it’s hard to demonstrate the material impact of comedy and the entertainment industry overall on political dynamics, communicating the mechanisms translating individual experiences in collective narrative storytelling to foster understanding and support is convincing.

Culture is important because it is the mechanism by which we relate to each other.

The Revolution Will Be Hilarious emphasises the power of comedy as a force for social justice and provides practical insights into its integration with activism. She effectively shows how collaboration between the two has the power to start meaningful conversations around racism, climate change, economic disenfranchisement, addiction and more. Borum’s work serves as a valuable guide for media and communication theorists, entertainment industry professionals, social activists, and comedians, showcasing the potential of collaboration between comedy and activism in sparking meaningful conversations on various societal issues.

This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image Credit: Paul Craft on Shutterstock.

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

https://medium.com/media/bd8c0e8f4f465b43d1063ad50564857f/href

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that if a Republican president were to back a genocide it would be an evil and unforgivable atrocity, whereas when a Democrat president backs a genocide it’s a minor foible that you’d better shut up about unless you want Trump to win.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to keep destroying Gaza because they love killing Muslims, whereas Democrats want to keep destroying Gaza because something something it’s all Netanyahu’s fault anyway hey let’s go back to talking about Trump.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans argue in support of wars, militarism, capitalism and oppression using right-wing language, whereas Democrats argue in support of wars, militarism, capitalism and oppression using left-wing language.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans do evil things for evil reasons, whereas Democrats do evil things for noble humanitarian reasons.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans facilitate all the interests of the US empire because America is strong and godly and should rule the world, whereas Democrats facilitate all the interests of the US empire because America is liberal and egalitarian and defends the rules-based international order.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to start a world war with China, whereas Democrats are strongly in favor of starting a world war with Russia.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans cheered for the invasion of Iraq solely because it was waged by George W Bush, whereas Democrats criticized the invasion of Iraq solely because it was waged by George W Bush.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the people massacring civilians in the global south under Republican administrations are racist homophobic misogynistic bigots, whereas the people massacring civilians in the global south under Democratic administrations are inclusive intersectional feminist LGBTQ allies.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans criticize Democrats for made-up nonsense reasons like wokeness, whereas Democrats criticize Republicans for made-up nonsense reasons like Russiagate.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans promise to end civil rights if you vote Republican, whereas Democrats promise to let Republicans end civil rights if you vote Republican.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans are led by demented octogenarian swamp monsters who can’t string a sentence together and have spent decades in office promoting ecocide, imperialism, exploitation and oligarchy, whereas Democrats — oh, well I guess that one’s both of them actually.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that liberals feel bad feelings when Republicans are overseeing the imperial bloodbaths and feel good feelings when Democrats are.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when a Republican is president it’s time to yell and scream about any bad things he does, whereas when a Democrat is president it’s time for brunch.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when Republicans do the monstrous things necessary to maintain a globe-spanning empire they’re the greater evil, whereas when Democrats do the monstrous things necessary to maintain a globe-spanning empire they’re the lesser evil.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when the imperial murder machine has an (R) on it we’re meant to frown, and when the imperial murder machine has a (D) on it we’re meant to smile.

_____________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2