And when the subject of the conflict in the Middle East is broached, I should manage a discreet and “knowing” little sigh, having recognized the signal to return to the much more pressing topics of the day like gay marriage or this year’s Oscar nominees. Unluckily for me, I have no intention of being a “fair and impartial” observer of anything — least of all injustice. After all, “objectivity” in the political context usually functions as passivity and an inability (or unwillingness) to confront power, which is never “objective” about anything. Truth, on the other hand, can never be underestimated, however much its detractors protest the unwelcome incursion of inconvenient facts into their power-serving narratives, using subterfuge and fraudulent notions of “objectivity” to defend the indefensible. Worst of all, truth provides the basis for courage, and without courage, power cannot be confronted.

Indeed there is no shortage of facts that could lead one to conclude that the unmitigated tragedy that is unfolding right now in Gaza is anything but a singular act of violence and state terror perpetrated by a heavily armed and funded military power against a defenseless and imprisoned population — as opposed to a two-sided, evenly matched conflict between equal powers as our fact-filtering media takes great pains to imply, even insisting in some cases that small, fertilizer-based Qassam rockets launched over a prison wall pose a credible threat to Israel’s continuing existence as a political and geographical entity.

But for now, I will leave the heavy lifting required to properly analyze the unfolding and escalating atrocities being inflicted upon the people of Gaza in the capable hands of all the worthy scholars and activists who provide a much better service to the cause of justice than I ever will. In fact, I will be the first to admit that I lack the brainpower to truly grasp the scope and complexity of this horror, or the imagination to fully appreciate the depraved ingenuity of its architects. In many ways, I am even thankful that I don’t have the faculties necessary to truly comprehend the levels of fear and despair every Palestinian is experiencing right now, as their homes are being rubbled, their children slaughtered, and their dignity and honor defiled by the monsters who wear the Israeli army uniform.

These seemingly endless reserves of contempt (not to mention, bewilderment) I am learning to live with are no match, either, for how the Palestinians (and Israelis of conscience) are feeling towards the leaders who robbed these soldiers of every last shred of their humanity in the first place. Nor do I have the stamina to endure even for a day the frustrations and humiliations the Israelis relentlessly inflict upon Palestinians in the “best” of times, whether it’s through direct intimidation, harassment, or just as brutally, all those punishing bureaucratic procedures like checkpoints and constant demands for documentation, the interminable waiting, the endless lines . . . We can only interpret the ever-changing and maliciously implemented rules Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have to submit to, even as they are being denied a human being’s most basic, fundamental needs like going to work, visiting nearby friends and relatives, or seeking medical services, as constant reminders that they are not merely prisoners, but a contained “livestock” herd facing the same fate as farm animals suspected of posing the risk of contagion to “human” populations.

I don’t have the expertise, so to speak, (or even the bandwidth) to list every “minor” act of cruelty that is inflicted upon the Palestinians as collective punishment every day for the crime of not being Jewish in the “”Holy Land.” Comparing this system of state brutality against an ethnic “other” to Apartheid is a euphemistic understatement. Holocaust is a more accurate term, but this holocaust, unlike its more famous predecessor with a capital ‘H’, has continued unabated for sixty years and intensifies every passing day, while we wring our hands and mumble some platitude about the failures of both sides to seek more peaceful means towards ending the conflict. Implicit in this simplistic view of the situation is the notion that total submission to Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian land and its brutal control over every aspect of Palestinian life is the only course of “action” Palestinians should pursue if “peace” is to be achieved.

Let’s not forget, though, that “peace” in this context is a subterfuge term to describe the abject capitulation to the enhanced measures of domination that is incumbent upon Palestinians to submit to, with little or no regard to their rights to self-defense. What well-meaning hand wringers most conveniently overlook as they lament over the wrongs inflicted on and by both sides (in the name of “objectivity”, of course) is the seldom discussed fact that Israel had already violated the terms of its illusory “ceasefire” with Hamas when it implemented its deadly blockade of Gaza six months earlier — an internationally recognized violation of its responsibilities as an occupying power — and an obvious attempt to provoke a cross “border” assault by Hamas militants in order to justify its own brute measures of “containing” its unwanted and slaughter-ready “livestock” population. Never mind, either, that Israeli soldiers murdered six Palestinians during this so-called ceasefire in November 2008, citing the victims’ affiliation to Hamas as a justification for this slaughter.

Again, the “objectivity” our society’s privileged sector insists is integral to our understanding of the conflict merely stands as tragic testament to the American media/military/entertainment complex’s success in shaping public discourse to serve the needs of wealth and power, providing an exclusive, cushy forum from which war criminals can air their grievances 24/7.

For those who don’t enjoy the luxury of inhaling the fine cigar aroma of the nation’s op-ed pages and get their “news” first hand from the mortar shells raining down on their homes, “objectivity” is merely an other rhetorical ploy to bring them in line with Tel-Aviv and Washington’s larger aims of expanding their sphere of dominance in an oil rich region.

We shouldn’t be surprised at the scale and scope of this tragedy since it goes back decades with the slow destruction of the economy, infrastructure, institutions and overall sustainability of the occupied territories, the fragmentation of Palestinian land into isolated and locked down Bantustans disconnected from the surrounding economies of its neighbors. So far Israel has achieved its intended goal of creating a failed non-state almost wholly dependent on the scant food aid “allowed” in at the whim and mercy of its jailers. Adding insult to injury, these starvation measures are lauded in the media as “humanitarian” interventions, carried out under the auspices of an International law-abiding nation, going that extra mile to observe the protocols of the Geneva Conventions.

Worse even, this deliberate dismantling of Palestinian society and the institutions that sustain it has been carried out with the full cooperation of the so-called “International Community.” Even among Arab leaders in the region, corrupt politicians offer their complicit support to the genocide through discreet diplomatic channels. In the meantime, the criminals we have elevated to levels of leadership stand united in condemning the Palestinians for the least resistance to their worsening plight, while condoning Israel’s war crimes as acts of “self defense.” I could go on, but I know I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface.

I will also be the first to admit that I am neither burdened by history or displacement, but merely a casual observer with the remote control easily within reach. And to my shame, I don’t hesitate to use it. It’s hard enough to fathom any of the atrocities going on in the world on any given day, let alone imagine one that is endless, deliberately worsening, and with the intended goal of provoking a humanitarian crisis. It is no longer possible to deny the fact that Israel’s long standing strategy is to derail the prospect for peace with the Palestinians altogether in the belief that a viable, democratic Palestinian state would only impede its ultimate geopolitical aims of further expanding its ill-gained and legally unrecognized borders. For all its talk of “peace” and “coexistence”, Israel’s road maps only lead to more enhanced measures of forced expulsion of the human shaped potholes its artillery tanks absorb along the otherwise smooth paths leading to its targets of annihilation.

If I only knew how to compartmentalize my empathy (and yes, my sense of outrage) into neat little packages to be doled out on a “time and place” basis. And again, only to those who “deserve” it most, based on their proximity to high profile advocates like Bono and the Dalai Lama. Or at least conform visually to our standards of “victims” like those wizened, semi-comatose African babies whose blighted existence can never be expressed through acts of defiance or resistance, but rather compliancy and helplessness in the face of “unavoidable” tragedy. We in the West approve of these kinds of victims because they pose no threat. On the contrary, they remind us how “good we have it” and provide countless opportunities to throw a celebrity-studded shindig in their honor. For the bargain basement price of what it would cost to feed and educate an African child well into adulthood, we can pick one up as the ultimate red carpet accessory. Conveniently, we read only gratitude for our beneficence in those terrified, staring eyes, rather than see a mirror upon which are own depravities are reflected. When Palestinians are reduced to this state, perhaps then we can spare a thought to their predicament.

As the images of terrorized and slaughtered children make their way out of Gaza through some of the more unfiltered media portals, the endless litany of absurdities dribbling from the mouths of Israeli government officials and their faithful scribes in the US media in the meantime, have become as blood chillingly surreal as any government radio broadcast in Rwanda during another genocide the world just happened to tune into between sit-coms and commercials for suppositories and teeth whiteners.

In the face of this ceaseless barrage of misinformation, we can only exercise our own right to self-defense against these relentless assaults to our intelligence and integrity before we become casualties ourselves. After all, when we choose to put our humanity on hold by adhering to some self-serving notion of “objectivity” in the face of avoidable tragedy, doesn’t that count as a death of sorts?

(With special thanks to Carl Kandutsch and Zeljko Cipris)

This time around, GW played the unenviable villain role of the Coca Cola exec responsible for his company’s disastrous decision to tamper with the formula and packaging of a beloved, much touted brand of carbolic soda, while Barack Obama played the dissenting marketing genius who comes to the rescue and restores the poisonous product back to its original flavor. Having put the genie, so to speak, back into the bottle, the whiz kid replaces the despised and disgraced CEO much to the relief of customers and shareholders alike. In this fictionalized retelling of the story, the youthful upstart’s deceptively bold campaign to oust his former boss is launched with the support of his enthusiastic and idealistic marketing team, most of whom were eventually given the pink slip once the new CEO settled into his upper floor suite. McCain’s minor role as hired mouthpiece attempting damage control for the outgoing CEO was a comical and insignificant aside to bigger picture premise of an arrogant and deluded leader being challenged by a charismatic and visionary upstart. Never mind that the “visionary” envisioned nothing more radical than a return to the recent past of putting the requisite amount of high fructose corn syrup in aluminum cans.

While Pepsi may have profited handsomely in the short term from Coca Cola’s mishandling of its newly launched product and the public relations fiasco that followed, it was Coca Cola that ultimately prevailed, outselling the rival brand two-to-one within six months of reintroducing the old formula as “Coke Classic.” In subsequent retellings of the events in 1985, Coca Cola’s swift and repentant capitulation to consumer demand would be upheld as an example of “the power of the people” in shaping corporate policy, citing the example of millions of angry Coke drinkers bombarding the company’s Atlanta headquarters with angry letters and staging public events to express their anger over what they felt was the company’s arrogant disregard of customer loyalty. What is most often overlooked in this updated David vs Goliath parable is how the beleaguered Behemoth, while publicly licking its wounds, was in fact, laughing all the way to the bank, even as the competition gained short term windfalls over the ensuing “scandal”. Also absent from this feel good retelling of “The People vs New Coke” is how this so-called consumer movement was not in fact a spontaneous rising up of angry citizens against an arrogant giant but a mostly media-generated spectacle that took its talking points from Pepsi’s PR department, hoping to cash in on the “controversy”.

The media/entertainment industrial complex pushes forward these faux story lines, substituting substance with empty calories while prioritizing the trivial at the expense of truth telling. Our system of governance in collusion with its corporate overseers relies on a lazy and willfully misinformed citizenry to effectively function. Like the carefully orchestrated spat between the identical blonde “frenemies” of The Hills, the presumed enmity between Team Obama and Team Bush (and even Team Clinton) was merely a plot device to enhance the selling points of deodorant and hybrid cars during a profitable election cycle.

Voters, not unlike soft drink aficionados, can be counted on to rally around a non-cause perpetrated by multiple corporate entities all profiting from a well orchestrated marketing blitz — just as they can be counted on to take these falsely constructed narratives and marketing campaigns at face value, eschewing facts for factoids, truth for “truthiness” and reality for the MTV version. Coverage of November’s landmark presidential election puts forward a similar feel good spin on what really amounts to a staged confrontation between costumed rivals. Admittedly, it’s difficult not to applaud the triumphant outcome of the “underdog” in this elaborately choreographed “battle”. The poised and telegenic President-Elect is a flawless package, even if his sleek exterior conceals the same corrosive elements that defined his predecessors. Once again, a multi-lateral marketing campaign yielded a simulacrum democratic movement under a new slogan. “Yes, we can!” heralded as a stroke of (marketing) genius on par with “I have a Dream” (but without all the pesky nuance, intellectual depth and angry black guy connotations) was less a continuation of Dr King’s groundbreaking speech than having evolved from the brain trust that once declared Coca-Cola “The Great National Temperance Beverage.”

By the time he officially enters the White House with his revived cabinet of Clinton appointees, President Obama will have calmed the angry public backlash at the executive responsible for tampering with an established brand of “soft” Imperialism and exposing it as a crude, corpse strewn land grab. Like the subsequently re-branded “Coke Classic,” Brand Obama has never been about “change” but merely reversion to an executive branch that pretends to “feel your pain” while continuing to inflict it even more brutally on vulnerable and impoverished populations overseas.

Still weeks away from officially taking office, and already President-Elect Obama’s early supporters — those insignificant and ultimately embarrassing hordes of anti-war “progressives” who dug into near empty pockets to launch his grassroots campaign — are feeling the sting of betrayal with each passing news cycle announcing his cabinet picks. Perhaps we should not be surprised by his choice of hawkish economic and foreign policy advisors and “experts”, or the appointment of Lady MacClinton herself as Secretary of State. After all, contrary to popular belief, no one at Coca-Cola was fired or otherwise penalized for their role in perpetrating what is widely perceived as the worst marketing decision ever made for the simple reason that for all its bad publicity, the “miscalculation” proved ultimately beneficial to the architects of this “failure”. “Catastrophic success” then as now describes the unintended benefits that befall the mighty in the wake of a seemingly insurmountable setback.

Presidential candidate Obama might have questioned Senator Clinton’s judgment in authorizing the war in Iraq with her “yes” vote, but having measured the decorous curtains in his plush new quarters, perhaps he can afford to be magnanimous towards his former nemesis Bill Clinton. No doubt the old horn dog is salivating over the prospect of spending quality time with his next booty call while the Missus waddles across the world stage to collect her next consolation prize.

What pundits describe as the “seamless” White House transition currently underway should give us more reason to despair than hope. This smooth and apparently amicable transfer of power that the pundits insist is proof that civility and pragmatism are being restored to the nation’s highest office merely confirms that “change” and “hope” are, and always have been, euphemistic terms for “Business and Empire as Usual.” That should have been obvious when the “anti-war” candidate shifted his rhetorical stance from ending the bloodshed in Iraq to escalating the US military presence in Afghanistan. His groveling campaign speech to AIPAC was another indication that his conscience and intellect were impediments on the path to his “historic” presidency; short-term glitches in an otherwise flawlessly executed marketing campaign. His swift post-election appointment of Likud Party poster boy Rahm Emanuel as Chief-of-Staff, Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden as Vice-President, and of course, the selection of Hillary (“I will obliterate Iran”) Clinton to lead the State Department are further indications that the next US president is gearing up to serve as Israel’s next outsourced leader.

As he prepares to fulfill his duties overseeing the vast corporate/ military apparatus required to sustain his newly adopted homeland, the last thing we should expect from this “agent of change” is, say, a rational and humane response to the humanitarian crisis currently playing out in Gaza as Israel’s deadly blockade of the occupied territories intensifies, or a swift withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as promised early on his campaign. Nor should we expect the media under an Obama presidency to relinquish its role as the propaganda arm of an National Security State comprised of a willfully misinformed electorate unable to distinguish between Brand A Cola and its political counterpart. After all, voters, content to passively adore their beloved candidate from a viral YouTube video or a Huffpo blog post extolling his sterling qualities, did not set a mandate for their “agent of change” or otherwise instruct him to implement policy that represented a significant departure from the current one. It was enough, it turns out, to project one’s hopes on to an abstractly held notion of “change” and bask in the warm glow of being part of a movement, even if the movement was little more than a disgraced brand’s temporary recall of a product tainted by bad publicity.

The one time community organizer turned politician has finally revealed himself as a viral marketing phenomenon on par with Max Headroom, Coca Cola’s virtual, lantern jawed mascot whose appeal rested on his ability to convey nothing and everything simultaneously. Depending on the psychological profile of the consumer, the remote, disembodied Cola mascot was either a figure of strength and authority or a “new wave” icon thumbing his digital nose at the old order. This enigmatic shape shifter was reborn in the Senator from Illinois who similarly and deceptively conveyed youth and rebellion while advocating the same kind of muscular foreign policy of his predecessors. This cynically contradictory message did not appear to cause discomfiture among Obama’s centrist base, who insist to this day that the “grassroots” nature of his early campaign and the “cool” factor he was able to engender in a process that traditionally overlooks the role of young voters somehow mitigates the President-Elect’s transformation from agent of “change” to establishment hawk waiting to serve out Bush’s third term.

Where “Classic” was once stamped on a hastily reconfigured pop can to distinguish it from its internal rival, “Hope” became the official slogan of a disgraced brand desperately seeking to re-establish its dominant market share with a quick fix solution. Just as consumers never noticed that the cheaper sweetening agent that had replaced liquid cane sugar in the “old” Coke was now the staple ingredient of “Classic” Coke, most of us remain blissfully non-cognizant of the sleight of hand deceptions going on behind the scenes as Brand USA relaunches itself as a continuation of the status-quo.