Pointing Fingers

Saudis, Sense & Sensibilities

In today's New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd refers to an article in Arab News titled "Working mothers in a double bind," in which the author suggests it is possible to juggle the demands of husbands, kids and housework, as long as the husband isn't a nag. Or if he finds out you've been hiring a cook, in which case, he'll divorce you.

Arab News has always been slightly ahead of the curve. In a an article about a San Jose printer destroying my prints, they told readers they could access my prints through local ISPs even though the Kingdom’s Internet authority has blocked local access to Annoy.com, and that they couldn't reproduce them in a "family publication." (sounds very American to me).

Dowd's column, and Arab News' tackling of this kind of subject matter might suggest a relaxing of sorts of the religious fervor governing Saudi Arabia. They might just look to this article in Arab News, with its no doubt unintended if not unfortunate title: "Homosexual-cum-impostor cop sentenced to jail, lashes" (See the "offensive" video below.)

Sloppy Science & Callous Calculations Damage UCLA’s Credibility

In a damning transcript released by University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Professor Sally Blower, the besieged UCLA director of of the Disease Modeling Group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)is exposed to have deliberately ignored concerns raised by UCSF in the first draft of a joint press release, and rewrote it, “changing both tone and substance” of the original draft. Dr. Blower had attempted to focus accountability on Enrique Rivero of UCLA Health Sciences Communications and Government Relations, headed by Executive Director Dale Triber Tate, and UCSF.

The alarmist press release on January 14th, 2010, headlined "Study predicts HIV drug resistance will surge," touted the publication of a study by Dr. Blower, co-authored by UCSF’s Dr. Jim Kahn in the journal Science.

In early February, demands for an explanation and retraction from UCLA by me and activist Michael Petrelis, were sent to Dr, Blower. I suggested that UCLA follow the lead set by Barbara French, associate vice chancellor of University Relations at UCSF and UCSF's liaison for LGBT health issues, Ms. Shane Snowdon, who met with us following fallout from a MRSA study that turned into a scandal in 2008, and established a set of concrete steps to take to ensure it didn’t happen again.

A letter requesting an explanation was also sent by San Francisco Supervisor, Bevan Dufty, to which Dr. Blower responded two weeks later, in which she wrote: “We wish to stress that the press release was written by the UCLA media person for HIV and was approved by the media team at UCSF.”

Seeking clarification from UCSF, a statement by Ms. French was issued to Michael Petrelis through Ms. Sonwdon.

Categorically disputing Dr. Blower’s claim, Ms. French stated that UCSF media personnel did not “have the opportunity to approve the UCLA press release.” Ms. French further stated: “When the study was circulated at UCLA and UCSF, Jeff Sheehy, Communications Director at the AIDS Research Institute at UCSF, told Enrique Rivero, the UCLA media representative for the study, that he thought it would be controversial. Rivero drafted a press release about the study that used qualifiers such as 'could' and differed significantly from the final UCLA release.”

Dr. Blower, it appears, didn’t like qualifiers that would water down the sensational and unsubstantiated claims being touted by her study.

According to Ms. French, “On receiving this draft release, Dr. Blower apparently rewrote it, changing both tone and substance.” Again, according to Ms. French, UCSF’s Mr. Sheehy warned Rivero that the rewritten release “would create problems, but the release was distributed.” Mr. Sheehy “did not have an opportunity to edit or approve the rewritten release” and considered it problematic enough that he “did not submit it to UCSF channels for distribution and did not send it to his contacts.”

Dr. Grant Colfax, San Francisco's HIV prevention chief, had told us at a community event on February 10, 2010 (sponsored in part by UCSF, and as a result of the MRSA mess from two years ago), that HIV drug resistance is not a public health crisis, and that Blower’s supposedly new model revealed nothing new, adding that the study “should not change clinical practice or public health policy.”

According to Ms. French, Mr. Sheehy “directed media to Dr. Colfax to ensure that DPH concerns were presented.”

I recently wrote a long expose on Professor Sally Blower, who has a history of fabricating information, and falsely accusing her colleagues of sexual harassment and other damaging lies that she’s been required to retract publicly.

Fellow scientists criticize her publicly, denouncing her as unpleasant and difficult to get along with, let alone work with. Her tumultuous departure from UCSF under a cloud of lies and strong-armed tactics, designed to hurt individuals and the university, was replicated at UCLA, where incredibly, she still works.

Despite her unfortunate personality traits – no one enjoys working with colleagues that will lie and fabricate charges against them – it appears that her lies and mischaracterizations don’t just apply to destroying people personally, but are part of her work ethic, and where her over-bloated ego and desire for attention at any cost, actually risks lives.

In 2005, Sir Roy Anderson, of the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College at the University of London wrote a terse letter to The Journal of Infectious Diseases, providing evidence of a mathematical model he had originally published in Nature in 1991 which was “the first transmission model of HIV vaccines to assess the potential epidemic-level impact of imperfect vaccines.” His letter followed an attempt by Dr. Blower to discredit his claim in 2005 by falsely claiming that her 1993 and 1994 articles represented the first publication of the first transmission model related to the potential epidemic-level impact of imperfect vaccines.

While Sir Anderson has his own baggage around failures to disclose business associations, he is widely respected for his expertise. He is a is a leading British expert on epidemiology, and also currently chairs the science advisory board of WHO's Neglected Tropical Diseases program, is a member of the Bill and Melinda Gates Grand Challenges advisory board, and chairs the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative advisory board (SCI) funded by the Gates Foundation. He is a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Sally Blower, on the other hand, has a history of lying, fabricating and then publicly having to apologize in addition to criticisms by scientists and colleagues who question the veracity of her claims and feasibility of her models. Dr. Blower deliberately eliminated the cautions and qualifiers inserted by UCSF in order to sensationalize the findings of her study. "If the resistant strains we have identified in our analyses evolve in these countries, they could significantly compromise HIV treatment programs. Consequently, currently circulating NNRTI-resistant strains in San Francisco pose a great and immediate threat to global public health," the study said.

Dr. Blower further used the media opportunity to cast doubt on current HIV prevention strategies, particularly the “test and treat’’ approach being advocated by the World Health Organization, which aims to reduce high quantities of the virus being generated in an infected person to low enough levels that little to no HIV is passed along to a partner.

These actions are dangerous and deadly and impact the lives of other people.

Dr. Blower’s response to the questions raised by this study has been to mischaracterize and obfuscate the truth.

Originally I had called for an explanation, which I later changed to a demand for an apology or a retraction. In light of these new revelations and Dr. Blower’s deliberate and calculated attempt to give more credence to her findings by removing qualifiers, ignoring legitimate concerns raised by UCSF and her willingness to demonize a community in the process is reprehensible and represents a black eye to UCLA’s credibility.

UCLA needs to qualify why they continue to support Dr. Blower, or Dr. Blower should resign.

Open Letter to John McCain

February 3, 2010
Dear Senator McCain

Your decision to chastise the military leaders in the Senate hearing regarding the repeal of the military’s failed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy served to remind me how grateful I am you were not elected President of the United States of America. Unfortunately, even if your age wasn’t a factor, you do not have the integrity to be a Commander in Chief. You, Sir, are a liar.

Your willingness to blatantly flip-flop from the position you took when you were seeking the Presidency – namely to defer to the military leadership who are better equipped to make such determinations – suggests that you were either lying blatantly in the interests of political expedience, or that your memory is not reliable enough to qualify you to lead this nation.

Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both offered compelling testimony as to why the policy remains a disservice to the dedicated servicemembers forced to serve under it, as well as the integrity of the institution itself. You, however, saw fit to not only contradict yourself and your position, but in a petty fit of anger that you weren’t consulted. As if your perceived slight should in any way, shape or form have even the slightest impact on a policy that weakens our military.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was intended as a compromise between allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military and adhering to the warnings of military leaders and advisors who claimed their open presence would threaten military readiness, weaken America's might and create a climate of distrust that would erode unit cohesion. That was in 1993. Get with the program.

Your insistence on retaining a policy designed as a supposed “compromise” to satisfy the prejudices of those who believe that dishonesty and denial have a place in the military does little other than compromise our nation’s national security, and demonstrates that you cannot and should not be trusted.

There are those who have given you the benefit of the doubt regarding your alleged capture and torture in Vietnam. But unfortunately, Senator McCain, credibility is not something that is selectively or conveniently applied. While there is no evidence to contradict the veracity of your account in Vietnam, or what you did or didn’t reveal to your captors to advance your own self interest and preservation, there is evidence to doubt your commitment to telling the truth, and thus throws into question not simply your recounting of Vietnam, but even your qualification to speak to the issue at hand with any degree of authority.

Anyone who believes that unit cohesion is strengthened by a gay servicemember lying to fellow servicemembers in the unit about their core identity needs to rethink what unit cohesion is. Anyone who thinks that firing highly qualified, superbly trained and dedicated servicemembers for being gay doesn’t negatively impact the military effectiveness of a given unit, not to mention the overall cost to the military as a whole, is ill equipped to handle the responsibility of leading the United States.

Servicemembers, if you can remember that far back, are imbued with honor codes, such as “a midshipman never lies, never cheats, and never steals.” These aren’t just hokey catch phrases. These are codes by which servicemembers govern their lives. The notion that it is acceptable to continue a policy that demands deceit and dishonesty can only be sanctioned by someone for whom these deplorable traits occur naturally.

Your startling comment – that it would be far more appropriate to “determine whether repeal of this law is appropriate and what effects it would have on the readiness and effectiveness of the military, before deciding on whether we should repeal the law or not” – only emphasizes how little you know about the impact of the policy or, perhaps worse, how little you care.

Here’s what those of us who have bothered to look already know.

When one joins the military, it's the military lifestyle that becomes the only one by which a servicemember is bound to serve. Young, drug-imbibing singles have to relinquish the characteristics of their lifestyle, adulterous swingers have to relinquish the characteristics of their lifestyle, racist skinheads, anti-Semites, anti-Catholics, anti-anyone or anything, no matter how socially acceptable or unacceptable, depending on the community standards by which such acceptance is evaluated have to relinquish those traits. All are required to adapt their lifestyles to a military lifestyle, and one that is compatible with serving and performing within the strictures and structures of a military environment. It is the role and duty of the military to expunge societal influences that negatively impact morale, discipline and good order, whether it's racial, religious or sexual prejudice.

There is no distinction, under this policy, between speech and conduct. This is where the greatest problem with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rises to the surface. Self-expression, the mere articulation of who a person identifies as - a simple statement to that effect - is considered conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (or woman). In short, engaging in anal sex and simply expressing that you're gay is the same violation under this policy and the punishments equally harsh. A rebuttable presumption that stating you're gay means you will, unless you can prove otherwise, engage in conduct that is forbidden. In fact, if one was to even joke about being gay, like you did about bombing Iran, it’s enough to warrant an investigation and subsequent discharge. Unless, of course you lie, which is, apparently, easier for you than most.

And if indeed, under the difficult and demanding operations of combat, homosexuals are, although highly unlikely, engaging in sexual activity - conduct - in the foxholes and trenches, or whilst trying to dodge IEDs, one can appreciate the extent to which this might negatively impact order, morale and good discipline. Just as it holds true if heterosexual intercourse - conduct - were to occur during an inappropriate time and place under combat conditions. And further, heterosexual women in particular and, to a lesser extent, heterosexual men are also caught within the web of this flawed policy. You, Senator, appear to be unfamiliar with "lesbian baiting" -- the practice of pressuring and harassing women by calling, or threatening to call them, lesbians. The Dyke/Whore Syndrome, which means for women, put out or get out. But it seems there’s a lot about this policy with which you’re unfamiliar.

Your assertion, like the cowardly Commandant of the Marine Corps, James Conway, that the policy should remian in effect because America is involved in two wars is equally deserving of scorn and derision. During wartime the military uses what is known as a "Stop-Loss" policy. Indeed, when the "bonds of trust" that are imperative for unit cohesion and combat effectiveness are the most crucial, the military employs a policy that suspends any discharge proceedings against gay servicemembers until the mission is accomplished or war is over. The threat, it appears, only applies during peacetime. If the gravest threat by the presence of open homosexuals is to unit cohesion, discipline and morale, why is such a grave and dangerous phenomenon ignored at the most mission-critical moments?

The other free speech violation under this policy, although seldom adhered to is not to ask. But I am asking you Senator McCain.

Is a policy that is designed to create liars supposed to foster trust and bolster military readiness? Does denying expression - fermenting a climate of suspicion that requires lying to create a false impression that hidden truths will make any difference in a combat situation - engender unit cohesion? Does kicking out the best and the brightest we’ve spent billions training improve our effectiveness or help thwart terrorists that seek to do this country harm? When men and women of the Armed Services are being killed or stretched to breaking point, is it really strategically in our interests to lose willing, dedicated, skilled servicemembers because they happen to be gay? Do you really still stand behind a policy that would lower recruitment standards to include idiots and criminals rather than retaining honest, intelligent servicemembers who are gay?

As the current military leadership, and indeed even earlier supporters of the policy, like Colin Powell, throw their support behind the repeal of this misguided and inherently unworkable policy, all we can do is ask ourselves what kind of leaders we want representing this nation. Liars? Complacent and complicit liars advocating institutionalized lying? Supposed leaders who accept a demonstrably flawed, ineffective and dangerous compromise rather than striving to improve or change it?  Supposed leaders who are more concerned about kicking out openly gay servicemembers than they are about curbing terrorism?

One thing is quite certain. The future of the military and country depends on a more insightful and wise caliber of leadership than you can provide in your capacity as Senator. And thankfully, the country elected a President who isn’t either suffering from Alzheimer’s or a politically expedient, unadulterated liar.

Sincerely,
Clinton Fein

Compassionate Self Obsession

Image by Peter Brandenhoff

Buried children, buried lives
Missing mothers, starving wives
Helpless husbands, desperate sons
Battered brothers, sisters run

Save the Haitans, sing a song
Compassion whoring all night long
Celebrity culture, aren't we fantastic?
Helicopter them cake, give us cash, better plastic

We'll make pages on Facebook
We'll Twitter all day
We'll watch Anderson Cooper
We're the US of A

We'll cry on the treadmills
We can't smell bodies rotting
As the rats eat the corpses
To do lunch, or go shopping?

Weight issues, Tonight Show, terribly sad 
Slim Shakes and earthquakes, Angie and Brad
Heathcare, teabags, grass roots of gold
Corporate personas, democracy' sold

So throw up your breakfast and suck out your fat
Send the starving your calories, simple as that
You won't hear the screams as you hand out your heart
You can still look amazing as it all falls apart

Will power, Devil pacts, Rush Limaugh raving
Economy free falling, the lives we are saving
Feel good, and look bad, or the other way around
When the lens loses focus, will we still hear the sound?

United Brands of America

Although I wrote this and created the image in 2002, yesterday's Supreme Court ruling makes it all the more relevant.

Banana Republicans, Stock Market Crashes
Gap Generations, World Trade Center Ashes
Sweat Shop Shenanigans, Corporate Snitches
Apple Stock Options, Abercrombie & Bitches
Starbucks Addictions, Executive Greed
Monsanto Corn Ears, Burger King Feed
General Electric, Vice President Energy
Searle Pharmaceuticals, CEO Synergy
Sweaters by Nike, Portfolio Big Bust
Microsoft Antitrust, John Ashcroft Mistrust
Bullets by Bennetton, Kenneth Cole Blues
Mattel Bulimia, Martha Stewart Stews
Dell Dudes in Doldrums, Global Currency Woes
Scandalized CEOs, WTO Lows
Commodities Fading, Futures Uncertain
Insider Trading, Inside Halliburton
Inefficient Management, Beneficent Boards
Embattled Embezzlers, White Collar Fraud
Black & Decker, Black & White, Presidential Joke
Texas Rangers, Harken Energy, Diet Pepsi, Coke
Patents, Trademarks, Casual Fridays, Low Class Action Suit
IMF, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit

Pat Robertson: A Shake You Deserve

 
On Wednesday, January 13, 2009, the senile televangelist, Pat Robertson, reacted to the earthquake in Haiti on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club" by relaying the following story:

“You know ... something happened a long time ago in Haiti. … They got together and swore a pact to the Devil…They said, 'We will serve you if you get us free from the French.' True story."

As if setting up a story blaming the people of Haiti for the tragedy that had just befallen them wasn’t enough, he added:

“And so, the Devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out…You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another."

Amazingly, this loose cannon exhibiting a toxic blend of delusional senility and deep-seated hatred spewed under the guise of religion is still afforded respect by some and offered a platform for this kind of rhetoric by the Christian Broadcasting Network by virtue of his founding of it in 1960. Although Robertson resigned as chief executive of CBN in 2007, he was succeeded by his son, Gordon.

This is by no means the first time he has embarrassed people of the Christian faith, and more broadly, Americans, who have seen his ignorance and stupidity broadcast around the globe as if representative of people of sound mind.

He, along with “Reverend” Jerry Falwell, blamed the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 on liberals, feminists and gays, and the wrath of Hurricane Katrina on abortionists. True stories.

Robertson, who dropped his real first name, Marion, because he felt it too effeminate, has long spewed anti-gay rhetoric, the reasons of which are obvious without requiring more than a rudimentary understanding of Freudian philosophy. His credibility took a pounding in a presidential bid in 1988, when his bragging about his service as a combat Marine in the Korean War was contradicted by other Marines in his battalion who claimed he didn’t serve a single day in combat and that his primary responsibility was providing alcoholic beverages to officers.

His plagiarized anti-Semitic rants about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and approval of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, lifted from the works of Nesta Webster and Eustace Mullins, did little to help his credibility, although mainstream media organizations continued, and still continue, to seek his perspective on anything relating to cultural mores.

However, the demented manifestation of his apocalyptic delusions notwithstanding, Robertson is as shrewd a businessman as he would have you believe the Jews he despises are, for the same reasons. An investigation by the State of Virginia in 1994 revealed his tight relationship with Liberian president Charles Taylor through his Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation, an entity through which Robertson acquired rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia.

The investigation also included testimony revealing that Robertson lied to his The 700 Club viewers, claiming Operation Blessing planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda, when in fact they were being used to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia.

This is particularly relevant in light of Robertson’s most recent remarks concerning the earthquake in Haiti. Not only does he blame the earthquake on Haitians “making a pact with the devil,” but the premise of the pact he feels deserves God's wrath, was the move by Haitians in order to liberate themselves from the French slave owners.

Rather than apologize, a spokesman for CBN, Chris Roslan, released a statement that sought to justify Robertson’s remarks:

“His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath.”

Pat Robertson’s homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist verbiage could be taken as nothing more than the delusional ranting of an old man beset by fear and senility. Yet his lust for blood diamonds at the expense of Rwandan genocide victims, his deliberate lying to viewers of The 700 Club, and his callous accusation against millions suffering a tragedy of monumental proportions on the basis of their quest for freedom from slavery, suggests a more insidious and ugly agenda.

Anyone wishing to help the victims in Haiti had best think twice before funneling money or resources through anything affiliated with Pat Robertson, Operation Blessing Disaster Relief, The 700 Club or the Christian Broadcasting Network.

When you have Pat Robertson praying for you, the best an orphaned Haitian child can expect while lying injured and dying of thirst is not a lovingly administered sip of clean water, but rather a callous opportunity to buy one of his weight-loss shakes…if, of course, the child has the money.

That’s how Pat Robertson rolls.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Condemn No Evil

The latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine includes an interview with Jytte Klausen about her new book on the Danish cartoons crisis and why Yale University Press chose to publish it without any illustrations. Index on Censorship positions itself as Britain's "leading organisation promoting free expression."

With more than a touch of irony, Index on Censorship also elected to publish the interview without including the cartoons, instead publishing the board's decision not to publish the cartoons, and the sole but vigorous dissent of a board member, Kenan Malik.

Islamic scholar Reza Aslan, describing Yale’s original decision as “idiotic”, pointed out that he has “written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction”. And, as Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship, observed in an article in the Guardian earlier this year critical of Random House, pre-emptive censorship often creates a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. In assuming that an “offensive” work will invite violence one both entrenches the idea that the work is offensive and helps create a culture that makes violence more likely.

Back in February 2006, I made the decision, in my capcity as editor and publisher of Annoy.com, to publish all of the Danish cartoons.

Along with the following explanation

"The following 12 images were published in Denmark's Jyllands Posten newspaper, which sparked the furor among Muslims globally. The reason they are being displayed here is not to provoke, despite this site's name, but to allow our users to make an informed evaluation themselves. For the same reasons, we published Nick Berg's beheading and James Kirkup's poem. After two federal court cases, one before the United States Supreme Court, Annoy.com’s hard fought commitment to free speech – not an automatic guarantee, even in the West -- cost a lot in terms of time, determination and resources.

We are not oblivious to the fact that religious and cultural differences are far more complex than anything we could articulate in this small space, but our fundamental belief is this. Freedom of expression is not reserved for those wishing to express their religious beliefs, but also those who question them."

Author of The Jewel of Medina, Sherry Jones' response to Index on Censorship's decision on Redroom: No Laughing Matter: Index on Censorship Censors Itself

Index of Censorship magazine: See No Evil

Index on Censorship board member, Kenan Malik's, dissent.

The Wall: No Darks in the Class

In 1980, the song, The Wall II, from Pink Floyds album, "The Wall," with its haunting chorus of school children singing we dont need no education, was adopted as a protest anthem by black students during the "Elsie's River" uprising in South Africa, protesting against the institutionalized propaganda and racial bias in the official curriculum. On May 2, the song, album and movie were banned by the Apartheid government.

This video piece was created for "Banned and Recovered, Artist Intervention," in connection with the California Exhibition Resources Alliance (CERA) for which 37 artists were invited to recreate or reinterpret a cover for a book that had been censored. Although most artists chose subject matter that had been censored in the USA, I focused on a musical that was banned in South Africa.

To communicate the relationship between censorship and Apartheid, I chose two songs for which I rewrote the lyrics as subtitles while retaining the original music, given the relevance of Pink Floyds commentary on the British educational system, and the extent to which it influenced white schools in South Africa. The censorship of "The Wall" and my exposure to it punctured the elaborate balloon of deception that architects of Apartheid had so effectively constructed to surround me. It precipitated a passionate leaning toward freedom of expression, and its power to reach and connect with people in ways previously unimaginable.

I juxtaposed imagery of my privileged, sheltered upbringing as a white South African in contrast to that of Hector Pieterson, who was shot and killed on June 16, 1976, and whose death precipitated the Soweto Riots. We were the same age. I also combined photographs I shot on a recent trip to Alexandra, formerly a "township" with some found imagery for which it was difficult to ascertain the creative source.

"Banned & Recovered: Artists Intervention" is divided into four themes: Banning Books and the First Amendment at Crossfires; Books on Trial; Race, Gender and Justice; and Burning Books: the Extreme Ban and includes original book art, mixed media, paintings, photographs, and multi-media pieces.

The exhibition is inspired by the exhibition "Banned & Recovered: Artists Respond to Censorship" that was on display at the San Francisco Center for the Book and the African American Museum and Library in Oakland in 2008. An earlier version of this piece was exhibited at the African American Museum and Library in Oakland.

We Came, We Pissed, We Desecrated

Remember that looting of the Iraq National Museum back in 2003?

American servicemembers were so busy helping Iraqis chop down and destroy statues of Saddam Hussein, they ignored the looting of people’s private possessions and Iraq’s greatest riches, as treasures from the Iraq National Museum housing ancient priceless Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian collections and rare collections of Islamic texts were carted off in wheelbarrows.

As marines peed in golden toilets in Saddam’s palaces, posing for cameras lounging on expensive furniture, and while Secretary Rumsfeld scornfully derided as “exaggerated” the already-too-late media reporting of the looting (missed almost entirely by the networks giddily repeating footage of the toppling statues), the renowned museum was emptied leaving nothing but shattered glass and broken pottery bowls littering its floors.

The cradle of ancient civilization destroyed and plundered by modern barbarians under the banner of liberation.

Enter, six years later, Google…

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

This was a video installation for my exhibition WARning! in New York, 2004, during the Republican National Convention. Images were sourced from the Internet, and news sites such as Al Jazeera, to draw attention to what the world, it seemed to be, was turning a blind eye -- the devastation of "collateral damage" and what the Iraq war really looked like. The occasional image in American mainstream media, (who were so embedded and so ensconced in cheerleading the war), did nothing to present the truth about what was going on.

As President Obama is accused of "dithering" with regard to Afghanistan by the likes of Dick Cheney -- the very architects of these massacres, and as the President considers sending in more troops, it may be helpful to remember what depleted uranium looks like when its dropped on human beings. These images are meant to turn your stomach. And to cause you to question how your attitude might be toward the country responsible for this, if these were your family members.