gagablog 74: Behind the Aura: TV Magic, Bergdahl, Snowden, VA/IRS Scandals, Obama, "Playing Dumb," Denmark, Women, Iraq/Syria War and Pope Francis

As soon as I finished the last gagablog, three weeks ago, I read the lyrics, saw some things I had misinterpreted, and was eager to write some adjustments. In that time many things have happened in the world. I was ready to call it "Behind the Aura" and noticed that the Simpsons rerun that day was the "Behind the Music" episode. The Simpsons is intelligent and universal/ubiquitous enough that it works like a magical decoder ring: there have been some other Simpsons reruns recently that have magical connections to what is going on in the world, and a few that have been less magical than intentional, such as the ones with World Cup references. I wonder what the intention of two Sideshow Bob episodes on the same day, or the one I had never seen before with Gabriel - what did they mean to me? But every day since the last gagablog I've been thinking about writing the next one and it seems like almost each day there was a point being made, magically, by the Simspons but I can't recall them right now. I'm thinking about a perfect example (Just as Leslie on Masterchef said "I'm not perfect"), over a month ago my brother in law was celebrating his birthday with us and we had watched the first rerun episode of the Simpsons and before the second one came on I said "Are you excited to see your birthday episode of the Simpsons?" and the show opened with Homer at his birthday party, with a hat on and cake and a banner in the background that said "Happy Birthday!" - it was perfect. The "Vegas Season" music is apparently EDM according to the commercial. I missed the Simpsons today and I'm currently watching Master Chef - Leslie said "they nailed me to a cross on the beach now they are burning me at the stake." Maybe by the end of this the significance of this mixed Jesus-witch reference, made by the outkast, will make sense. It seems like everyone, on the show and the TV audience, wants him to go because he is an asshole. This is a good time to warn anyone that one intention of this edition of the gagablog is to remove asshole mentality. Sanford and Son are considering a 178-dollar TV, 21-inch, black and white, in like 1978 dollars!!! But it's not about "getting rid of the asshole" as represented by Leslie being unpopular - he won the challenge and will be on the show another week. But he also had the support of Big Willie out of most of the other competitors who seemed to dislike him. It's not like he is "the asshole" even though he comes across that way, and Willie seems sensitive and is caring for the one left out, and Leslie as a human being, by caring for him. I know this all sounds random but it all fits the theme of Behind the Aura - but I will save the "Aura"-specific commentary to the end if you just want to skip down to the bottom of this one. I've got a lot to say about the news of the last week as relates to "behiond (spelling I know but I like how it jersified) the aura", behind the veil, behind the curtain. And I feel like saying them will pull this curtain away in a new way, as never before - this week has been like a close-up on the curtain. But I will continue this from work in a few hours, I have to get ready - and I've seen this episode of Sanford and Son, where they get Grady's stolen set, many times recently, for some reason. (Maybe because I'm trying to "re-sell" ideas about Aura when I still have not gone to the source to establish it's true propriety... - late edit.) Now it's 3:44 AM and Jack Benny is on TV, not likely to interrupt me. But my TV interruption, as I was writing this 3 weeks ago, really turned into a magical event. I just happened to be, "randomly" or magically, writing this gagablog (with the TV on for extra clues) as Obama announced the liberation of Bowe Bergdahl - could anyone have expected it would be the start of the latest "scandal" of the Obama administration that is sweeping the nation? Could anyone have expected that the way some Americans seem to want to treat him will make the five-year imprisonment seem preferable by comparison? I could rant about this for a long time, but let me make it simple - if you even care whether or not Bergdahl is a "true American" then you aren't a true human being, case closed. Like my daughter's Animal Paw Club motto reads: "if you don't like animals, you don't like yourself." The sad thing is, if he did leave his post because of disenchantment with the lies told to take us to war in the first place, well he was in good company with the perceptive, caring people in the country, from the beginning, and is in the company of what has become most of America as more and more of us see through those lies, and see through everything those liars said and continue to say. As terrible as the violence in Syria and Iraq is and has been, it is the ultimate "I told you so" from the anti-war people, those of us who were opposed to the war since it began. I was protesting the first Iraq war when I was in high school, I was the only one. I protested the second one ever since Bush stole the 2000 election, yes, before it started because it is fucking obvious, if you elect Republicans you go to war, and I knew he wanted revenge. Yes, they lied about WMD's but even after everyone knew that, they tried to say "well, Saddam was a bad guy." I'm not saying he should have continued to rule, but really we never had much moral ground to criticize him if the very worst thing he did was gas the Kurds but "WE" - the US - were the ones who sold him the chemical weapons - I think it was Rumsfeld who brokered the deal, who was also a key player in W (or both? I forget) Bush's wars. I would not go into all of this except for idiots like Dick Cheney trying to blame it on Obama when the whole situation is so entirely Bush's, ie Cheney's, fault. But there is an important comparison to be made between how Bush ran the country and how Obama is doing a few specific things, as far as it relates to "behind the aura." Bush's whole gameplan was "play dumb." That's all he ever did, and let the evil be done in his name: he was "The Decider" but Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz etc were the puppet masters. But as long as he just kept looking stupid no one could really "blame" him for it - and of course we weren't going to be responsible and take the blame ourselves for allowing him to steal the election in the first place, or blame ourselves for lack of education and activism that has allowed the defunct mentalities that actually voted for him. I've remained a strong supporter of Obama throughout his presidency, partly because I was actually aware of a lot of the evil shit Bush did so I was prepared to reject the arguments that blamed Obama. I already blamed Bush for the NSA when to me it was obvious they were doing all of this and more ever since the Patriot Act, if not before - but they announced there was no more privacy with the Patriot Act, in my opinion, and no one should be shocked. Upset, willing to change things, yes, but not shocked. The fact that Snowden shocked the country, surprised anybody, or even made the news shows how unaware we are, how willfully ignorant we prefer to be. I'm not talking conspiracy, just the painfully obvious actions of the government and even more painfully apathetic response of the populace. Occupy Wall Street was the best example of a modern protest movement we could muster? It's a joke, right? I mean, I fully belive we can bring down the government with bongos, I believe the Yippies levitated the Pentagon in like 1968 - but they were actually trying shit like that. Ok, I'm gettig off track, but I changed to the news and that will give me some interruptions, media-magic style. Like an update on the IRS "scandal" - first of all, fuck the Tea Party, that costume of the KKK, who cares how we stifle them, they suck. I say that because they are rednecks whose interests are already in power. Republicans blocked legislation that would have allowed me and millions of other poorer student-loan borrowers to pay less, and this whole student loans program is such a scam to enrich banks and "schools". They keep passing voter-ID laws and other practices to disenfranchise people and always oppose social programs. They are in power and openly voting for more power, more profits for the few over relief for the many, and this stifles all of us. If someone had to be unfair to cause the Tea Party some grief and hassle, good for them, because totally fuck the Tea Party and all they represent. It's horrific - all republican ideas are - they are all based on bigotry, misogyny, greed, war, fear and hatred. Again, I won't go into the details, if you disagree leave a comment and I will prove it to you in discussion. But the point is that Bush did all of this by playing dumb - it was the only card he had. Obama has seemed to "play dumb" on some things, too, but in much smarter ways, to much more positive effect, and of course he has other cards, too, besides The Fool. But Obama does use that one, too, just towards much greater goals. The IRS scandal, and the computer crash that destroyed the supposedly incriminating emails, is a tech version of playing dumb - and I hope they get away with it. It would not be a bad thing if they got away with stifling the influence of these Tea Party hate groups. By comparison, when Bush played dumb, leading to the Iraq war, this was a terrible thing that he should not have gotten away with. Some said that the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, was designed to fail into socialized medicine - I would like this, don't know if it is true, but if it is, it is another example of "playing dumb": "I didn't know we would have to go to socialized medicine after this, but, well, here we are!" It's a way of sneaking it by people who will do all they can to stop it, even to the detriment of their own people, because letting them know what you are really up to just won't work. The VA scandal is another example of a current scandal which Obama is in the right but currently "looks bad" - because the history will prove that the Obama administration is finally working on a problem that is decades-old, that previous presidents of both parties ignored, or were afraid to challenge the military powers. The message, the lesson, of the VA scandal is similar to the message that is coming out surrounding Bergdahl: the military does not care about you once the only person you can kill for them is yourself - they would rather you kill yourself or let you die than pay for your care and promised benefits. They just don't care, they never have. And Obama is proving this, with the VA scandal but also with the Bergdahl release: he is showing that he cares, that America DOES care for it's people despite the actual, current applications of it's stated values. Because we claim that the military cares, so Obama is not trying to completely destroy the military by revealing that it does not care, rather he is transforming it by actually holding it accountable to live up to its promises. And making this statement in these ways actually sets us up to live up to them instead of just pretending. The VA scandal, the suffering it has caused, has been going on for decades but is only now making news. This is because the military has been all-powerful in America. Obama decreasing the militrary budget was an amazing feat, one that no previous president ever achieved, as far as I know, and I think he did it as part of ending the Republican-led government shutdown, or calling one of their bluffs, again using their own idiocy against them by playing just a little dumb himself. Of course we can only resolve all the problems when we get all the information, and to do that we will be knocking the military off its premier, untouchable status. My ancestors were in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, probably many others, too. I know my great-grandad lied about his age when he was 17 in order to fight in World War One and my grandads and great uncles fought in World War Two. But I never had blind faith in the military, so none of this is a surprise to me. Indeed, to really solve the problems we need to address the evil mentality that makes us so war-prone in the first place, that has led us to having a military larger than the next ten biggest militaries combined. The blind faith in the military, or in "America" as represented by our economic and power for violence instead of our creative, constructive talents, is the Aura. Seeing all of this negativity brought to light is seeing behind the Aura. But this stood out to me, when media commentators expressed this disbelief: how could Obama not have known about the criticism of Bowe Bergdahl? Well, he couldn't have not known, but he was acting like he did not know about it, or that even if he did there was no cause for concern. This is a very subtle version of the "playing dumb" game, because the only people it actually looks stupid to are the ones who wonder why. But if you know why, or from the future when all the repercussions play out, then you can see why he would "play dumb" here. It's like, Bush and the Gang knew there were no WMD's, knew they would look extra-stupid when this was proven. So why did they do it? To have an excuse for unending military spending in a hopeless cause as long as we could elect more republicans to sustain it? Did they really think they could get Iraq on track and everyone would love them? That is the kind of stupidity I compare with Obama acting like there was some sort of compromise with republicans possible for health care, or anything. At the time you knew they would obstruct everything, but the extent to which they have obstructed everything is even surprising to people like me who have the least respect for them and greatest suspicion that they are up to the worst possible things. Bush, etc. did know that invading Iraq would start a war that could last decades - that's what they wanted because they want war. By comparison, Obama totally knew that all these hick assholes would complain about the prisoner swap for Bergdahl. But I don't think I am being cynical when I say that if Obama was in charge when the man who was released from being a war prisoner, who is now in command of ISIS, then we would not stop hearing the end of it in from the same people who are currently complaining about the release of the five who were exchanged for Bergdahl. So I assume this release, the one that freed the current ISIS leader, was "Bush's fault" - but of course the whole situation is Bush's fault, regardless of Cheney's recent attempts to deflect blame to Obama for things decided during Bush's term. Jon Stewart had a good joke about this, that Cheney was acting like we were 20 seconds from victory when Obama came in with a cross (?) pass and ISIS headed it into the goal, replaying the end of the World Cup match between Portugal and the US. But the best joke about Bergdahl came from the host of "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" on NPR - I heard this section of the program two days in a row in my car and knew I would have to include it, the repetition was a sign/reminder. The host summed up the situation, that Bergdahl's hometown had cancelled a parade/festival for him after all the controversy, and then said "I don't see why they can't just compromise and hold the parade with a new banner that says "Welcome Home, Traitor!". To me, even if he is not a traitor at all, this really sums it all up: because if he was a traitor, would it still be terrible to welcome him home, to celebrate re-uniting him with his family and friends and country, or freeing someone from, uh, less good captivity for good old American prison? Even if he is a traitor, does that make him less of a human being? And if he is not a traitor we really owe him an apology for all the hatred and negativity towards him. The beauty of the humor of that suggested banner, to me, is the idea that he is human, that we saved a life or even that we reduced suffering. But instead he is faced with the evil hatred from Americans, especially by those blinded by a hatred for Obama and all he does, or blinded by the blind faith in the military which was "questioned" by Bergdahl initially when he was showing signs his fellow soldiers noticed, or the false faith in the military that is being exposed by their response to Obama securing his release. This is why I think Obama knew exactly what he was doing: he knew some Republican strategist would ferret out the people he served with and get the most negative one's opinions of him made into national news: one damning testimony was from a soldier who served with him who asked him if he had a girlfriend back home and he said "no" - and now that this soldier found out Bergdahl DID have a girlfriend, he is shocked and suspicious, "who does that?" he asked the TV journalist interviewing him - as if hiding a girlfriend is a good sign someone is an enemy agent. Maybe Bergdahl just did not want to talk with this soldier about his girlfriend? I wouldn't blame him, the guy seems like a total tool. And the whole company seems like tools, not just because so many have come out to denounce him, but reading between the lines of the things they say, especially that Bergdahl never seemed like "one of them". As an outkast who has been an outkast in every stage of my life, in every community I find myself in, I can relate to this. Even amongst the family of little monsters,which is kind of like a worldwide community of outkasts, I kind of stick out and don't connect because I am so much older than most of us. But as a thinking person, someone who was always suspicious of the war, to hear that when Bergdahl started questioning the mission - when he wised up, from my perspective - is when the rest of the soldiers started ostracising him. To me this is just the Aura of blind faith in the military, and the Aura of "belonging to a group" or "being in the in crowd", comes together. To me, as an outkast, and considering some of the people who act like they are too good to associate with me, this lesson is a reminder why it is better to NOT be "in the in crowd", especially in certain situations. There's a connection here with ISIS and a connection with Snowden, but I will still have some more to say about the other topics so I doubt I will finish this in this session (it is now 6 AM and kids at my work should start waking up fairly soon.) The connection with ISIS is that we know these are bad people, that even Al Quaeda (why can't I spell that, after all this time?) supposedly kicked them out for being too violent - and I'm sure they have done terrible things and will do more terrible things if they continue. But the clearest examples of terrible things they do is executing POWs. The reason this relates to Bergdahl is so many assholes have been talking about how McCarthy's Army would shoot deserters in the back, etc, saying this guy deserves to be killed for leaving his post. How is that "better" than killing enemy POWs who have surrendered - if anything, isn't it worse because it is "one of your own?" Or is it the crime of doubting war is punishable by death? Again, this brings up the whole hypocricy of "one of our own" mentality - because why is one life more important than another, regardless of whose group it belongs to? This is again the "clique" mentality on a national scale, and Bush's "you're with us (imperialistically/genocidally taking over the world) or you are against us." The truth is you don't want to be in that clique - you want to be careful about how you identify against it, too, so they don't kill you. It's like this asshole I was arguing with in an email group list, the organizer of the group who is on a power trip, who at one point said his gun ownership protected my free speech but at other points making offhand death threats against me and also threatening to ban me from the group just for making my observations - showing he has no real value of Free Speech other than a mythological excuse/"reason" to keep his gun. Last week there was a news article that said China had decided to execute "terrorists" and put that word in quotes I had to respond by saying why do we get to decide who is labelled a terrorist, how can we be suspicious of that label for anyone who terroristically kills people? They did it with knives and cars in China, because I bet guns are not in vending machines like they are here. But I had to say that gun-owners are all terrorists just for having guns: even the "best ones", hunters, are forest terrorists. My point is that labeling people terrorists is an excuse to kill them, but we really become the terrorists by taking any position that justifies murder. War is simply wrong, a mistake, and to be avoided. In the meantime, while we still have war and supposedly believe in "no one left behind". the debate over this really shows the nature of it all. "No one left behind" implies everyone - there is nothing you can do that makes you undeserving of this respect. The idea, from the right, is that being a traitor invalidates this trust, makes you no longer effectively a soldier or effectively American or even human - it takes away those priviliged statuses. My point is that no one actually has priveleged status over another, there is something wrong with any system based on privilege, and there is no excuse for killing people, but now we are faced with the hypocricy of the "killing certain people is okay" lie. Bergdahl is a person, and amidst all the hateful comments under a recent article about him I had to add this, from the "other side": "I am praying (read: doing my magic spells but I wrote it for public consumption) for his health and safety and I feel sorry for everything he went through, and wish for the health of the country so that we can respect each other again, as people" - something like that. It's not about who is the most American, but people complaining about saving Bergdahl are showing themselves to be "less-than-human" - it is like how Pope Francis just excommunicated the Mafia yesterday, actually saying they have excommunicated themselves from God - more on this later. When the in crowd is formed around evil foundations - status, power, racism or whatever - the morality, the truth, is with the Outkast. By honoring the one left behind, sacrificing "himself" and leaving behind the 99 safe sheep to save the one lost sheep, Obama is in this Good Shepherd role that Jesus told us is the Kingdom of Heaven. No matter how much they will portray Obama as "wrong", this Jesusness, Sheperd-hood, will prove him to be right in the end, this is the whole "right-side of history", doing what reveals the greatest truth. The Republican's are trying to nail Obama to the cross for siding with, saving, the outkast, but all this does is prove his divinity, proves that he is right to do so. They are trying to burn him at the stake, but this just shows his magic is real, that it connects to the brightest future, the truth that comes out in the end, that even the outkast should be included. So Bergdahl's actual personal well-being is the prime factor, as it should be, as the last American captive in these wars to the Commander in Chief who is ultimately, currently, responsible and as the Lost Sheep to the Good Shepherd - this is the Holy Spirit telling you, "don't be an asshole about this, or anything really - judge not lest you be judged'" - this is one expression of the judgement that comes down with having judged Bergdahl in this way: I'm playing Holy Spirit, not actively judging them and condemning them any more than pointing out how their comments themselves "doom" them. It's like what the Double-rainbow guy said in his explanation video: anyone's comments on the original video say more about the commentators than about him, because he was being divinely inspired at the time, it "works like that" where he serves as a mirror to people, just as the divine itself does. I of course though, felt sure, that he was on LSD, but after hearing the explanation I accepted he was not (but I think he had done it before and had those circuits in place to channel the divine, it WAS "like that") Gaga said her lyrics are divinely inspired, and I not only "believe" her, but I can come up with no other explanation why they are so mystically perfect as they are. And more on that later, too. First, to finish with the Obama-playing-dumb idea, how does the Bergdahl situation compare with Edward Snowden? The Obama administration has had some harsh words for Edward Snowden, but I suspect even this is "playing dumb": if they are saying he needs to face the lawful outcome of his actions, and the American people have sympathy and even appreciation for Snowden and see those laws as unduly harsh or wrong, then we will not only demand he be treated well, we will question the laws themselves and hopefully change them. I imagine if they just wanted to "get him" they would have: it all seems to be an act. "Letting him" get away and continue to share information seems like a plan: the current White House can't just say "we are letting this guy spill all the secrets of the NSA because we want to end the policies of the last White House" but they can pretend they are all mad about it while letting it happen, "playing dumb." Again, Bush was playing so dumb he was like "if we can't spy on everyone we just aren't gonna be smart enough to stop terrorists! I can't even get out of this room, see? Or this wet paper sack! I'm not smart enough!" Obama is playing dumb like "well, what can we do, Snowden's spilling the beans, I guess we have to cancel those programs, or make oversight at least, now that we know about it / everybody knows about it." WHen SNowden was interviewed on TV was the first time I really suspected this was as planned and orchestrated as the release of Bergdahl, knowing what the reaction would be and using it to reach another goal. The way he said that they downplayed his job description, that he was basically a spy, was one clue. But the main one was the way he said "I'm still working for the government." This just seemed like it had an even deeper layer of honesty, something in the quality of his voice. The Aura, the surface message, seems to be "because I am actually acting for the good of America, I am still 'working for the country'". But behind the aura he seemed to be saying, to anyone who was open to hearing it, "I'm still working for the government, don't worry about me, I'm doing exactly what Obama wants me to do." By comparison, everyone knew Osama Bin Laden was working for the government when the US was funding him and Reagan ("get it? 'Ray-gun'?" -what movie is that from, Revenge of the Nerds?) called him a freedom fighter. But was he still working for the government when he attacked the World Trade Center, or took the blame for it? Maybe, maybe not - but the fact that Bush did nothing to bring him to justice makes the suspicion seem more credible. It's kind of like no one did anything before to end the problems with the VA, really because the military had enough absolute power to keep it veiled. Bush completely over-used the military, and allowed a lot of theft, and I'm sure similar things were done in previous wars but never to the same extent. Ironically this is is what exposed all the flaws of the whole system and is finally allowing change to take place - the veil got stretched too thin, we saw through the Aura of "the military is so great and can do no wrong." I truly believe the Democrats have been the ones who have avoided war and helped people and Republicans are he ones who rushed into wars and whose policies hurt the most people, but I really expected both to do more to just get better and less violent. It seems like instead there is just greater strain in both directions, and just as there was more money and power behind war under Bush than ever before we need more power towards peace to make up for it. And if it rips apart from these increasing forces, or if one side has to win, I just hope and know it will be the good guys. But in the meantime I'm really disappointed with both sides, and admittedly still most impressed with Obama so far, but I don't see why we could not have gone all good a long time ago, completely ending war just by leading in a new direction, probably especially with women in the highest levels of power. It is better late than never, and hopefully not too late, but I am most impressed with Obama's work towards ending and avoiding war, and especially with actually making progress to reduce the military, reduce global warming (finally!), and reduce inequalities of social unfairness. Still, the fact that we go back and forth or can't seem to make more progress faster makes me sympathetic to those who have no faith in government, people who think no matter who is in power they have the same goals, more power, and just dress it up different ways. If that is true then the whole government is an Aura and that manipulative cadre is what is behind the Aura, if we saw through it. And there is an element of truth to this, but I intend to show how all this aura is pulled away and revealed that there actually are good people in government doing good things. They aren't just the women in government, but judging those in power by how their policies effect everyone and especially how they effect women is a good way to tell if they are really doing good or not. If we elect a woman to be president, and her policies reflect the best good for the most people, especially women, we could expect better results than ever before. And we may have the most progress so far in many of these ways under President Obama, but of course so much more needs to be done we can just accelerate the pace. What does Denmark have to do with all of this? This week there were two things that happened, one in the world and one on the Radio. The world event, and a lot of media events leading up to it, was a conference at the White House that focused on "Working Families." The radio event was a BBC discussion that included a futurist from Denmark, I'm sorry I did not get her name. I'll finish explaining how this is all about women then I will move onto how it connects with Gaga and Aura. The futurist said a few things that really stood out to me. First, she said that Denmark was statistically the happiest country in the world. She said they were certainly happier in the summer months than winter, because winters they spent huddled away but in summer they came out and enjoyed the community, so she suspected the poll was done in summer. There is just a natural effect, too, based on seasonal contrasts, which depends on where you are. Here in Colorado it seems kind of the same, though some people enjoy the winter sports so much that the prefer winter. But even if the summer was happier because there was more community, and people appreciated it more after cold winters, there were more reasons why they just seemed to have better community. Mainly because they had made efforts to support women and really promote women's influence. One way this was exhibited was paid maternity leave, and the new development there that the mandatory paid leave would be split between partners, or the mom and dad, eliminating any incentive to hire men over women. But of course it also allows the other parent to have time with their new baby, and this focus on a "women's" issue really builds a stronger community altogether. Compare this with the US, where they do have mandatory maternity leave, but no mandate for it to be paid leave. There is so much we are still fighting for equality that other countries have solved. I heard a union guy on the radio saying we are the only country that only pays a server wage, just over 2 dollars an hour, and expect people to live on tips. He said European countries can pay servers 17-20 dollars an hour and stay in business, but we have restaurant lobbies that keep the wage low. This is also a gender issue since he said 77% of servers in the US are women. The last thing the Danish futurist said is one reason they have more equality is because they had more women in government. She said they don't need them now, so they don't have them anymore, but in the 70's they had quotas to get more women into government. They met the quotas and better government, and happier people, seems to be the result. They are far ahead of us in that way, having quotas to get more women in government, doing that four decades ago. But she also mentioned that they just elected their first woman to be Prime Minister, or president or whatever their highest office is. So even though they had a quota system that worked well enough to get rid of it, they still took another 40 years to elect a woman to their highest office. I think President Obama could be the last male US president, or at least the last of the "all-male" era. We are ready to elect a woman and overdue for the influence of more women in all levels of government. I don't know if we will have to elect Hillary Clinton just because she seems so selected by the party, I personally kind of hope for Elizabeth Warren or someone more liberal. I want to give credit to Obama for policies that help women, that help everyone, and I even suspect that he is doing more for women than Hillary would have or even will, though of course there is so much to be done and all progress is good and builds upon past suceess. But I want to give him credit, and to talk about a couple of things he said in the media related to this conference. Just yesterday (and it has take me days to finish writing this, so it was Friday the 27th of June) I heard some clips from a speech Obama gave in which he talks about the suffering of his mom and grandmother due to medical issues, and the difficulties of starting a family and getting good medical care, then said "did you think I would forget?" or something like that. You could tell he was personally concerned because of his experiences, and by comparison with recent comments Hillary made that showed she was out of touch with Americans who were financially struggling, it made me really glad to have President Obama in office. I'm not trying to re-caucus the 2008 primaries, but just say that the personal concern for peoples' sufferings is what makes the genuine difference. I know Hillary grew up in tough circumstances, too, but she is not aware that there is the idea she could have forgotten some of it's lessons and seem out of touch when she thinks paying for estates is a relatable hardship. And maybe she is personally aware of that and just so trained to say things a certain way that she does not appear to be sensitive. The point is that policies affect people and so the most important characteristic for those in power is sensitivity to people's needs and how to meet them. But you also have to "sell" those policies to the general public, and the public might not be currently sensitive enough to understand. This is where Gaga and other artists come in, to shift perspectives and evolve the culture. The politicians can only sell people what there is a demand for, even if it is good for them. So this is another area where Obama has been "playing dumb" in a slight way. It was the media about this conference and he is talking about fair wages for women. He cites statistics about how many households have women as the primary or only source of income and how this makes it everyone's issue, a family and community issue, not "just" a women's issue. The whole pitch had that same flavor to it: in case you are scared these new policies will help women, they will really help everyone. Now I understand people are just stupid. It's not enough to say "hey, maybe you aren't a woman but you probably know one, so you can see how these are good ideas, right?" Even women in America, not the majority of them but way too many, have been brainwashed by various conservative powers and propaganda. So while in one speech Obama is like "come on, I'm a human being, of course I don't forget the suffering of people, especially the extra sufferings of women" and another speech he is like "well, you are only 'human' so i can't expect you to care about other people just because they are people, but let me explain how being fair to women ultimately benefits YOU." This is really the same argument being fought in every aspect of society, between people in power who want to make the most out of the workforce by treating us the best possible, and those who want to enable the powerful to squeeze everyone else dry. In the end, it would be a lot easier for leaders to sell people on new ideas if we all could agree that life was valuable and should be protected. We claim to believe this in many ways but our actions don't follow it. One reason is because we repress the feminine, we derogatorily call it a "nanny state" when the government tries to help people. And we need more of that, nore of the feminine influence. Once we have it at more levels, it will be easy to work together to make needed changes: to end war, disease, global warming, and poverty. But it has to grow from all directions, and while governments set new standards and other cultural institutions help progress or stifle the evolution of culture it is really up to artists to set new goals and ideals. So after a brief word about Pope Francis in all of this I will move onto the improved interpretation of Aura. Pope Francis has been really awesome in most everything he has done. He has worked to heal various serious divisions, bringing people together. One of his greatest challenges is in healing divisions in the church and the mistrust of the clergy due to systematic protection of child molesters. I don't know how that is going but I suspect one reason he is being so transformative for the whole church is because he does have to honestly address that, and there are other problems that cannot be ignored while being honest. One is the influence of money in the church, and I know he kicked out at least one bishop who was living lavishly. But he also had an audit of the Vatican Bank which probably did a number of things but one of them was to divest business with the mafia. It might have also been part of that interfaith alliance to end slavery that I heard about where in addition to lobbying and providing resources for other countries the churches, etc, were going to check their supply chains and rootout any slavery, and the Catholic Church was part of it. Then just last week he excommunicated the mafia, a really big deal. From the very beginning he made efforts to bridge the 1000-year schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and still seems to be making progress there. He invited the presidents of Israel and Palestine to pray with him at the Vatican and made the news for referring to Palestine as it's own state. He softened the church's official stance on homosexuality, bringing more people in and setting the church in a positive direction. And he spoke about the evils of capitalism. All of these things make him especially liberal, as I predicted in a gagablog long ago, but as much as he has started the church towards the future, to be on the right side of history, there are still some things holding him back. Of course the acceptance of gay people could be much greater, and while anything is a step in the right direction the reason he did not go further is because of the issue still holding him back, which is a form of misogyny. On all of these issues Pope Francis has been more liberal than past popes, maybe even radically liberal. But he has been asked to include more women in the church, to allow women priests, but has declined. To me, this is just holding him back, and I really expect him to "evolve" the same way Obama's views on gay marriage "evolved." I use the quotes because that could just be playing dumb again, maybe both Obama and the pope fully accept gay people and always did, but had to wait for the culture to come around to be open about it. I suspect that more of Obama than the Pope, I think the Pope may have suffered from more homophobia and is getting over it but still has some progress to make. The same with women, it is just so deep in his culture that it is hard for him to make that change. But the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches is a big deal, too, but he seems eager to work through it. Maybe because they have beards. Kicking the mafia out is another great sign, to me, for a couple of reasons. One, though all the other examples are directly about bringing more people together, bridging divides, kicking out the mafia is like a form of division, exclusion. And of course I am all about inclusion, not exclusion. But first of all, the Pope said that their own actions and choices were excommunicating them from God - this is the very Oz idea that I can't wait to write in my new book about Gaga and Oz magic: the only exclusion is the way people can let fear and hatred exclude them from the community. As long as the mafia was connected with the Church, the Church could not really represent or be equally open to everyone, because that powerful and persuasive organization could demand priority and take precedence. And of course the use of violence is opposed to all that the Church should stand for, but maybe that is another flaw that had been justified when the church approved "just war" - and did many other violent things, I'm sure - and allowed that connection to continue, but now that the mafia was denounced for violence the Church will also be open to reversing any previous condoning of violence. Now that he has kicked out the gang it opens the church up to many more people - and of course it stays open to reformed gangsters and gives theman incentive to change their lives. To me, this is one form of inclusion, kicking out the bullies. But it also gives me hope for the future. One reason I am not a christian is because so many so-called christian groups are the ones who support injustice and war by supporting the right wing. One reason conservatives have had such a political force in America is because many Catholics vote with pro-life groups because it has been sold to them as a spiritual priority. But in the same way that Pope Francis said that being gay does not cause a problem with God, or something like that, I think he could update the Church's view on contraception and abortion to reflect modern concerns and values. If he said "really, its not that big of a deal, ending poverty and peace are more important to vote for" then there would be a massive cultural change and politics would shift to the left in America, at least. And maybe he would allow women priests before he said that, maybe one would lead to the other. But it does seem like he is only missing a few pieces to really help usher in a liberal paradise and it really comes down to equality for boys and girls. Now for the corrections in what I wrote previously about Aura and believe it or not they will sum up all of what I've been talking about here. First I have to say that I was about to watch the G.U.Y. video the other day - we had turned on the internet to look for Do What You Want With My Body. My co-worker told me it was out and supposed to be really hot so I was going to skip my requirement to write my blog impressions about it before watching the videos, etc. But we couldn't find it so I almost watched G.U.Y. instead, just got as far as the opening scene and "An Artpop Film" then paused it, determined to write these first impressions first and reward myself with the videos and future commentary. I argued with my wife about it, about the principle of it, for an hour or more, and in a way my first impressions are like "playing dumb", or revealing how dumb I am, so I wanted to mention it here. And playing dumb can get things done, because one of the biggest obstacles to progress is Ego. Maybe Obama looks dumb that Eric Snowden is revealing secrets about the NSA, but if it gets us to change things, who cares? Maybe he looks dumb if Obamacare fails, but if we move into socialized medicine, more what really works and we really wanted and he campaigned on at first, who cares? Maybe he looks dumb that the VA scandal has been exposed during his term, but if it has been going on for decades and is just now finally being dealt with, who cares? I heard just today that the White House decided it was systemic mismanagement - and anyone could have told them that, but they could have told previous administrations, too, the difference is admitting it, facing it, and dealing with it. If Obama looks dumb for the IRS/Tea Party scandal, but it really just emboldens the Tea Partiers to finish wrecking the Republican Party, who cares? If Obama knew that the prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl would get certain people all upset, but in the end make them just look like real jackasses, and is using this to expose the hypocrisy of militarism and blind patriotism, setting us on a course to change those, who cares? These are the virtues of playing dumb. Except for the magical possibilities, the effect of this gagablog is not nearly as important as these big issues but the kind of playing dumb or exploring my misconceptions has done is allow something new to take place. I don't presume I will know all about these songs even after watching the videos, reading the commentary, and hearing what other monsters have to say about them, but I suspect I will know a great deal more, because there is so much to them. But there was so much to them even when I was missing so many pieces, and I want to both honor that, compare it with what I learn later, and allow even the errant paths to have some sort of magical life. What does this have to do with Aura? It is the whole idea of sacrificing "oneself", part of the ego, being willing to look stupid or play dumb or just take the blame, in order to transform life itself. This is expressed in the first line of Aura and I really got it wrong, like in a crazy way. Of course I realized this as soon as I read the lyrics and listened to the song again, but I actually transposed the censorship of the Wal-Mart version of the album to make it even more confusing. In the censored version, the first line is "I [edit smear] my former" and I somehow "heard" that sound they replaced the word "killed" with at the end of the line, so I thought there was another word there. "And...left her in the trunk on highway ten" is the next line and I thought the "And" was something like "Anne" or "friend", edited for some reason. And when I went back I thought, "how did my brain do that?" because I knew the first times I had listened to it I noticed that they ad edited out the word "killed." But mostly misheard this because I am oldish. I know people refer to their "former" and I've seen it on the internet, but I'm not that hip, so it is not really in my vocabulary like that. Now I guess it is just implied, but there is another implication, probably not what Gaga meant, but since I hear it that way, too, I wanted to play dumb and mention it. It is the idea that she left her former self behind, when she transformed to become the person she becomes, in "Hollywood." This is how it most ties in with the idea of sacrificing oneself. It has none of the sinister, murderous connotations of there being someone else, and may be way off-base, but since I don't really understand that version I kind of like the one that says she just left herself behind. The rest of my corrections for Aura really just amount to it being a lot simpler than I had made it out before, but that makes it even more universal. Basically, I did not understand the lyric "you want to pity me cuz was arranged one man to love" - and I still don't understand it even after reading the actual words. I don't know what that sentence means, I don't know what it is in the context of the song, and I still don't quite hear those words when I listen to it and wonder if what she sang is a little different. But here are my ideas. In the context of taking on the persona of women who wear the veil, it kind of has that challenge to the outsider, or western perspective, that we presume, or project upon a woman who is hidden behind a veil (the clouds covered the sun as I typed that) that she is the property of one man, or "even worse" that multiple women could "belong" to one man. These tangents I got more into in the previous gagablog, so I will leave it at that. But there is another interpretation, that has nothing to do with taking on the cultural burqa, but is referring to the veil as the aura of fame and celebrity. In this context, the idea is that a rock star can have many lovers, this is one of the appeals of being a rock star. Of course Gaga could have as many lovers as she wants, but has apparently been with the same guy, Taylor, for years. Again, I don't know all the gossip or details, if there is any, but that is the general perception, I think. So in reference to her actual life, and she did say all the Artpop lyrics were non-fantasy an all related to actual things in her life, the message could be "even though you might think I could have all these lovers and it is a shame that I do not, I really was only made to be with one person". This seems to be the same message she has in other songs, like "Fashion of His Love". So in this sense it is not like family or society has arranged her love, it is more destiny, in the stars, for her to just be with one man. And she's just saying she really likes him, especially for what she really wants him for, to make love. There may have been some other corrections or omissions from the last gagablog but this has gone on long enough I will try to wrap this up with what wraps it all up, the simple answer. I was getting caught up in the Aura myself and did not want to get the simplest message, like she is saying she is a one-man kind of girl, and I would still suggest that there is the contrary idea that this is an Aura but that, for the person underneath, there is not a set gender or number of people to fall in love with. And I know I say this partly for the philosophy and partly for the wish that if she has multiple lovers then I could be one of them: and this is the Aura, just like Homer Simpson's manager told him to hide his marriage because they wanted fans to think they could have sex with him. But the simplest interpretation is that, underneath all the Aura of fame and supersexuality there is a girl. And that is what the real message of all of this is: you can dress it up in different ways, or trick people into revealing why they are an asshole, but ultimately the goal is to get people to care about each other. You can play a role to get everyone's attention, and then say "I'm just like you", inspiring everyone else who has a message to get out there that they can do it, too. There are people that everybody loves, or everybody hates, or everybody loves then hates then hopefully loves again, but they are all just like us. The whole issue around saving Bergdahl, or the issue around veterans' health care, is people saying that some people, veterans for example, deserve the very best care, but when that does not come through in practice, or because thy have insulated their system so much that they get even worse care, it is shown to be hypocrisy. And there is hypocrisy in the very premise, because there really is no reason why any person should get better care than anyone else. The soldier from the battlefield and the junkie fighting her own battles with drugs should both get the best care we can give. There is no reason or cause to discriminate. But there is plenty of discrimination, systems of it. Since so much is in place against women, that is the first place to start to make progress. We don't absolutely have to have women leaders to do the best job, but it will probably help. It will help the most when, whoever says it, all our leaders have to say is "people are suffering" or "this is hurting women and girls" and we will do whatever it takes to fix it. Because in the end the simplest solution is the best, and behind all the hype and Aura there is one reality: there is a girl. Gaga is so sexy and of course there is all sorts of sexual suggestion and excitement in the song, it is a great pop song in that way, making love to the world. But the underlying message seems to be that beneath it all she is "just" a girl. The idea that, with all this hype, with all the fame and influence, of Gaga herself or of any of the forces that shape culture, there should be awareness of "the girl" at the center of it, the individual who actually lives with the consequences of what goes on in life. Gaga emphasizes being naked and it is not like she is saying we have to protect her, she seems very much in control throughout the song. But the whole idea of a naked girl underneath it all does give the audience the natural protective instinct, to care for the very basic humanity represented by a naked girl. It kind of suggests that underneath it all we are all just babies or naked kids, and it especially suggests that underneath all the politics, of gender but also of war and greed ("...shoot a gun on your soil...is it because of pleasure or toil?"), there are vulnerable girls to worry about. I guess, writing this, it seems cliche to keep talking about the "girls", representing kids and especially suffering kids, but it is true that girls end up suffering more and worse abuses, and abuse against girls is still culturally accepted in many ways and places. Despite the more hidden message of being the vulnerable girl, Aura mostly addresses Gaga's complete control of the Aura and therefore the whole world. This was accomplished in the beginning of the song, Gaga transforming herself (or sacrficing her lover) to go Hollywood, but it has a message for everyone. All of reality interfaces with you through the Aura and by transforming yourself to command more of the Aura you engage the world in a way that changes it. Basically, it empowers everyone to say that beneath it all we are all naked children but still within it all we have the power to change the world. Since girls and the feminine are still under-represented and disempowered, it is especially an important message to empower girls. That is, to let them know that beneath every powerful persona is a person just like them, to empower them to reach for their potential, and to call out the factors, from social judgement to war, that impede the empowerment of girls. So Aura is an appeal to girls themselves and to the world to change to allow the full empowerment of the feminine. And it is like magical instruction that we can change the world through ownership of the Aura, accepting all about the way reality has confronted us and transforming it by recognizing the inner child but using it as a source of strength to take the world itself, the Aura around you, as "you" and know you have the power to change it. The last thing I will say in this edition will be about the Syrian and Iraq war, what has now become the same war in many ways. My spells in this gagablog have certainly not resulted in a peaceful solution, and though I hope they have contributed to important progress such as the destruction of chemical weapons, I can't help but feel like the real progress that needs to be made is still in the future, hopefully soon. I don't have any new ideas,except to repeat the one I mentioned in a previous gagablog about the Women in Syria. Basically, the revolution started there as nonviolent protests, mostly of women. They need women in charge, someone who can be trusted to not use violence. And possibly, probably there will be violence to protect such a group, but if the group itself was committed to seeking nonviolent solutions that would be the best course. The problem is obviously a misplaced faith in violence. The reason the ISIS forces are so well equipped now is because of all the weapons and tanks and stuff we put there, supposedly for security. This gets back to my theory that having a weapon makes you a terrorist, implies a belief in violence that itself is a threat to the community. We have to be able to have faith in community, regardless of who is in it or where the borders are drawn. The secret ingredient to make this happen is truly valuing and encouraging everyone, especially women and girls. And that is the meaning of Aura for me, at this time: the recognition that at the heart of it all is a girl and we make the best decisions by honoring that and acting in a way that does the most to help every girl, and every person, as much as possible. This is the heart of Oz philosophy, too - the Goodness of the Girl Ruler at the center of Oz, that all that needs to be done can be done by a good-hearted girl and to honor the same, as the heart of the "country" and at the heart of all people, honoring the buddha within. I know I can't get the message to the Iraqi or Syrian people to let women take over, or even get that message to the American people, except magically. But I've been talking about these issues from all sorts of angles for years now and I know that I am still not doing enough in my own personal life. There are new attitudes I can learn and new depths of understanding I can reach to do the most to honor girls and the feminine in my own life, and I know that the best magic I can do for the world is in transforming myself, leaving my "former" behind and going Hollywood, or my version of that. Gaga keeps giving me examples of that, but as I said before I need to really speed up, to light speed, to truly honor what she is doing for the world and to do my part. I'll probably start writing faster, which means less, which hopefully means more songs, soon. Thanks!