I was waiting for a friend from high school who is Pakistani and had just come home from touring the entire country to send me a personal review of his trip and of the atmosphere there. I saw him during the winter holiday and I e-mailed him, but he never seems to have gotten around to writing it up, and I confess I let things get away from me and didn't make posts long after I'd given up waiting for his.
I have been writing though. I'm working on a novel, if I haven't said so before, and I've been making a lot of good progress on it lately. I recently killed a character for the first time though, and I've since been dealing with the consequences.
It's funny, maybe more so to me than to anyone else, how I refer to it as if I was really the character's murderer, but I really am responsible for the death, in a manner of speaking. On the one hand, I've always had the good luck to feel like the best of my stories write themselves, as if I were only reading them out of the ether of existence and transcribing them as I go. But on the other hand, I must take responsibility for the fact that I do, in fact have a climax I'm working toward, and that if I were simply writing without trying to fit it into the story I want to tell, I might never have had to kill this man.
I mean, he's a totally ancillary character anyways, I only give him a name three pages before I kill him, and in point of fact I have killed villainous characters before. But this character is a friend and colleague of the more central characters I have familiarized the audience with so far, and so the consequences of his death appear in the thoughts and hearts of the others, who must deal with the loss of a friend.
The more realistic you're trying to make your story, I think, the more you have to behave as if your characters really are flesh and blood creatures, who react to the world you spin around them according to the chemical laws we all follow: how is their brain wired? how does x event make them feel? Are they angry? Sad? Turned on? Obviously it's unlikely that the event I'm talking about would result in my characters being turned on, even though death is known to be aphrodesiatic for others of the same species who witness or give testimony to it, and of course, there's the fact that in a company of 100 soldiers, plus eleven corporals and an unspecified number of officers, the statistics show that roughly a dozen of them will be homosexual, I'm just not prepared to have that reality assert itself in my story yet.
So what I guess I'm getting at, is that, in a way, a lot of story really does write itself. You, as the writer, do make certain decisions on the trajectory of the story, but in the course of making those events believable, you are bound by the circumstances you've already fashioned to write probably four pages on cruise control for every one of actual creativity you produce. I bet Gabriel Garcia Marquez didn't have this problem as much. He didn't have to make his characters actions believable, the whole point was that they were demonstrably caricatures of reality.
But in the end, I'd say that being a novelist had made me more credulous that there is a creator of the universe. I mean, once you set one law in motion, all you have to do is sit back and watch, maybe tweaking things every once in a while, in order to get the results you want. DNA for instance. Once the properties are worked out, all you have to do to get the species you want is, you know, blow the wind here, land a comet in the gulf of mexico there, and voila! Elephants! Sorry, most people would say 'voila, humans,' but the human ego, as the anthropologist on Colbert Report suggested last night, does not need any more stoking.
Peace and Love. I'll try to keep posting regularly, now that I am back on the horse.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
An Exchange of Gifts With a Beloved Friend
Hiya! This is an exchange I've had in the past few days with a good friend of mine and sometime debate partner Matt Harder. I hope he doesn't mind that I use his words.
It began with one of the quotations that shows up on screen when you die in a video game I'm playing right now called Call of Duty. I wrote this e-mail to Matt, whose opinion I always value, but who I know to be an avid liberal and pacifist, whose opinions are usually opposed to mine, though from an excess (as I would see it) of progressive ideology, not because we're that different in our moral beliefs:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Peace (the state of being where nothing CURRENTLY HAPPENING is worth war),
George
Matt replied with the following:
And I replied this morning, this holiday morning, with the following tidings of comfort and joy:
Matt
No sir.
Ghandi could not have done what he did without the British press. I don't know anything about Abdul Ghaffar Khan so I'll wikipedia him. Ok, so the thing about Ghandi and Ghaffar Khan in this situation is that John Stuart Mill's words "the exertions of better men than themselves" apply to them in the positive way. They are the better men. Better men than the British soldiers who beat them. Better men than the British Parliament who enslaved them. You're absolutely correct that fighting does not have to mean war. Ghandi did indeed fight, but you need to remember that Ghandi was a man of his time. He could not have existed two hundred years before he did, that is, could not have existed before the democratic age or at the least before the enlightenment. A printing press was absolutely critical to the work that Ghandi did. He used this weapon masterfully, and anyone who says that he achieved what he did through non-violent means is fooling himself. HE HIMSELF was not violent, and neither were his followers, but he absolutely USED the violence of the British against themselves. Absolutely, his weapon was his righteousness, but he also manipulated the British with actions where he knew what the outcome would be. Think of the episode where he caused thousands of his followers (and himself, I don't mean to suggest that he was not above suffering what his followers suffered) to be systematically beaten when they approached (and I don't know the story well enough) whatever place that had been deemed off limits to natives. He knew in advance what the outcome would be, just as you know what the outcome would be if thirty-five thousand people were to march systematically up to the front entrance of Los Alamos.
But the important point is that under a monarchy or god forbid a despot, where the media is either censored or non-existent, Ghandi's methods WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE. In fact, Abdul Ghaffar Khan is an incredibly ironic example, because if ten thousand people were to gather for a non-violent protest march in Northwest Frontier Province today, thirty or forty of them would be blown to bits by another "Khan" who holds court there now. Two hundred miles south and east, tens of thousands of people have been protesting their government non-violently for a year and a half now. The result? An entirely symbolic victory, and a step backward in terms of everyday freedoms and press freedoms. What is different about today than sixty years ago? Simple. The region that was once ruled by a democratically elected (though not local) government, in now ruled by a local (though not democratic) dictator. Which one if preferable? Admittedly, probably the native dictator. But even better would be an uncorrupted local democratic government, which, and you mark my words, will only happen in one of two ways, either A) the press regains its freedoms and is able to rally the population to action once again, or B) la revolucion! (most likely in the form of a coup d'etat, which uses violence or the threat of violence to take over the government).
War is only one manifestation of the willingness to fight. I am not deluded. Mill does not claim that the only "better men" are the warriors, he only claims that sometimes there are no other means of effective manifestation than war. At such times, fighters must be warriors or must support the warriors or they are not fighting, they are only masturbating and making themselves feel better that they have resisted even though the resistance was ineffective. We can dispute the times that do call for war, what the prerequisites are. We cannot dispute the need, sometimes, for war. Peace, I said, is the times when nothing currently happening is worth going to war to solve. Peace was the circumstance of India. Peace is not the circumstance of Sudan today. Or Chechnya. Or Burma. Or Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan. What would Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin have done to a peaceful protester? They would have laughed and called him a statistic.
Peace and Love. Merry Midwinter Reaffirmation of Human Connection with Lots of Lights and Thoughtful Gifts and Family Gatherings.
George
It began with one of the quotations that shows up on screen when you die in a video game I'm playing right now called Call of Duty. I wrote this e-mail to Matt, whose opinion I always value, but who I know to be an avid liberal and pacifist, whose opinions are usually opposed to mine, though from an excess (as I would see it) of progressive ideology, not because we're that different in our moral beliefs:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
Not an accusation. Simply an appeal for response or comment.Peace (the state of being where nothing CURRENTLY HAPPENING is worth war),
George
Matt replied with the following:
There is no way to peace; peace is the way.
Gandhi
What is disgusting about Mill's quote is the assertion that fighting is only done trough war. Ghandi and Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Muslim) achieved the independence of their entire countries through peaceful protest. Through soul power. They fought and stayed morally unfractured through PEACEFUL means and were successful. Something is manipulating you into defending aggressive, corrupt, destabilizing, and barbaric actions and for your own mental and spiritual stability you should identify it and attempt to listen instead to truth. Pray and listen to truth and it will tell you a different story I promise you that. I believe that you know that war is counter-productive. Allow yourself to acknowledge that you already know it.
And I replied this morning, this holiday morning, with the following tidings of comfort and joy:
No sir.
Ghandi could not have done what he did without the British press. I don't know anything about Abdul Ghaffar Khan so I'll wikipedia him. Ok, so the thing about Ghandi and Ghaffar Khan in this situation is that John Stuart Mill's words "the exertions of better men than themselves" apply to them in the positive way. They are the better men. Better men than the British soldiers who beat them. Better men than the British Parliament who enslaved them. You're absolutely correct that fighting does not have to mean war. Ghandi did indeed fight, but you need to remember that Ghandi was a man of his time. He could not have existed two hundred years before he did, that is, could not have existed before the democratic age or at the least before the enlightenment. A printing press was absolutely critical to the work that Ghandi did. He used this weapon masterfully, and anyone who says that he achieved what he did through non-violent means is fooling himself. HE HIMSELF was not violent, and neither were his followers, but he absolutely USED the violence of the British against themselves. Absolutely, his weapon was his righteousness, but he also manipulated the British with actions where he knew what the outcome would be. Think of the episode where he caused thousands of his followers (and himself, I don't mean to suggest that he was not above suffering what his followers suffered) to be systematically beaten when they approached (and I don't know the story well enough) whatever place that had been deemed off limits to natives. He knew in advance what the outcome would be, just as you know what the outcome would be if thirty-five thousand people were to march systematically up to the front entrance of Los Alamos.
But the important point is that under a monarchy or god forbid a despot, where the media is either censored or non-existent, Ghandi's methods WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE. In fact, Abdul Ghaffar Khan is an incredibly ironic example, because if ten thousand people were to gather for a non-violent protest march in Northwest Frontier Province today, thirty or forty of them would be blown to bits by another "Khan" who holds court there now. Two hundred miles south and east, tens of thousands of people have been protesting their government non-violently for a year and a half now. The result? An entirely symbolic victory, and a step backward in terms of everyday freedoms and press freedoms. What is different about today than sixty years ago? Simple. The region that was once ruled by a democratically elected (though not local) government, in now ruled by a local (though not democratic) dictator. Which one if preferable? Admittedly, probably the native dictator. But even better would be an uncorrupted local democratic government, which, and you mark my words, will only happen in one of two ways, either A) the press regains its freedoms and is able to rally the population to action once again, or B) la revolucion! (most likely in the form of a coup d'etat, which uses violence or the threat of violence to take over the government).
War is only one manifestation of the willingness to fight. I am not deluded. Mill does not claim that the only "better men" are the warriors, he only claims that sometimes there are no other means of effective manifestation than war. At such times, fighters must be warriors or must support the warriors or they are not fighting, they are only masturbating and making themselves feel better that they have resisted even though the resistance was ineffective. We can dispute the times that do call for war, what the prerequisites are. We cannot dispute the need, sometimes, for war. Peace, I said, is the times when nothing currently happening is worth going to war to solve. Peace was the circumstance of India. Peace is not the circumstance of Sudan today. Or Chechnya. Or Burma. Or Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan. What would Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin have done to a peaceful protester? They would have laughed and called him a statistic.
Peace and Love. Merry Midwinter Reaffirmation of Human Connection with Lots of Lights and Thoughtful Gifts and Family Gatherings.
George
Friday, December 14, 2007
I Got My First Comment!
So that's cool. It's good to see that at least someone has looked at this page.
Anyways, right now I'm thinking about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Did you know? The Arab representative to the Paris Peace Conference that was part of the negotiations to settle World War I AGREED to the cession of Palestine to Britain FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of settlement by Zionist Jews? The concession was repayment for British assistance in throwing off the rule of the Ottoman Empire (the affair that made "Lawrence of Arabia" famous) during the war.
It's called the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, and it seems to me that it ought to be the basis for lasting peace agreements in the Middle East. Instead it is the first of a ridiculously long line of agreements made between Arab leaders which they later break with seeming impunity.
Now, I'm not saying that the United States doesn't have a history of broken treaties in its own history. But pointing fingers at each other solves nothing. American leaders should abide by both past and future agreements themselves, I don't argue with that. But that still doesn't change the fact that Arab leaders should abide by past agreements.
So basically what happened is this. In signing the agreement, Faisal, who was the son of the King of Hejaz, the region that contains the holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina, wrote a signing statement. Notice that I don't say two of the holiest cities, or any absurdities like that. THE holy cities of Islam are Mecca and Medina, just as THE holy cities of Christianity are Jerusalem, Rome and Istanbul and THE holy city of Judaism is Jerusalem. Just as THE holy city of Buddhism is Lhasa. Jerusalem has NOTHING to do with Muslim-ism just as Tyre and Sidon have NOTHING to do with Christianity even though Jesus fed people there and it is the place where Peter proclaims Jesus the son of God. The fact that Mohammed dreams of a trip to Jerusalem is no more consequential to the chronology of Mohammed's life than the fact that Jesus walked on water at Bethsaida. You don't see monumental wars being fought over Bethsaida, do you? Fuck, no! They're fought over Jerusalem, and not because it's a holy city. They're fought over Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the strategic military strongpoint of the most important regional hub of transportation and commerce in the entire world. In plain English, Jerusalem is home to the most important Army/Airforce base ON THE PLANET.
So, having ceded rights to this crucial position because he was the representative of the resident dominant powers to a summit of the Global Dominant Powers, i.e. Democratic England, France and the U.S.A., Faisal sought to make sure that he would get what he had been assured he would be given. His signing statement reads; "Provided the Arabs obtain their independence..."
Now, granted the rest of the statement says things like "If the slightest modification or departure should be made...not be then bound...void and of no account or validity...I shall not be answerable...", which is the basis for his abdicating the agreement eventually, since the independence of 'the Arabs' as Faisal saw them, was not effectively done until Syrian independence in 1936, not completely done until 1946 when Britain and France relinquished their claims to Jordan and Syria respectively (and even so, Aden in Yemen remained under British rule until 1967). This is why I say it should be the BASIS of Middle East peace. It can't be returned to, although all of the conditions have now been met. But the basic principle, that Britain get control of what is now Israel in order to give it to Zionist Jews, and that France have similar influence over Lebanon, should be respected. Each of Israel's neighbors should sack up and give citizenship to the Palestinian refugees they've been isolating and exploiting for sixty years, the borders should be established on the banks of the Jordan (perhaps with federated autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza, that seems fair to me, though it would probably have to be in two states, not one combined), and Arab, Persian and Pashtun countries should stop fomenting revolt in Israeli territory. The west will have it's guaranteed access to the Indian Ocean, the Arab World will have it's autonomy and complete self-determinism, and peace can happen. Of course, that's only going to happen over decades, because despotic rulers always seek to expand their borders and spheres of influence, and Syria, Iran and to a lesser extent Egypt will be slow to acknowledge the rationality of this settlement, but I personally think it's what's going to happen.
A lot of people think that Israel is being uncompromising and unreasonable. I think that's not on. It would be like two partners agreeing that a four acre plot they own together should be split into two acre plots until all of a sudden once the agreement is made, one of them says, "wait no, I think I should get three acres and you should have one." Who's being unreasonable? The partner who won't compromise on a 1.5, 2.5 acre split, or the partner who won't accept the original 2/2 agreement? In short, I'm in favor of Israel settling every inch of land West Bank residents can't defend. It sounds brutal, and people will probably think I'm a monster, but in my opinion, it's the leaders of the Muslim world who are being monsters and the Palestinians are the victims of their territorial grasping. Obviously they're innocent, the Palestinians, but Israel, although I don't have to LIKE their methods, is well within their rights to do exactly what they're doing. It's the Muslim leaders who have put the Arab Palestinians in the line of fire, just the way its Muslim terrorists who put civilians in the line of fire by shooting at troops from someone else's house.
Anyways, right now I'm thinking about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Did you know? The Arab representative to the Paris Peace Conference that was part of the negotiations to settle World War I AGREED to the cession of Palestine to Britain FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of settlement by Zionist Jews? The concession was repayment for British assistance in throwing off the rule of the Ottoman Empire (the affair that made "Lawrence of Arabia" famous) during the war.
It's called the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, and it seems to me that it ought to be the basis for lasting peace agreements in the Middle East. Instead it is the first of a ridiculously long line of agreements made between Arab leaders which they later break with seeming impunity.
Now, I'm not saying that the United States doesn't have a history of broken treaties in its own history. But pointing fingers at each other solves nothing. American leaders should abide by both past and future agreements themselves, I don't argue with that. But that still doesn't change the fact that Arab leaders should abide by past agreements.
So basically what happened is this. In signing the agreement, Faisal, who was the son of the King of Hejaz, the region that contains the holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina, wrote a signing statement. Notice that I don't say two of the holiest cities, or any absurdities like that. THE holy cities of Islam are Mecca and Medina, just as THE holy cities of Christianity are Jerusalem, Rome and Istanbul and THE holy city of Judaism is Jerusalem. Just as THE holy city of Buddhism is Lhasa. Jerusalem has NOTHING to do with Muslim-ism just as Tyre and Sidon have NOTHING to do with Christianity even though Jesus fed people there and it is the place where Peter proclaims Jesus the son of God. The fact that Mohammed dreams of a trip to Jerusalem is no more consequential to the chronology of Mohammed's life than the fact that Jesus walked on water at Bethsaida. You don't see monumental wars being fought over Bethsaida, do you? Fuck, no! They're fought over Jerusalem, and not because it's a holy city. They're fought over Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the strategic military strongpoint of the most important regional hub of transportation and commerce in the entire world. In plain English, Jerusalem is home to the most important Army/Airforce base ON THE PLANET.
So, having ceded rights to this crucial position because he was the representative of the resident dominant powers to a summit of the Global Dominant Powers, i.e. Democratic England, France and the U.S.A., Faisal sought to make sure that he would get what he had been assured he would be given. His signing statement reads; "Provided the Arabs obtain their independence..."
Now, granted the rest of the statement says things like "If the slightest modification or departure should be made...not be then bound...void and of no account or validity...I shall not be answerable...", which is the basis for his abdicating the agreement eventually, since the independence of 'the Arabs' as Faisal saw them, was not effectively done until Syrian independence in 1936, not completely done until 1946 when Britain and France relinquished their claims to Jordan and Syria respectively (and even so, Aden in Yemen remained under British rule until 1967). This is why I say it should be the BASIS of Middle East peace. It can't be returned to, although all of the conditions have now been met. But the basic principle, that Britain get control of what is now Israel in order to give it to Zionist Jews, and that France have similar influence over Lebanon, should be respected. Each of Israel's neighbors should sack up and give citizenship to the Palestinian refugees they've been isolating and exploiting for sixty years, the borders should be established on the banks of the Jordan (perhaps with federated autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza, that seems fair to me, though it would probably have to be in two states, not one combined), and Arab, Persian and Pashtun countries should stop fomenting revolt in Israeli territory. The west will have it's guaranteed access to the Indian Ocean, the Arab World will have it's autonomy and complete self-determinism, and peace can happen. Of course, that's only going to happen over decades, because despotic rulers always seek to expand their borders and spheres of influence, and Syria, Iran and to a lesser extent Egypt will be slow to acknowledge the rationality of this settlement, but I personally think it's what's going to happen.
A lot of people think that Israel is being uncompromising and unreasonable. I think that's not on. It would be like two partners agreeing that a four acre plot they own together should be split into two acre plots until all of a sudden once the agreement is made, one of them says, "wait no, I think I should get three acres and you should have one." Who's being unreasonable? The partner who won't compromise on a 1.5, 2.5 acre split, or the partner who won't accept the original 2/2 agreement? In short, I'm in favor of Israel settling every inch of land West Bank residents can't defend. It sounds brutal, and people will probably think I'm a monster, but in my opinion, it's the leaders of the Muslim world who are being monsters and the Palestinians are the victims of their territorial grasping. Obviously they're innocent, the Palestinians, but Israel, although I don't have to LIKE their methods, is well within their rights to do exactly what they're doing. It's the Muslim leaders who have put the Arab Palestinians in the line of fire, just the way its Muslim terrorists who put civilians in the line of fire by shooting at troops from someone else's house.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Experiencial Wisdom of Richard Nixon
I just heard this on Keith Olbermann, it's a quotation from Richard Nixon.
"It's not the crime that brings you down. It's the cover-up."
Thought it seemed like good advice. Cheers!
"It's not the crime that brings you down. It's the cover-up."
Thought it seemed like good advice. Cheers!
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Way It's Supposed To
I'm so incredibly proud to tell you all that our country still works the way its supposed to.
It's a bit of a relief really. I was afraid the doomsday forecasters might be self-fulfilling their prophesies by convincing my comaraden that Hillary Clinton was insurmountably ahead in the party polls and that she could actually compete with a Republican in a general election.
Thank GODS liberals are smarter than the average American, freer, and more independent thinkers. They cannot be told how to vote no matter how much idiotic corporate lobbyists and evangelist preachers wish they could.
But the truth is that no matter how much Democrats want to win the White House next year, above all, they want a DEMOCRAT to represent the Democratic Party, not another Vampire dressed up like a Bald Eagle. More than anything else, we must see a DIFFERENCE between the two candidates next year if we are going to win the election. The greater the difference, the better. The nominee for the Democratic party doesn't even really need to show up to a debate with the Republican nominee next year. All he has to do, if he is sufficiently different from them, is run against the Republican Party and George W. Bush. Enough said. He'll win.
The era is ended when the only Democrat who can get elected is the one who looks like a Republican to the untrained eye. Bill Clinton won the Presidency in an era dominated by the Republican information machine. Republicans dictated the debate, Republicans chose the issues that got attention.
No longer is that the case. This very medium, that I am writing and apparently no one else is reading, is part of that. The very nature of corporatized media is skewed to the right. The fucked up part is that most journalists, like most Americans, are liberals. That's right. I said it. I'm the only one who has the balls to say it. Most Americans are Liberals. And there absolutely IS a "liberal media bias". How? Why? It's simple. The vast majority of journalists are college educated, they understand the principles of journalism, like checking your facts, confirming sources, getting comments from both sides of a controversy. The dirty secret of life is that the more you know, the more you want to know. Republicans, as with conservatives all over the world, thrive on silence, on disinformation, misinformation and apathy. That is why the first thing George W. Bush torpedoed when he got into office was the education system. So educated, fair journalists are biased against Republicans. Truth and reality is biased against Republicans. And most of all, the very nature of information distribution is biased against Republicans.
On the other hand. Hillary Clinton was also right when she claimed that "vast right-wing conspiracy" had undermined her husband's presidency. Whiny, but right. What is this, you say? If the media is biased for liberality, how can a Right-wing conspiracy be in operation. Well, that would be because newspapers, television networks and national radio corporations are owned and operated by RICH PEOPLE. So despite the fact that the actual people collecting and writing the stories are by and large liberal, the stories that end up getting covered by their outlets are chosen by conservatives. Editors are hired by owners whose interest is in selling as much media as possible with as little informational content as necessary. Editors choose topics and issues that make conservatives looks good, edit out as much content as possible that makes conservatives look bad, and voila, your morning newspaper.
Unfortunately, information is gaseous. More than that it is wave matter, not particulate. It cannot be contained, it gets out. "Truth will out!" said a better poet than me, and its true. Galileo's truth could not be contained half a millennia ago, and Al Gore's truth could be imprisoned no better in our time.
Our country is designed to react to the waves of information. Pressed back for a time it may be, but as any one who played with their bathwater as a child will know, it always comes out around the side, stronger than it was before, mounding higher than it had before, reaching further up the side of the tub than it really can sustain before receding toward the equilibrium where it belongs. It is absolutely true that liberalism has its own drawbacks. Bolshevism did not work, it resulted in Soviet dictation. Jacobinism failed as well, it resulted in Napoleonic dictation. But a measured, balanced, calm and rational dealing with life, the way the United States Constitution proposes; results in a clean, relaxed, refreshed and hygenic body politic, just as a calm, quiet soak in the bathtub results in the same for a human body.
I still support John Edwards, I think he is the best balanced, best overall candidate for the Democratic nomination. But I would not be overly distressed if Obama were to win. After all, who could have trouble getting excited over the first black president? But GODS I can't wait to see Hillary Clinton get her wrinkly, starched white ass kicked in the Iowa caucuses and her entire candidacy go down in flames as it deserves. The Junior senator from New York will remain the Junior senator from New York, the post she is most suited for, and the American people will have a leader they can trust. Finally. As they deserve.
It's a bit of a relief really. I was afraid the doomsday forecasters might be self-fulfilling their prophesies by convincing my comaraden that Hillary Clinton was insurmountably ahead in the party polls and that she could actually compete with a Republican in a general election.
Thank GODS liberals are smarter than the average American, freer, and more independent thinkers. They cannot be told how to vote no matter how much idiotic corporate lobbyists and evangelist preachers wish they could.
But the truth is that no matter how much Democrats want to win the White House next year, above all, they want a DEMOCRAT to represent the Democratic Party, not another Vampire dressed up like a Bald Eagle. More than anything else, we must see a DIFFERENCE between the two candidates next year if we are going to win the election. The greater the difference, the better. The nominee for the Democratic party doesn't even really need to show up to a debate with the Republican nominee next year. All he has to do, if he is sufficiently different from them, is run against the Republican Party and George W. Bush. Enough said. He'll win.
The era is ended when the only Democrat who can get elected is the one who looks like a Republican to the untrained eye. Bill Clinton won the Presidency in an era dominated by the Republican information machine. Republicans dictated the debate, Republicans chose the issues that got attention.
No longer is that the case. This very medium, that I am writing and apparently no one else is reading, is part of that. The very nature of corporatized media is skewed to the right. The fucked up part is that most journalists, like most Americans, are liberals. That's right. I said it. I'm the only one who has the balls to say it. Most Americans are Liberals. And there absolutely IS a "liberal media bias". How? Why? It's simple. The vast majority of journalists are college educated, they understand the principles of journalism, like checking your facts, confirming sources, getting comments from both sides of a controversy. The dirty secret of life is that the more you know, the more you want to know. Republicans, as with conservatives all over the world, thrive on silence, on disinformation, misinformation and apathy. That is why the first thing George W. Bush torpedoed when he got into office was the education system. So educated, fair journalists are biased against Republicans. Truth and reality is biased against Republicans. And most of all, the very nature of information distribution is biased against Republicans.
On the other hand. Hillary Clinton was also right when she claimed that "vast right-wing conspiracy" had undermined her husband's presidency. Whiny, but right. What is this, you say? If the media is biased for liberality, how can a Right-wing conspiracy be in operation. Well, that would be because newspapers, television networks and national radio corporations are owned and operated by RICH PEOPLE. So despite the fact that the actual people collecting and writing the stories are by and large liberal, the stories that end up getting covered by their outlets are chosen by conservatives. Editors are hired by owners whose interest is in selling as much media as possible with as little informational content as necessary. Editors choose topics and issues that make conservatives looks good, edit out as much content as possible that makes conservatives look bad, and voila, your morning newspaper.
Unfortunately, information is gaseous. More than that it is wave matter, not particulate. It cannot be contained, it gets out. "Truth will out!" said a better poet than me, and its true. Galileo's truth could not be contained half a millennia ago, and Al Gore's truth could be imprisoned no better in our time.
Our country is designed to react to the waves of information. Pressed back for a time it may be, but as any one who played with their bathwater as a child will know, it always comes out around the side, stronger than it was before, mounding higher than it had before, reaching further up the side of the tub than it really can sustain before receding toward the equilibrium where it belongs. It is absolutely true that liberalism has its own drawbacks. Bolshevism did not work, it resulted in Soviet dictation. Jacobinism failed as well, it resulted in Napoleonic dictation. But a measured, balanced, calm and rational dealing with life, the way the United States Constitution proposes; results in a clean, relaxed, refreshed and hygenic body politic, just as a calm, quiet soak in the bathtub results in the same for a human body.
I still support John Edwards, I think he is the best balanced, best overall candidate for the Democratic nomination. But I would not be overly distressed if Obama were to win. After all, who could have trouble getting excited over the first black president? But GODS I can't wait to see Hillary Clinton get her wrinkly, starched white ass kicked in the Iowa caucuses and her entire candidacy go down in flames as it deserves. The Junior senator from New York will remain the Junior senator from New York, the post she is most suited for, and the American people will have a leader they can trust. Finally. As they deserve.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Teddy Bear's Courage
Hi guys, I'm back.
I've kind of been lagging on making posts lately, but now is definitely the time for me to get back to it. Yesterday, Friday 30 November, 2007, the Muslim sabbath, thousands of Sudanese persons in the capital Khartoum rallied to demand the execution of a British teacher whose students named a class mascot Muhammad.
Keep in mind that Muhammad and all its various derivatives and spellings is the most popular name in the Muslim world. It is on the top 50 list of most popular names in ENGLAND AND WALES. The basic truth is that if a black or Muslim teacher had allowed their class to name a teddy bear Muhammad, it would not have been remarked upon. Don't give me some shit that a Muslim teacher wouldn't name a Teddy bear Muhammad, that's bullshit.
The Sudanese government, known war criminals, although no evidence solid enough to indict has yet been documented, is scapegoating this woman in the hopes that enough popular resistance to so-called "western interference" and "insensitivity" can marshal enough UN doubt and/or sympathy to rationalize their refusal to approve UN peacekeeping engineers from Norway, Sweden and Denmark, units critical to the safety of the mission and therefore possible deal-breakers for the entire viability of the mission.
I remind you that the Sudanese government is not only a state sponsor of terrorism, it also condones, supports, and most likely engages in slaving, slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and
intimidation. These are crimes they repeat on a daily basis in Darfur, evidence of which could not possibly be concealed if the UN mission is ever allowed to deploy. The motivation for the government of Sudan to whip its subjects into a frenzy against non-Muslims is clear. What is NOT clear is why the British government, and the American government as well, has still not responded, and why the populations of said countries are not demanding intervention.
No matter how staunch a neo-conservative you are, no matter how Machiavellian a politician, you cannot possibly justify the strategic interest in non-intervention. The marginally useful anti-terrorism intelligence they provide, the (admittedly) substantial oil resources, which are mainly in the South of the country anyways, cannot possibly be of substantial value to excuse inaction. The south of the country would welcome a US sponsored, railroaded UN declaration of independence for the region anyways, given that the majority population is non-Arab, and even for the most part non-Muslim. The Arab-Muslim government which rules from the north, has oppressed the south for decades, fighting a rebellion that only grew over time until forced to grant the region semi-autonomy. Before Darfur, the mujahedeen militias the government arms were raiding south instead of west, and because southerners are "infidels", they enslaved the civilians of the villages they raided in massive numbers most westerners never imagined. The only reason the south was included in the borders of Sudan in the first place was because the modus operandi of evacuating colonizers was to leave a minority ethnic group in control of an impoverished majority, on the assumption that this would keep the governments dependent on western support for the future. With the coalescence of pan-Arab identity, and the rise of an autonomous China, this strategy is no longer operative in Sudan anyway, so there is NO REASON to sustain the regime in Khartoum for another second.
I understand that western governments are fearful of a repeat of the Moghadishu incident more commonly known as "Black Hawk Down." But that's a completely unjustified fear. Mogadishu was planned as a surgical surprise assault, where tactical superiority required only enough firepower to secure a palace compound for an hour-long mission. It is only because the element of surprise was compromised that a chopper was brought down and the mission became a pitched battle in the streets with militiamen and armed civilians mobilizing and operating.
In this case there was no need for surgical force, even if surprise were used. Overwhelming firepower was called for in assaulting the prison and securing a perimeter in Khartoum (too late now that she's been moved to a secret location though) for as long as the extraction might have taken.
At any rate, it's not really the lack of military or substantial governmental response that bothers me, its the lack of self respect shown by westerners in not objecting on this woman's behalf. We have forgotten WHY we believe in democracy. Most of us think that we believe in it only because we were born into it, but that is not the case. Democracy is the result of trial and error over the course of 5000 years, and more, of cultural and social development. It is the greatest, fairest and most just system of government the world has ever known, and if that is sad to some of you, its because you've never lived under any other system and never had the decency to look into where we came from or how others must live even to this day. I'm not saying its spectacular, anywhere close to perfect nor absolving it of its responsibility for the evils it commits. I'm simply telling you, and I'm right, that it commits fewer than any other system ever. EVER. Fewer than nomadic, than tribal, than Iroquois, than Tibetan, fewer than Athenian or Republican Roman, than Solomon's Israel, and a damn sight fewer than Mohammed's Arabia. So get off your damn high horse with your "we're a better culture than to respond to such insults."
Look another group of humans in the eye, have the confidence to recognize the inferiority of their system, the decency to credit their innate ability to learn and the compassion to demonstrate our better way. Most of all, have the courage to believe that there is a truth and there is a falsehood in this world, in this life, and that defending it is not justified, but mandated.
I've kind of been lagging on making posts lately, but now is definitely the time for me to get back to it. Yesterday, Friday 30 November, 2007, the Muslim sabbath, thousands of Sudanese persons in the capital Khartoum rallied to demand the execution of a British teacher whose students named a class mascot Muhammad.
Keep in mind that Muhammad and all its various derivatives and spellings is the most popular name in the Muslim world. It is on the top 50 list of most popular names in ENGLAND AND WALES. The basic truth is that if a black or Muslim teacher had allowed their class to name a teddy bear Muhammad, it would not have been remarked upon. Don't give me some shit that a Muslim teacher wouldn't name a Teddy bear Muhammad, that's bullshit.
The Sudanese government, known war criminals, although no evidence solid enough to indict has yet been documented, is scapegoating this woman in the hopes that enough popular resistance to so-called "western interference" and "insensitivity" can marshal enough UN doubt and/or sympathy to rationalize their refusal to approve UN peacekeeping engineers from Norway, Sweden and Denmark, units critical to the safety of the mission and therefore possible deal-breakers for the entire viability of the mission.
I remind you that the Sudanese government is not only a state sponsor of terrorism, it also condones, supports, and most likely engages in slaving, slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and
intimidation. These are crimes they repeat on a daily basis in Darfur, evidence of which could not possibly be concealed if the UN mission is ever allowed to deploy. The motivation for the government of Sudan to whip its subjects into a frenzy against non-Muslims is clear. What is NOT clear is why the British government, and the American government as well, has still not responded, and why the populations of said countries are not demanding intervention.
No matter how staunch a neo-conservative you are, no matter how Machiavellian a politician, you cannot possibly justify the strategic interest in non-intervention. The marginally useful anti-terrorism intelligence they provide, the (admittedly) substantial oil resources, which are mainly in the South of the country anyways, cannot possibly be of substantial value to excuse inaction. The south of the country would welcome a US sponsored, railroaded UN declaration of independence for the region anyways, given that the majority population is non-Arab, and even for the most part non-Muslim. The Arab-Muslim government which rules from the north, has oppressed the south for decades, fighting a rebellion that only grew over time until forced to grant the region semi-autonomy. Before Darfur, the mujahedeen militias the government arms were raiding south instead of west, and because southerners are "infidels", they enslaved the civilians of the villages they raided in massive numbers most westerners never imagined. The only reason the south was included in the borders of Sudan in the first place was because the modus operandi of evacuating colonizers was to leave a minority ethnic group in control of an impoverished majority, on the assumption that this would keep the governments dependent on western support for the future. With the coalescence of pan-Arab identity, and the rise of an autonomous China, this strategy is no longer operative in Sudan anyway, so there is NO REASON to sustain the regime in Khartoum for another second.
I understand that western governments are fearful of a repeat of the Moghadishu incident more commonly known as "Black Hawk Down." But that's a completely unjustified fear. Mogadishu was planned as a surgical surprise assault, where tactical superiority required only enough firepower to secure a palace compound for an hour-long mission. It is only because the element of surprise was compromised that a chopper was brought down and the mission became a pitched battle in the streets with militiamen and armed civilians mobilizing and operating.
In this case there was no need for surgical force, even if surprise were used. Overwhelming firepower was called for in assaulting the prison and securing a perimeter in Khartoum (too late now that she's been moved to a secret location though) for as long as the extraction might have taken.
At any rate, it's not really the lack of military or substantial governmental response that bothers me, its the lack of self respect shown by westerners in not objecting on this woman's behalf. We have forgotten WHY we believe in democracy. Most of us think that we believe in it only because we were born into it, but that is not the case. Democracy is the result of trial and error over the course of 5000 years, and more, of cultural and social development. It is the greatest, fairest and most just system of government the world has ever known, and if that is sad to some of you, its because you've never lived under any other system and never had the decency to look into where we came from or how others must live even to this day. I'm not saying its spectacular, anywhere close to perfect nor absolving it of its responsibility for the evils it commits. I'm simply telling you, and I'm right, that it commits fewer than any other system ever. EVER. Fewer than nomadic, than tribal, than Iroquois, than Tibetan, fewer than Athenian or Republican Roman, than Solomon's Israel, and a damn sight fewer than Mohammed's Arabia. So get off your damn high horse with your "we're a better culture than to respond to such insults."
Look another group of humans in the eye, have the confidence to recognize the inferiority of their system, the decency to credit their innate ability to learn and the compassion to demonstrate our better way. Most of all, have the courage to believe that there is a truth and there is a falsehood in this world, in this life, and that defending it is not justified, but mandated.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Libertarian Anomo-absurdity, also, Ron Paul is an Idiot
This is my response to my friend Richard's question about Ron Paul. I begin with the same disclaimer I've written once before. This is my opinion, please don't be offended, I don't mean to insult anyone. Richard I know you are contemplating supporting Ron Paul, and I don't think you're stupid, absurd, idiotic or any other pejorative I may use in the course of this post to describe this movement. I use absolutist language because I'm talking more about the movement as a generality, as an ideology, which has an identity, in my opinion, separate from the individuals who may support it. I would never dream of intentionally disrespecting any of you individually, I have the highest regard and complete respect for all of you and for all of your opinions.
Ok; Libertarianism is a ridiculous delusion (in my opinion) that is completely un-American and leads logically to violence, hierarchies and constant, chaotic, conflict, exactly the things it supposes it will end. Alcohol is the first pillar of culture. Taxes are the first pillar of government. It is open for debate whether the first government arose to collect taxes, or the first taxes were imposed to sustain the first government. Either way, this is not a bad thing. Without taxes there are no Pyramids, no Great Walls, no paved roads, no aqueducts or canals, no armies, navies, schools, hospitals, libraries, firefighters, police, marketplaces, ports, courts, jails, or power plants. Ok, I realize Ron Paul is not proposing the abolition of taxes, not straight out. But his intention is to make it possible for someone to live their entire life without paying taxes if they don't want to. That's what an abolition of income tax and a national sales tax means. Now tell me, who's gonna pay a single tax they don't have to? The long term result of a national sales tax is that everyone eventually produces their own necessities, no one sells anything to anyone else, and there is in effect, no tax. There is also no technology, because how can you have a computer if you have to find and make all of the parts yourself. Well, won't this keep people buying things? Come now, people like technology, but they HATE taxes. It's stupid of them to hate taxes, but they do. Always have, likely always will.
The next part of this whole thing is that it’s fucking dangerous. The real truth is, GOVERNMENT DOES WORK. The myth that libertarian, neo-conservative, ‘federalists’ propagate is that government is evil, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t really respond to the desires of the people, it doesn’t really represent you, its just a bunch of rich white men patting each other on the backs, passing laws full of spending that serves no other purpose than to get themselves re-elected. All the while, they themselves vote, as do their easily led, under-educated, completely thoughtless dupes, like Christian conservatives. The reality is that LIBERTARIANS don’t work, NEO-CONSERVATIVES have no interest in the desires of the people, FEDERALISTS don’t represent anyone but themselves. Just today, the headlines in the NY and LA times were about the new republican strategy to win back some seats in congress, which is to recruit candidates who are super rich and don’t have to fundraise well in order to compete because they can spend their own money. You don’t see democrats doing anything of the sort. What did democrats do to win seats in the last election? They ran candidates who ACTUALLY REPRESENT the districts they were running in. Some of the freshman democrats are conservative Christians, like that quarterback guy, others were fiscal conservatives, the major difference between them and the candidates they were running to unseat was just that they were democrats, instead of supporting a party leadership that is based on how much fundraising clout they have, they support a party leadership that is based on seniority or the merit of their records.
Of all Americans, Californians should know best that it’s not government in general or most especially democrats who have left the government in dysfunction. Look at the Gray Davis coup, I mean recall. The whole reason he was recalled was supposedly because “he couldn’t get a budget passed.” So we elect a Republican, and what happens? The republicans in Sacramento STILL blocked the budget from passing. Remember this was a budget with billions of dollars less spending than the one they blocked Gray Davis from signing. They blocked it for no other reason than that it was acceptable to democrats.
The Democratic party’s greatest strength is that it is NOT monolithic. Notice how breaking four, just four senate republicans from the president on the war was an immense accomplishment. On the other hand, a couple of weeks ago, the democratic party split DOWN THE MIDDLE, almost exactly in half, with the majority of the party voting AGAINST the leadership. What happened? Did the party have some crisis of identity? No, that was just business as usual, Democrats allowed to express their opinion without being completely ostracized from the decision making process in the party. That’s what happens to black sheep Republicans, they lose all power to contribute to the direction of their party.
OK, you say. Ron Paul isn’t really a republican, you say. He’s only running in the republican party because he thinks he can get heard better there. Bullshit, I say. Libertarians are the little brothers of republicans just like Green party members are the little sisters of Democrats. They’re the most zealous of the zealous wings of each party, people who are such extremists on the right and the left respectively that they can’t even win primaries in the mainstream parties. They’re not in these spin-off parties because they’re so courageous, so misunderstood, and the main parties are so corrupt they won’t hear what they have to say. They’re in those parties because they’re NUTCASES. Ralph Nader is as deluded as Ron Paul is, only he’s worse, because he’s swallowed whole the idiocy that government doesn’t work and both parties are riddled with corruption which is in reality a conservative agenda.
Do you know that in almost every election, in almost every country ever, the greater the voter turnout, the better liberals do? The lower the turnout, the better conservatives do. In the election that brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power about 14% of Iranians voted. In the next election, a provincial election, mayors, city councils and such, maybe parliament as well, I can’t remember, 24% of Iranians voted. Guess who’s party got its ASS KICKED.
Same deal with the recent Polish elections. The election that brought those idiot twins to power had low turnout, last month’s parliamentary elections had record voter turnout for that country. What happened? The idiot Prime Minister twin, is now the idiot opposition leader in polish parliament.
By the way, if you want to know what a true American conservative should look like, one who believes this country is worth keeping a Democracy, but who sets more value by a strong military and low budgets than by social security and public education, a man worthy of respect, conservative and all, with all of what we disagree on and all, Republican and all, his name is John McCain. Watch his most recent campaign ad on YouTube. That’s what’s wrong with the Republican party, and by extension America. Shit-heads like the former CIA director, like his son the AWOL coke snorting serial failed-business owner have been in charge of the party, and by extension the country for the last 20 years. But wait, you say, what about Clinton’s presidency? Clinton was president sure, but six of those years he dealt with a Republican controlled congress.
Democrats are in control now. Bush is president, but democrats are in control, they dictate the conversation, even if they can’t do everything they want, like withdrawing from Iraq. Anyways, that’s my opinion on Ron Paul, Libertarians, and the low point of America, which we have just passed sometime in the last four years.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The Dilemma of Our Time
[This piece was written August 14, 2007]
The Dilemma of our time: waste water, or waste wood.
I live in Southern California, where there is neither water, nor much wood to speak of. It is, after all, a desert climate. Furthermore, this year brought the lowest rainfall on record in Los Angeles. On the other hand, while the real water crisis lies about twenty years into the future, the air and climate change are finally IMMEDIATE concerns, and figuring highly in the climate change picture is deforestation. Now, I am currently in San Francisco, which is a city on the southern edge of an enormous forested region which a ways up the coast is the only temperate rain forest on earth. I’m in a coffee shop in the ‘tenderloin’, a district of the city I have never before heard of, although I am a frequent visitor to the city. It is, as I believe many Americans would agree, the most beautiful metropolis in the country, and at the very least rivals, if not exceeds easily, Montreal for most beautiful on the continent, and is just one more reason we shouldn’t turn Northern California into Lebanon which hasn’t seen her legendary cedars in millennia. Another is that every new inch of old growth forest we consume is meaningful, and in a city with so much wood nearby it might be worthwhile to consume with a special conscience toward not using disposable wood products, like toothpicks. Such is the well balanced dilemma in which I find myself; do I use a metal spoon, dirtying it so it will have to be washed in running fresh water; or do I use one of those flimsy wooden stirring things (in an aside, does anyone remember the Ducktails episode where the sawmill grinds down whole pine trees into single toothpicks?) which perpetuates an ‘it doesn’t matter’ attitude in a place that actually has an impact on the supply and certainly, therefore, the usage of such violent products? I took the wood thingy, I figured I might stir another lump of sugar into another tea later, or I could chew on the thing and punch my gums a bit in a bid to stimulate good oral hygiene.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Most Reluctant Federalist
It surprises most people (it surprised me) to find out that the founding fathers of the United States never intended for there to be two political parties. The expectation was that, as anyone might run for the nomination in the party primaries, this would provide for all the variety the country could possibly want. If you think about today's campaigns, you can see what they meant. Either of the parties today has more than half a dozen candidates in the field, providing a great variety of ideologies from which the American people can choose. If there were a single party perhaps the candidates would range from Huckabee, through McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden to Gravel and Kucinich. Providing an entire rainbow of the spectrum of possible political outlooks (I didn't know where to put Gravel in that rough spectrum; I think he might be insane). The official election in the electoral college was intended to be a mere formality, a ritual of unity.
The irony of the world, is that in politics the step in the opposite direction from the most logical one is often the one that results most directly in progress in the right direction. Why is this? Maybe it is because when a leader moves against the grain of the people, it is that much easier to gauge what direction the people are actually moving in.
George Washington was elected without party politics. Although his deputies and confidants would almost exclusively tend toward the so-called Federalists, in particular Alexander Hamilton, and he himself tended toward the central authority philosophy they advanced, he was nowhere near the autocrat Hamilton hoped to someday be. Hamilton genuinely and unashamedly wanted the new country emerging on the coast of North America to be a Kingdom. At first, he envisioned George Washington as it's king, but admitted that it would not be practical to institute it in the atmosphere of 1776 North America, so he advocated instead for Senators and Presidents to be elected for life. After Washington's retirement, a relinquishment of power that could only have confused and dismayed Hamilton, and seeing no other candidate as well suited in his eyes, he began to see himself as the true potential president-for-life.
But strangely, it was not the Federalists who broke from the original path. It was Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans who were seen at the time as splitting from the one party system. Though Jefferson represented by far the more accurate vision of government intended by the general consensus of North American rebels when they declared their independence and established a government soon to be declared "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was he who once again was obligated to declare a more qualified independence and effect his own 'second' revolution in order to keep the country on the path of self-determinism. Hamilton had begun organizing his faction while Secretary of the Treasury, consolidating his power by doling out the patronage of the Department of the Treasury to potential allies. Jefferson and his ideologues were in danger of being completely excluded from the political elite of the new government, so it was as a matter of political survival that Jefferson was forced to split from the Federalists.
Between Washington and Jefferson, a man held the office of the presidency who I had overlooked for my entire life until my mother recommended that I listen to the recent Pulitzer winning biography by David McCullough which she had taken out of the library in recorded edition. Ideologically somewhere between Washington and Jefferson, if he had not existed, Jefferson would almost certainly have been the second president. But because he did exist, Federalists backed him (and not Hamilton) which brought more moderates into the federalist camp.
I admire John Adams. He was a strong character, and if it weren't for him the U.S. would have allied itself directly with France and almost certainly reignited the war with Britain. I don't believe for a second Hamilton would have been the second president, which would almost certainly have resulted in Alliance with Britain and War with France, but the fact that he kept us out of that war entirely is the greatest precedent he could have set for our country. I'm not claiming that Jefferson was the democratic reincarnation of Jesus Christ. He was, in all honesty, too much of a believer in pure democracy. Pure Democracy doesn't work, as the war in Europe eventually proved, with the rise of Bonaparte to power and the subsequent Terrors. I consider it unfortunate that his existence assured the survival of the extremist Federalist ideology, which is the exact ideology which is giving us such grief today in Washington. It is sad that somewhere between the competing personalities of the two men, Adams and Jefferson, who had been friends and would become friends again later in life, that they could not have competed within the one party framework, marginalized Hamilton, and thereby have circumvented two hundred and ten years of divisiveness and alternations of regressions and progress.
But Adams, the Giuliani of the Federalist party, gave Hamilton relevance, and although Hamilton never became president, he set a precedent of Presidential over-reaching which has resulted in the swollen executive branch we have today. Adams did not want to be a Federalist, he did not want to be rivals to his onetime friend Thomas Jefferson, and he did not want to dilute the legislative branch's authority, which he wrote ought to be the ultimate sovereign authority. But in being president, despite being a truly admirable president and doing things no other president could have done in his place at that time, in being a FEDERALIST president, he is the precursor to George W. Bush.
I didn't know this until this week, but George W. Bush has appointed, whenever possible, members of a club called the Federalist Society, whose members include Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, as well as Kenneth Starr, Orrin Hatch and Michael Chertoff. As you can see, Skull and Bones is hardly the dirty little secret of the Bush Administration. The Federalist Society is.
We have an opportunity to truly destroy the Republican party in this country today. This does not mean that we will destroy all fiscal responsibility, nor that we'll destroy religion, although I devoutly hope we will shake it from its place of honor at the table of governance, where it has NO FUCKING PLACE. There are plenty of Democrats who believe in the ideology of John Adams, that of peace through strength, of avoiding foreign entanglements (as George Washington told us to do) yet still believe in the rule of law. The Federalist Society believes in the rule of the lawgiver, which is a Monarchy or worse a Dictatorship. If you really want an America that is democratic and safe and not dependent on other countries for financial stability, find yourself a democratic candidate who will become a member of the 'Blue Dogs' when he's elected to Congress. These are 'conservative' Democrats, and they will expand the party into something the founding fathers could only dream about. "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists" Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, and in 2009, 208 years later, we have a chance to make that vision a reality, to make America safe for democracy, where all philosophies are welcome under the canvas of one party, where all views are heard by all Americans, and which supports and upholds the constitution instead of systematically undermining it.
The irony of the world, is that in politics the step in the opposite direction from the most logical one is often the one that results most directly in progress in the right direction. Why is this? Maybe it is because when a leader moves against the grain of the people, it is that much easier to gauge what direction the people are actually moving in.
George Washington was elected without party politics. Although his deputies and confidants would almost exclusively tend toward the so-called Federalists, in particular Alexander Hamilton, and he himself tended toward the central authority philosophy they advanced, he was nowhere near the autocrat Hamilton hoped to someday be. Hamilton genuinely and unashamedly wanted the new country emerging on the coast of North America to be a Kingdom. At first, he envisioned George Washington as it's king, but admitted that it would not be practical to institute it in the atmosphere of 1776 North America, so he advocated instead for Senators and Presidents to be elected for life. After Washington's retirement, a relinquishment of power that could only have confused and dismayed Hamilton, and seeing no other candidate as well suited in his eyes, he began to see himself as the true potential president-for-life.
But strangely, it was not the Federalists who broke from the original path. It was Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans who were seen at the time as splitting from the one party system. Though Jefferson represented by far the more accurate vision of government intended by the general consensus of North American rebels when they declared their independence and established a government soon to be declared "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was he who once again was obligated to declare a more qualified independence and effect his own 'second' revolution in order to keep the country on the path of self-determinism. Hamilton had begun organizing his faction while Secretary of the Treasury, consolidating his power by doling out the patronage of the Department of the Treasury to potential allies. Jefferson and his ideologues were in danger of being completely excluded from the political elite of the new government, so it was as a matter of political survival that Jefferson was forced to split from the Federalists.
Between Washington and Jefferson, a man held the office of the presidency who I had overlooked for my entire life until my mother recommended that I listen to the recent Pulitzer winning biography by David McCullough which she had taken out of the library in recorded edition. Ideologically somewhere between Washington and Jefferson, if he had not existed, Jefferson would almost certainly have been the second president. But because he did exist, Federalists backed him (and not Hamilton) which brought more moderates into the federalist camp.
I admire John Adams. He was a strong character, and if it weren't for him the U.S. would have allied itself directly with France and almost certainly reignited the war with Britain. I don't believe for a second Hamilton would have been the second president, which would almost certainly have resulted in Alliance with Britain and War with France, but the fact that he kept us out of that war entirely is the greatest precedent he could have set for our country. I'm not claiming that Jefferson was the democratic reincarnation of Jesus Christ. He was, in all honesty, too much of a believer in pure democracy. Pure Democracy doesn't work, as the war in Europe eventually proved, with the rise of Bonaparte to power and the subsequent Terrors. I consider it unfortunate that his existence assured the survival of the extremist Federalist ideology, which is the exact ideology which is giving us such grief today in Washington. It is sad that somewhere between the competing personalities of the two men, Adams and Jefferson, who had been friends and would become friends again later in life, that they could not have competed within the one party framework, marginalized Hamilton, and thereby have circumvented two hundred and ten years of divisiveness and alternations of regressions and progress.
But Adams, the Giuliani of the Federalist party, gave Hamilton relevance, and although Hamilton never became president, he set a precedent of Presidential over-reaching which has resulted in the swollen executive branch we have today. Adams did not want to be a Federalist, he did not want to be rivals to his onetime friend Thomas Jefferson, and he did not want to dilute the legislative branch's authority, which he wrote ought to be the ultimate sovereign authority. But in being president, despite being a truly admirable president and doing things no other president could have done in his place at that time, in being a FEDERALIST president, he is the precursor to George W. Bush.
I didn't know this until this week, but George W. Bush has appointed, whenever possible, members of a club called the Federalist Society, whose members include Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, as well as Kenneth Starr, Orrin Hatch and Michael Chertoff. As you can see, Skull and Bones is hardly the dirty little secret of the Bush Administration. The Federalist Society is.
We have an opportunity to truly destroy the Republican party in this country today. This does not mean that we will destroy all fiscal responsibility, nor that we'll destroy religion, although I devoutly hope we will shake it from its place of honor at the table of governance, where it has NO FUCKING PLACE. There are plenty of Democrats who believe in the ideology of John Adams, that of peace through strength, of avoiding foreign entanglements (as George Washington told us to do) yet still believe in the rule of law. The Federalist Society believes in the rule of the lawgiver, which is a Monarchy or worse a Dictatorship. If you really want an America that is democratic and safe and not dependent on other countries for financial stability, find yourself a democratic candidate who will become a member of the 'Blue Dogs' when he's elected to Congress. These are 'conservative' Democrats, and they will expand the party into something the founding fathers could only dream about. "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists" Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, and in 2009, 208 years later, we have a chance to make that vision a reality, to make America safe for democracy, where all philosophies are welcome under the canvas of one party, where all views are heard by all Americans, and which supports and upholds the constitution instead of systematically undermining it.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Understanding
I consider my sister the most mature woman her age that I've ever met. Between that and the fact that she is family and therefore one of the most important women in my life, it was absolutely critical when I had this conversation with her today that I manage to communicate my concerns effectively. This is actually the real crux of my frustrations that I alluded to in the last post.
It has to do with a certain type of prejudice that in all honesty, I doubt most men are aware they are subject to. It is a well known evil of the modern, advertising based economy that women are deluged with demeaning images which not only reinforce the classic gender roles of society, thereby partially undermining the strides we have made, particularly in the last 90 years toward a more egalitarian gender relationship. I don't dispute that, not at all.
But on the other side of the coin is what I consider a far more insidious stereotyping. It is mainly more insidious because it goes unrecognized so much of the time, but also because of the multiple levels of twistedness that it puts into our self images in this life.
Men, as they are represented in media, are lascivious, disinterested, beer guzzling, football watching, bikini cheering louts. We perceive them as interested exclusively in sex, and in romance only inasmuch as it can get them laid. It's in beer commercials, car commercials, even more subtly in ads telling us what gifts to give for Christmas: "Every kiss begins with [jewelry]" (I refuse to give those bastards free press).
For those of you who are pulling faces and wondering when I'm going to get to the misrepresentation; NEWSFLASH: Men want romance too. Even though many of them are convinced they do not, they WILL NOT be happy without it. Any relationship based exclusively on sex will inevitably become boring to them. Furthermore, WOMEN WANT SEX!!! (ohmigod, he said it! Horrors!)
Ok, so why do I bring all this up? Well, while we were talking today, my sister told me that it makes her uncomfortable when a man addresses his physical attraction to her before spending some time getting to know her on a personal level. She says it makes her think she knows what he's interested in. I know, I know, this sounds perfectly reasonable. The only problem, to me, is that its dishonest. I mean, the very first thing a person has with another person is physical. Even online, you see the way people are in general before you can ever know how they interact with you. This is just basic. Certainly the moment someone looks you in the eye you begin to work on that romantic chemistry, but unless that physical chemistry is there on some level, for whatever reason it's there, whatever physical characteristic it's based on, there's no point in looking for romance with that person.
I really think this is an unhealthy way to approach relationships. Basically it is like asking men to behave like they haven't noticed how beautiful you are until he knows you better. You're expecting him to lie, or at least to behave dishonestly, before you even get to know him. How can you trust a man to be honest in the future if everything begins with a lie?
So, I think this is really about women's insecurities. They are constantly told they're not beautiful enough by advertising, so when a man tells them he thinks she is, her first instinct is that he's deceiving her. It's very twisted. They don't want to feel like they're being lied to, so they want you to lie to them.
I just think we need to be more accepting of sex. This goes for women who are actualized in their sexual drive, as I wrote about in the last post, and for men who are actualized and forthright about their attraction as well. I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be a certain level of respect still, just that respect isn't what's represented when a man pretends he isn't interested in something that is, after all, the real reason we date in the first place. Respectfully acknowledging mutual attraction while exploring the personal connection between two individuals is far healthier than asking those people to deny an entire portion of themselves until a 'socially acceptable' amount of time has passed.
It has to do with a certain type of prejudice that in all honesty, I doubt most men are aware they are subject to. It is a well known evil of the modern, advertising based economy that women are deluged with demeaning images which not only reinforce the classic gender roles of society, thereby partially undermining the strides we have made, particularly in the last 90 years toward a more egalitarian gender relationship. I don't dispute that, not at all.
But on the other side of the coin is what I consider a far more insidious stereotyping. It is mainly more insidious because it goes unrecognized so much of the time, but also because of the multiple levels of twistedness that it puts into our self images in this life.
Men, as they are represented in media, are lascivious, disinterested, beer guzzling, football watching, bikini cheering louts. We perceive them as interested exclusively in sex, and in romance only inasmuch as it can get them laid. It's in beer commercials, car commercials, even more subtly in ads telling us what gifts to give for Christmas: "Every kiss begins with [jewelry]" (I refuse to give those bastards free press).
For those of you who are pulling faces and wondering when I'm going to get to the misrepresentation; NEWSFLASH: Men want romance too. Even though many of them are convinced they do not, they WILL NOT be happy without it. Any relationship based exclusively on sex will inevitably become boring to them. Furthermore, WOMEN WANT SEX!!! (ohmigod, he said it! Horrors!)
Ok, so why do I bring all this up? Well, while we were talking today, my sister told me that it makes her uncomfortable when a man addresses his physical attraction to her before spending some time getting to know her on a personal level. She says it makes her think she knows what he's interested in. I know, I know, this sounds perfectly reasonable. The only problem, to me, is that its dishonest. I mean, the very first thing a person has with another person is physical. Even online, you see the way people are in general before you can ever know how they interact with you. This is just basic. Certainly the moment someone looks you in the eye you begin to work on that romantic chemistry, but unless that physical chemistry is there on some level, for whatever reason it's there, whatever physical characteristic it's based on, there's no point in looking for romance with that person.
I really think this is an unhealthy way to approach relationships. Basically it is like asking men to behave like they haven't noticed how beautiful you are until he knows you better. You're expecting him to lie, or at least to behave dishonestly, before you even get to know him. How can you trust a man to be honest in the future if everything begins with a lie?
So, I think this is really about women's insecurities. They are constantly told they're not beautiful enough by advertising, so when a man tells them he thinks she is, her first instinct is that he's deceiving her. It's very twisted. They don't want to feel like they're being lied to, so they want you to lie to them.
I just think we need to be more accepting of sex. This goes for women who are actualized in their sexual drive, as I wrote about in the last post, and for men who are actualized and forthright about their attraction as well. I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be a certain level of respect still, just that respect isn't what's represented when a man pretends he isn't interested in something that is, after all, the real reason we date in the first place. Respectfully acknowledging mutual attraction while exploring the personal connection between two individuals is far healthier than asking those people to deny an entire portion of themselves until a 'socially acceptable' amount of time has passed.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Is there an American culture?
My horoscope today reminds me that freedom is best enjoyed in whimsical pursuits, and since I posted yesterday on the liberating nature of online journal posting (I really hate that word blogging, it’s so discordant), I thought the best way to incorporate that advice would be to write about a form of amusement, rather than my usual serious diet of politics and activism and social issues and whatnot.
This is still a blog promoting intellectualism and sophistication, of course, and although my fascination with it must annoy and become tiresome for some of my friends, in point of fact, their aversion to it has been frustrating and tiresome to me for a while now as well, and is the real motivation behind this site. The world needs more intellectuals, America needs to get over itself and stop pretending that it’s cool to be coarse.
Speaking of the Azzuri, I wanna give a shout out to Jack White, the most intuitive musician to make a platinum record since Lennon himself. (Sorry. If you didn’t catch the segway, the Italian National Team’s unofficial anthem for the World Cup was Seven Nation Army—the same number of teams they played on the way from the group stages to the Cup, by the way) I repeat, the White Stripes are the most musically deep band making music in the world today. Jack White has the vocal maturity and expressive resonance of a Michelangelo painting, for those who have not heard Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground, there are lines in that song that are poignant enough to break your heart the first time you hear it. Other songs, like Hotel Yorba, Blue Orchid and Jolene will absolutely rock your world off its axis. I can only hope they eventually achieve the level of recognition the Beatles got, because as far as I am concerned, they are the first band since them to deserve it.
I’m going to stop now, because I’m trying to keep these short enough to absorb effectively. But I leave off with one last thought; that sports are as intricate and complex an expression of culture as theater is. A well staged Shakespeare or Aeschylus is as riveting as a come-from-behind, last minute, Super Bowl-winning touchdown. In return, a perfectly executed, four play goal line stand, can be as emotionally draining as any production of Medea ever staged. And both require equal parts talent, effort, artistry, intuition, practice, and awareness of the circumstances relative to history on the part of the players in order to be truly epic.
All politics is local
I have recently been startled to notice how much one person can affect their entire society. For instance, last December I visited my brother in Paris. I hated Paris. It was not only the fact that until one gets about six stories up (say on the escalators of the Centre Pompadou) almost the entire city looks exactly the same; five story gray buildings covered in friezes filling the entire block, with architecture that seems designed primarily to intimidate rather than to sublimate. Granted the Latin Quarter is colorful, and Sacre Coeur is pretty breathtaking, but overall, I find it unspectacular. What I really hated was the horrible, resentful way people treat one another there, as if they were merely obstacles to each others' contentment. I had a conversation about it with a Belgian girl outside my brother's school's library. Her boyfriend was French and she couldn't understand why I laughed when she said she loved French men because they were so passionate. I explained to her that I thought the French were so passionate because they were constantly at odds with one another.
"What's so wrong with that?" she asked, "the whole world is full of conflict."
I laughed again and explained that the problem with Europe, and with much of America too is that in Democracy people are supposed to understand that their self-interest is best served by acting in the interest of everyone.
"Oh Democracy," she laughed scornfully, in exactly the attitude I think so many Americans have found to be the most infuriating thing about France in the last two decades, "Americans are always talking about Democracy." She would have gone on, but I interrupted.
"Uh, yeah," I said, in a tone I also use with a petulant child, "What the hell is wrong with you Europeans? I mean, YOU invented Democracy, not us. You sort of let us show you how to set it up, copied it roughly, and you basically haven't thought of it since."
She didn't answer. I knew I'd gotten through to her, but I didn't want her to get resentful again, so I changed the subject. There's an old axiom that there is nothing that makes a person feel humiliated more than being caught in a moment learning.
Every day after that evening, for the rest of that week, and especially when I came back from a quick tour of Geneva and Milan, that thing that had become so quintessentially French became ever so slightly less pronounced, like a cake of dried mud on the bottom of your shoe that gets loosened little by little as you slap the sole against the driveway.
Now, I would never dream of implying that I think I have so much influence over the world that I changed all of Paris with one conversation, or with a few conversations that I had beside that one. I can’t imagine I was the only American in Paris just then who felt frustrated at the bitterness directed at all Americans when it was mainly caused by George Bush’s idiocy. But I know I affected that girl’s attitude, and her attitude affects many other peoples’ attitudes. Everyone has an exponential effect on the rest of the world, and if each of those thirty Americans had one moment like mine, one conversation where they really hit on the thing that was bothering them, the ripple effect was really, really noticeable across the city.
A note on the nature of independent journalism
Today I'm going to begin my blog by begging readers not to be offended by the stridency and the absolutist nature of the opinions I post here. What I have noticed about this medium after only three days of writing it, is that the person you read here is different from the person you would see if you met me in person. In person I would never wish to associate any individual with any ideological category in absolute terms. I think that people are more complex than that. To the degree that you identify with any category I may refer to, please interpret my criticism and my praise as directed at only that part of you which is that. Generalizations are useful, unavoidable things, but they are also dangerous, and I am acutely aware of the two edged nature of the tool. As I am addressing a general public audience with this blog, I am making liberal use of these generalizations. This is because people taken as individuals are rational and composed, but when gathered into a plurality, the nature in which one deals with them must become more compassionate and intuitive.
Mob rules govern the behavior of people in a crowd, whether that crowd is physical, or far more figurative, like an ideological bloc. I beg readers not to be offended by my vitriol, it is not, I repeat, directed at any individual, but at the tendencies of entire groups of people. I do hold in complete distain the ideologies I’ve lambasted, but the individuals I know who might fit into those categories would never hear me speak so scornfully to them. I certainly do not hesitate to apprise them of my opinion, that much of me is true both on and off the internet, but I do try and remain respectful in telling them I think they are wrong. On this blog, I feel no such restraint. I basically feel that this is the function of independent journalism, which is exactly what blogging is, even more than freelance journalism, since a blogger doesn’t need to sell his story to an editor, he just writes it and it either gets read or it doesn’t get read. As a result, the blogger is completely free to speak his mind without restraint, and that is what I do. In public, in person, I moderate myself, not because I want to look good, but because I genuinely value respecting every individual on a basic, minimum level.
Mob rules govern the behavior of people in a crowd, whether that crowd is physical, or far more figurative, like an ideological bloc. I beg readers not to be offended by my vitriol, it is not, I repeat, directed at any individual, but at the tendencies of entire groups of people. I do hold in complete distain the ideologies I’ve lambasted, but the individuals I know who might fit into those categories would never hear me speak so scornfully to them. I certainly do not hesitate to apprise them of my opinion, that much of me is true both on and off the internet, but I do try and remain respectful in telling them I think they are wrong. On this blog, I feel no such restraint. I basically feel that this is the function of independent journalism, which is exactly what blogging is, even more than freelance journalism, since a blogger doesn’t need to sell his story to an editor, he just writes it and it either gets read or it doesn’t get read. As a result, the blogger is completely free to speak his mind without restraint, and that is what I do. In public, in person, I moderate myself, not because I want to look good, but because I genuinely value respecting every individual on a basic, minimum level.
There you go, I just want readers to know, particularly those of my friends who might have accepted my invitation to check out the site, that there is a difference between me here, and me as we interact in everyday life. You’re all aware that I don’t hesitate to say so when I disagree about something, but I do try and fight fair, and to remain respectful.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The War in Iraq
I am entirely aware that of all my opinions, my outlook on the war is the most controversial. As such, I'll deal with it immediately and if there are any questions, objections or corrections you'd like to submit, I can address them in future posts.
I have already made reference to my position in yesterday's post, so I'll just paraphrase what I said there. I was against the war from before most people knew it was being considered. In fact, the main reason I marched in protests against the war in Afghanistan is because I knew that it was cover for starting the war in Iraq. Warning to conservative freaks, do not dispute me, you WILL be made to look stupid (mainly because you are).
I am not now, however, in favor of pull-out; immediate, measured or otherwise.
The only possible outcome--and this too, is not available for debate--of premature troop reduction in Iraq is a domino effect of theocratic regime change throughout the entire Arab world. Now, for those of you who do not dispute that, many will dismiss this as their right to choose their own government.
The problem, is that this assumption is blatantly untrue, and so incredibly dismissive of Arab intellect as to be extraordinarily insulting. The underriding assumption is that all Muslims, and particularly Arabs (some of you redneck liberals aren't even aware that there is a difference), are so religious that the only government they would be happy with is the one spelled out in the Qur'an.
Think about this, assholes; do all Italians want the Vatican to resume control of their lives? Do all Americans want their countrymen to stone adulterers to death? What in the names of all the gods makes you think that only Muslims, of all the peoples on the planet are still stuck in the 6th century? Oh yeah. You're easily led. After everything. After all the events of the last six years, you still can't tell what is propaganda, and you're still too lazy to find out truths for yourselves.
Yet the sad irony is that if we do not sustain the current government of Iraq, their next government will be based on Sharia law. Why? For the same reason that if liberals in America cede the field to Hillary Clinton, they will lose the White House again. The conservative forces in this world, be they relative conservatives like Rudolph Giuliani, or true conservatives like Josef Stalin have no reluctance to use violence and intimidation to achieve their goals. They will use whatever means of coercion they can get away with. If we let them get away with intimidation, ethnic cleansing, assassination and, yes, terrorism, they will get the upper hand, they will topple their government, and they will install their own regime. Not because the general population of the Arab world desires it, but because they will be too terrified to oppose it.
SELF-DETERMINISM, the ideal espoused and upheld EXCLUSIVELY by democracy, is not the inevitable result of America steering clear of involvement. Believe it or not, we DESERVE our place as the leader of the free world. In fact, if it were not for our existence, the free world WOULD NOT BE FREE, it would be ruled by monarchs, not even the one generation at a time autocracy of dictators, like Hitler, who by the way would rule the world if we had not intervened.
The right of people, not only here, but worldwide to choose their own leaders, only survives because we protect and even because we actively cultivate it. We need to stop thinking it is such a bad thing to intervene in the affairs of other countries. Granted, we must use caution and foresight in the ways in which we intervene. We must take responsibility for our failures, but for our successes too. We must stop being ashamed of who we are, and begin taking pride in who we are once again.
The thing about Iraq is that it is not Vietnam, or rather, it does not have to be Vietnam. In Vietnam we installed a puppet government, headed by a president in name only, who believed he was a king, who ran his government as a fiefdom and who was aided and abetted by this government in doing so. We were the bad guys. We were the ones denying the Vietnamese the government they wanted, we were the ones terrorizing the people, we were the ones supporting a dictatorship.
Iraq can be different. In 2003 Haliburton invaded. It was given effective monopoly of the construction and oil industries by no-bid contract. The U.S. Army, under the command of William Casey, offered no opposition to the status quo, though as an institution the Army itself has been better than it ever has been before at policing itself and prosecuting criminal soldiers. Casey in fact flatly refused to conduct a 'hearts and minds' campaign in Iraq, just as the commanders of the Army in Vietnam had done. He represents the same 'old school' of military thought that failed to secure Vietnam and failed to stabilize Somalia years later. Sadly it takes thirty years for an institution as old and tradition driven as the U.S. Army to fundamentally change.
But David H. Petraeus is the leader of the new wave of military thought. He has a Doctorate in international relations which he earned by writing his dissertation on "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era". He graduated from West Point less than a year before the end of the war in Vietnam, and he has dedicated his military career to changing the U.S. military's relationship to force. He is also the lead author of the current edition of the Army Counterinsurgency Manual, again an attempt, a highly successful effort to change the way the Army operates in a theater of war. He has fundamentally changed the strategy of the U.S. Army, not just the war in Iraq, the entire army. Not only is the commander directing his troops to win the 'hearts and minds' of the average Iraqi, he is hiring and promoting and offering plum opportunities for the most prominent commands to officers who successfully prosecute this strategy. This is how things change.
The war in Iraq is winnable. This is exclusively because the Democrats won the 2006 election. Almost every person in this country believed that we elected the Democrats in 2006 to get us out of the war. No. We elected the Democrats to do exactly what they said they would do: FORCE THE PRESIDENT TO CHANGE HIS STRATEGY. Why have we lost sight of this? Mainly because the most obvious result of the win was the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, and this happened less than a week after the election took place. IF THE DEMOCRATS HAD NOT WON, RUMSFELD WOULD NOT HAVE LEFT OFFICE. IF RUMSFELD HAD REMAINED IN OFFICE, DAVID PETRAEUS WOULD NOT BE COMMANDER OF MULITNATIONAL FORCES IN IRAQ. Donald Rumsfeld was the architect of Bush Strategy in Iraq, the current strategy in operation in Iraq is entirely the responsibility of David Petraeus. If Democrats had been truly, truly politically savvy, they would have embraced David Petraeus with open arms, saying "Here we have a rational, reasonable, intellectual, highly-educated warrior. Here we have our chance to change course." Let's RESERVE JUDGEMENT, give the NEW STRATEGY a chance to work. We want to get out of Iraq, and this is a possible way forward. If it does not work, then we can reasonably say that we have tried everything we can and pull out with our honor at least intact, even if our pride is a bit damaged.
Instead, they decided to whine for TWO YEARS STRAIGHT about a war they cannot stop. Oh but what if they cut off funding for the troops? Just imagine LA Times photographs of tables full of soldiers, entire mess halls full of American soldiers, and every plate is empty. Just imagine. Would you still vote for Democrats if you saw that? I sure as fuck would not. But the main point is that THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WINNABLE. I know that the end of the Vietnam war has demoralized the American public. You do not really believe, down in your deepest psyche, that we CAN win an all-out war. STOP BEING SUCH A BUNCH OF BABIES! So you got punched in the nose, 30 YEARS AGO! Get up! Fight! Have some self respect! Believe it or not, democracy is the best thing that has ever happened to this world. We want to keep it. And if we want to keep it, which, I assure you we do, we are going to have to fight for it. Like I said, I would not have chosen this fight at this time. But the fact is that you either elected that bastard or you allowed your friends to not vote and therefore allowed that bastard to be elected. GET OFF YOUR ASSES! VOTE in 2008, and VOTE DEMOCRAT, but don't be surprised when the democrat you elect fights on and wins the war. GODS I hate progressive extremism.
I have already made reference to my position in yesterday's post, so I'll just paraphrase what I said there. I was against the war from before most people knew it was being considered. In fact, the main reason I marched in protests against the war in Afghanistan is because I knew that it was cover for starting the war in Iraq. Warning to conservative freaks, do not dispute me, you WILL be made to look stupid (mainly because you are).
I am not now, however, in favor of pull-out; immediate, measured or otherwise.
The only possible outcome--and this too, is not available for debate--of premature troop reduction in Iraq is a domino effect of theocratic regime change throughout the entire Arab world. Now, for those of you who do not dispute that, many will dismiss this as their right to choose their own government.
The problem, is that this assumption is blatantly untrue, and so incredibly dismissive of Arab intellect as to be extraordinarily insulting. The underriding assumption is that all Muslims, and particularly Arabs (some of you redneck liberals aren't even aware that there is a difference), are so religious that the only government they would be happy with is the one spelled out in the Qur'an.
Think about this, assholes; do all Italians want the Vatican to resume control of their lives? Do all Americans want their countrymen to stone adulterers to death? What in the names of all the gods makes you think that only Muslims, of all the peoples on the planet are still stuck in the 6th century? Oh yeah. You're easily led. After everything. After all the events of the last six years, you still can't tell what is propaganda, and you're still too lazy to find out truths for yourselves.
Yet the sad irony is that if we do not sustain the current government of Iraq, their next government will be based on Sharia law. Why? For the same reason that if liberals in America cede the field to Hillary Clinton, they will lose the White House again. The conservative forces in this world, be they relative conservatives like Rudolph Giuliani, or true conservatives like Josef Stalin have no reluctance to use violence and intimidation to achieve their goals. They will use whatever means of coercion they can get away with. If we let them get away with intimidation, ethnic cleansing, assassination and, yes, terrorism, they will get the upper hand, they will topple their government, and they will install their own regime. Not because the general population of the Arab world desires it, but because they will be too terrified to oppose it.
SELF-DETERMINISM, the ideal espoused and upheld EXCLUSIVELY by democracy, is not the inevitable result of America steering clear of involvement. Believe it or not, we DESERVE our place as the leader of the free world. In fact, if it were not for our existence, the free world WOULD NOT BE FREE, it would be ruled by monarchs, not even the one generation at a time autocracy of dictators, like Hitler, who by the way would rule the world if we had not intervened.
The right of people, not only here, but worldwide to choose their own leaders, only survives because we protect and even because we actively cultivate it. We need to stop thinking it is such a bad thing to intervene in the affairs of other countries. Granted, we must use caution and foresight in the ways in which we intervene. We must take responsibility for our failures, but for our successes too. We must stop being ashamed of who we are, and begin taking pride in who we are once again.
The thing about Iraq is that it is not Vietnam, or rather, it does not have to be Vietnam. In Vietnam we installed a puppet government, headed by a president in name only, who believed he was a king, who ran his government as a fiefdom and who was aided and abetted by this government in doing so. We were the bad guys. We were the ones denying the Vietnamese the government they wanted, we were the ones terrorizing the people, we were the ones supporting a dictatorship.
Iraq can be different. In 2003 Haliburton invaded. It was given effective monopoly of the construction and oil industries by no-bid contract. The U.S. Army, under the command of William Casey, offered no opposition to the status quo, though as an institution the Army itself has been better than it ever has been before at policing itself and prosecuting criminal soldiers. Casey in fact flatly refused to conduct a 'hearts and minds' campaign in Iraq, just as the commanders of the Army in Vietnam had done. He represents the same 'old school' of military thought that failed to secure Vietnam and failed to stabilize Somalia years later. Sadly it takes thirty years for an institution as old and tradition driven as the U.S. Army to fundamentally change.
But David H. Petraeus is the leader of the new wave of military thought. He has a Doctorate in international relations which he earned by writing his dissertation on "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era". He graduated from West Point less than a year before the end of the war in Vietnam, and he has dedicated his military career to changing the U.S. military's relationship to force. He is also the lead author of the current edition of the Army Counterinsurgency Manual, again an attempt, a highly successful effort to change the way the Army operates in a theater of war. He has fundamentally changed the strategy of the U.S. Army, not just the war in Iraq, the entire army. Not only is the commander directing his troops to win the 'hearts and minds' of the average Iraqi, he is hiring and promoting and offering plum opportunities for the most prominent commands to officers who successfully prosecute this strategy. This is how things change.
The war in Iraq is winnable. This is exclusively because the Democrats won the 2006 election. Almost every person in this country believed that we elected the Democrats in 2006 to get us out of the war. No. We elected the Democrats to do exactly what they said they would do: FORCE THE PRESIDENT TO CHANGE HIS STRATEGY. Why have we lost sight of this? Mainly because the most obvious result of the win was the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, and this happened less than a week after the election took place. IF THE DEMOCRATS HAD NOT WON, RUMSFELD WOULD NOT HAVE LEFT OFFICE. IF RUMSFELD HAD REMAINED IN OFFICE, DAVID PETRAEUS WOULD NOT BE COMMANDER OF MULITNATIONAL FORCES IN IRAQ. Donald Rumsfeld was the architect of Bush Strategy in Iraq, the current strategy in operation in Iraq is entirely the responsibility of David Petraeus. If Democrats had been truly, truly politically savvy, they would have embraced David Petraeus with open arms, saying "Here we have a rational, reasonable, intellectual, highly-educated warrior. Here we have our chance to change course." Let's RESERVE JUDGEMENT, give the NEW STRATEGY a chance to work. We want to get out of Iraq, and this is a possible way forward. If it does not work, then we can reasonably say that we have tried everything we can and pull out with our honor at least intact, even if our pride is a bit damaged.
Instead, they decided to whine for TWO YEARS STRAIGHT about a war they cannot stop. Oh but what if they cut off funding for the troops? Just imagine LA Times photographs of tables full of soldiers, entire mess halls full of American soldiers, and every plate is empty. Just imagine. Would you still vote for Democrats if you saw that? I sure as fuck would not. But the main point is that THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WINNABLE. I know that the end of the Vietnam war has demoralized the American public. You do not really believe, down in your deepest psyche, that we CAN win an all-out war. STOP BEING SUCH A BUNCH OF BABIES! So you got punched in the nose, 30 YEARS AGO! Get up! Fight! Have some self respect! Believe it or not, democracy is the best thing that has ever happened to this world. We want to keep it. And if we want to keep it, which, I assure you we do, we are going to have to fight for it. Like I said, I would not have chosen this fight at this time. But the fact is that you either elected that bastard or you allowed your friends to not vote and therefore allowed that bastard to be elected. GET OFF YOUR ASSES! VOTE in 2008, and VOTE DEMOCRAT, but don't be surprised when the democrat you elect fights on and wins the war. GODS I hate progressive extremism.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Welcome to My Blog - What I Mean, What I Intend
Courage is Liberal, Progress is not Passive
Welcome. I hope you are stimulated by my ideas and arrested by my stories. I am a passionate political partisan, and a word loving author. Someday I hope to be a research professor at a prominent public university, probably in fields relating to History, Anthropology, Literature or Linguistics. I value intellect and sophistication above all other things, characteristics which are unfortunate rarities in contemporary America. But more about that some other time.
HybridCourage.blogspot.com is my address. Hybrid is me; it refers to my multiple ethnicities, my 'mongrel' blood, of which I could not be prouder. There is nothing more American than miscegenation, and there is no one with a better claim to the identity 'American' than those of my peers whose heritage cannot be described by filling in a bubble on a questionnaire. Courage is why we're here, both you the reader and me the blogger. We are looking for courage and finding it in each other.
I am a liberal, and I say that not only as a distinction from conservatives, but from 'progressives'. Progressives are cultural relativists, they tend to be pacifists, they avoid direct confrontations in favor of insulation and isolation. They generally endeavor to inspire change by encouraging party cohesion. I am not a progressive, though I like a great music festival as much as the next leftist. I consider progressive philosophy passive aggressive. As I understand it, the healthiest behavior is simple assertiveness, which is difficult and often turbulent, but far more effective than aggressive or passive-aggressive behavior. I categorically prefer peace to violence, tolerance to the alternative, but unfortunately, while these principles might serve in our own factional infighting, the truly rival party has no such scruples. Until we can exterminate their ideology (and I propose doing so by educating all children, worldwide, not by Napoleonic slaughter of conservatives, by the way), we haven't got the luxury of playing Mr. Nice Guy.
This is especially true in the context of the climate crisis. It is said by the timid that revolution doesn't happen until there are maggots at the ends of the forks, but in case of climate change, by the time there are maggots at the ends of the forks, it will already be too late. WE CANNOT WAIT. We must change the attitude of this world RIGHT NOW.
So, here I am, saying the things progressives won't say, and conservatives don't want you to hear. I'm not middle of the road, I'm not a centrist. I'm just pragmatic and more sophisticated than Karl Rove imagines. I protested the war in Iraq, I even organized marches and demonstrations. But now that we have invaded, we must do what we said we would. There are certain inescapable consequences to invading a country, the only way to end with a result that is not completely unacceptable and worse than before, and I'm talking about worse for the Iraqis themselves, is to follow through with making the lie we were told at the outset a reality in the end.
So that's me, that's why I'm here. There is a lot of absurd political extremism out there right now, and I'm not sure which side makes me fear the future more, conservative imbeciles or liberal nutballs. Future posts will address not only geo-political issues from a realist perspective, but social issues, sexuality, my own personal stories and perhaps, from time to time, some of my fiction, which draws inspiration from the genre of magical realism and I strive for linguistic and anthropological flavor to increase the realism.
Hope you enjoy, or are stimulated by my content. Feel free to drop me a line, I'll try to respond.
Welcome. I hope you are stimulated by my ideas and arrested by my stories. I am a passionate political partisan, and a word loving author. Someday I hope to be a research professor at a prominent public university, probably in fields relating to History, Anthropology, Literature or Linguistics. I value intellect and sophistication above all other things, characteristics which are unfortunate rarities in contemporary America. But more about that some other time.
HybridCourage.blogspot.com is my address. Hybrid is me; it refers to my multiple ethnicities, my 'mongrel' blood, of which I could not be prouder. There is nothing more American than miscegenation, and there is no one with a better claim to the identity 'American' than those of my peers whose heritage cannot be described by filling in a bubble on a questionnaire. Courage is why we're here, both you the reader and me the blogger. We are looking for courage and finding it in each other.
I am a liberal, and I say that not only as a distinction from conservatives, but from 'progressives'. Progressives are cultural relativists, they tend to be pacifists, they avoid direct confrontations in favor of insulation and isolation. They generally endeavor to inspire change by encouraging party cohesion. I am not a progressive, though I like a great music festival as much as the next leftist. I consider progressive philosophy passive aggressive. As I understand it, the healthiest behavior is simple assertiveness, which is difficult and often turbulent, but far more effective than aggressive or passive-aggressive behavior. I categorically prefer peace to violence, tolerance to the alternative, but unfortunately, while these principles might serve in our own factional infighting, the truly rival party has no such scruples. Until we can exterminate their ideology (and I propose doing so by educating all children, worldwide, not by Napoleonic slaughter of conservatives, by the way), we haven't got the luxury of playing Mr. Nice Guy.
This is especially true in the context of the climate crisis. It is said by the timid that revolution doesn't happen until there are maggots at the ends of the forks, but in case of climate change, by the time there are maggots at the ends of the forks, it will already be too late. WE CANNOT WAIT. We must change the attitude of this world RIGHT NOW.
So, here I am, saying the things progressives won't say, and conservatives don't want you to hear. I'm not middle of the road, I'm not a centrist. I'm just pragmatic and more sophisticated than Karl Rove imagines. I protested the war in Iraq, I even organized marches and demonstrations. But now that we have invaded, we must do what we said we would. There are certain inescapable consequences to invading a country, the only way to end with a result that is not completely unacceptable and worse than before, and I'm talking about worse for the Iraqis themselves, is to follow through with making the lie we were told at the outset a reality in the end.
So that's me, that's why I'm here. There is a lot of absurd political extremism out there right now, and I'm not sure which side makes me fear the future more, conservative imbeciles or liberal nutballs. Future posts will address not only geo-political issues from a realist perspective, but social issues, sexuality, my own personal stories and perhaps, from time to time, some of my fiction, which draws inspiration from the genre of magical realism and I strive for linguistic and anthropological flavor to increase the realism.
Hope you enjoy, or are stimulated by my content. Feel free to drop me a line, I'll try to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
