Evangelizing
My roommate (read: meal ticket) is out of town this weekend so my external motivation for even waking up has been flagging. Not that she wakes up at a decent hour on weekends either (its usually me banging on her door by 1pm to make sure she hasn't choked on her own vomit or something.;), but that the opprobrium of having that other person recognizing your laziness is usually enough to bring me out of bed by at least 10am. But yesterday I had myself a lazy-fest. Woke up at 11:30am and managed to spend most of my waking time surfing the net watching world cup streams, reading blogs and only pulled myself out of the chair and outta the apartment to grab a smoked meat sandwich and fries from Lester's Deli down the street* [see note at end]. But this morning I managed to pull myself out of bed at a respectable 8am, boiled some water, ground some beans and pressed myself a couple of steaming cups of hyper-caffeinated brew. It feels good to wake up early on your own. And I'm feeling positive this morning. (It’s the coffee talking)
Which made me want to impart some positivity. Atheism is defined by what it is not, which makes it propositionally negative. This can make atheists seem like negative people just taking shots at other people's beliefs without offering anything positive in return. This is a legitimate complaint from theists. Atheism, as it has no organization, no institutional belief structure and no dogma, can not fall back on a pre-existing set of beliefs to positively instruct atheists. Because atheism is not a belief system at all. Atheism is simply a neutral belief arrived at thru skepticism. It is up to atheists individually to create for themselves a positive ethos and a motivation for their own action. As my lazy Saturday demonstrates, motivation for action can be very difficult for an individual. But as my early rise this morning also illustrates, it is possible (I started this post at 10:30… I've already done two loads of laundry, unloaded the dishwasher, watered the plants, scooped the litter box and taken out the trash. When I'm thru with this little rant, I will embark on cleaning the house, which sorely needs it after a weekend of sloth.).
But first, the negative. Atheists usually have to start by saying why they don't believe what the vast majority believe (this is annoying for me to have to do this, but I'm sure even more annoying for you to have to read it :). I have to explain to my audience first why the predominant thinking isn't adequate for me because atheism for so long has been marginalized. The God hypothesis is an unnecessary insertion into any moral code or metaphysic. I think of it this way... when a scholar analyzes an ancient text (Josephus for instance) and comes across a passage that seems surprising, he may look for continuity of that passage in its context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Textual_continuity). If the work has more continuity with the passage removed, it is likely (though not conclusive) that the passage in question has been added to the original. Analogous to this is the addition of "God" into any metaphysic or moral code.
Let’s start with metaphysics. The complaint of theists is that reason alone can not answer for the existence of a complex universe. The unguided natural world can not account for the vastness of the universe, the regularity of planetary motion, the existence of stars and suns and of course, the existence of life and in particular, intelligent life. The problem is complexity. How does one explain the existence of complexity? Science says that complex life can be explained by cumulative selection. But the counter is that such a process is itself complex and requires explanation beyond nature. The existence of the universe is itself complex and the big bang itself is in need of explanation. To reduce this, the origin of complexity needs to be explained and that the scientific explanations are themselves complex and need explaining. I would agree with this. Evolution had to start somewhere. The "original singularity" or "singular originality" (taken from EL Doctorow's City of God) had to start somewhere. The philosophical answer is yes, it had to have a cause, or no, it just poofed from nothing without a cause, or no, it always has existed. Theists understandably find the latter two unsatisfying. So the idea is that the complexity of the universe had to be created and therefore had to be created by God.
But here is where the God hypothesis is merely a superfluous addition into the same set of problems. For theists, it is not satisfying to believe that complexity could have arisen from less complexity (caricatured as "chance", but more broadly, natural properties or physical laws of the universe.). Yet they posit a creator of complexity. Is this creator more complex? If not, then the same critique applies --- complexity arising from something less complex, which is precisely what evolution/abiogenesis posits without the need for a creator god. If the creator is more complex, then this begs for an even bigger explanation of how a more complex creator could have arisen. If the universe requires explanation because of its complexity and a creator of more complexity is posited, then the complexity of that creator is itself in need of explanation. And the answers theists usually give are the exact same responses that made them dissatisfied with the explanation of the universe in the first place!... God just poofed from nothing or God has always existed! The same philosophical dilemmas exist with or without the "God hypothesis"! Causality is either an infinite chain or something had to "poof" into existence from bothing and this is the case whether you insert God into the mix or not. I prefer to cut that Gordian Knot rather than try to untie it.
As for morality (I covered this one before many moons ago.), the same superfluity of the “God Hypothesis” holds true. The critique of atheism is that there is no basis for a moral code and therefore an atheist’s morality is strictly postmodernist relativism. But anybody, theist or not, has to start with themselves. A theist believes in a particular God-based morality because it is his choice or because it was his society’s choice (most people believe in the same God as their parents.). So you are either conditioned from an early age to believe certain moral precepts or you at some point rationally choose which moral code to follow. The same is true for any atheist. We are conditioned to believing certain moral precepts and we grow to rationally choose which more precepts should guide our actions. The need for some to insert God into the question is simply a desire to give subjective moral beliefs an objective standard. We as a society do require some sort of objective consistency in order to relate our subjective beliefs. Pure subjective relativism is dangerous to the functioning of society. So God was invented as a lawgiver so that society had an objective standard of morality. As an atheist, I still need an objective way to apply moral standards. But this standard is simple… logical consistency. Morality is a dichotomy between individual rights and social order. This is not some abstract concept but one grounded in the history and application of social interaction. Human beings develop moral sentiments from childhood because we have evolved as a social animal. Our moral choices must be framed by that dichotomy of individual right and social order. It is logical consistency within that framework that trumps a purely postmodern relativism. Unchanging absolutes are not necessary to have logical consistency. Society evolves but the fitness of society continues to be measured against the same criteria; individual right and social order.
So with that out of the way (pace yourselves!:) lets look at the question of optimism and pessimism. Several months ago, when I still worked at ADP, I and a friend of mine were bored. It was late in the afternoon and we needed something to occupy us until quitting time. As we were wont to do, we emailed each other to pass the next couple of hours. But we had already exhausted the normal channels (what are you doing after work… nothing, you? Etc.) so I asked her a question to try to spark a discussion. Did she view the world and humanity as essentially “good” or essentially “bad”. It always is a mild shock to me when someone replies “bad” and this was her reply. Her reasoning was all the wars, child-molesting, diseases, ADP, natural disasters, death itself. It’s hard to argue with that. What is always curious to me though, was that the world was essentially “bad” and yet she believed unquestioningly that God had created it. Theologically, this is resolved by saying that the world was created to test mankind and that those who passed the test of this horrible existence would be rewarded with paradise after death.
I don’t know about you, but I find this way of thinking to be extremely hostile towards existence as we know it. And I find this way of thinking to be somewhat common especially as “faith” increases. Even some atheists see the world as corrupt and contemptible. Buddhists see the world as something full of suffering and to overcome that world through denial of it. Maybe I have lived a charmed life, but even when I believed in God it wasn’t because of scripture or moral argument but because when I looked up into a blue sky dotted with puffs of clouds or when I saw a sunset, or even just looking up thru the skirt of a massive oak tree, I saw beauty. And I believed that beauty came from God. I still see beauty even without believing in god. I see nature as inherently beautiful. I even see the human condition as a thing of beauty. Its not that I am blind to suffering, but that suffering is part of the picture and the picture is still beautiful.
Henry Miller once said “It is not for us to make the world a better place but to make ourselves fit to inhabit it.” I believe that. It is the failure of our own imaginations and the limits of our own understanding that has us view the world with contempt. We are afraid of reality. Over half of America does not believe in evolution not because they think they have a better scientific explanation and not because they have ruled it out through reason. Hell, most people object to it without ever learning a thing about it. Most of those people don’t believe in it because they don’t want to believe in it. It offends their pride or the reality of it is too scary for them. This was also my initial objection to the theory of evolution (I was raised a somewhat conservative Christian). As soon as I learned what the theory actually said (beyond the caricatures and strawmen I had been presented), I had no objections to it but emotional ones. But the truth shall set you free and it set me free even from my emotional shackles. My failure to come to grips psychologically with the theory was not a failure of the theory. Reality is what it is. It was not the world’s responsibility to change its shape to fit my beliefs, faith does not move mountains.
And this is my positive belief. Heaven does indeed exist and it is the ground beneath my feet, the wind thru my hair, the sun that warms my skin and commands the seeds to “rise up! And bare fruit.” This is heaven. It is real, it is beautiful and it is for us to make ourselves worthy of it, worthy of the life we’ve been given. Heaven is not an afterdeath; I do not have the temerity to ask for more than the life I have. The violence of creation, the pain of birth, the suffering of life; these things I awaken myself to. I do not hide from them. Rather, they illuminate life. That suffering and violence brings sadness to my eyes, does not make me shut them, but to stare down that which confronts me, in defiance if need be. And this too is beautiful and illuminating. I do not accept violence and I do not accept suffering. It is not acceptance of life (which sounds too much like “resignation”.) but awareness; Awareness is ecstasy. And ecstasy is that which is truly alive.
* Smoked meat sandwiches are a culinary favorite up here. It’s smoked,
spiced brisket (with a direct east-European influence) but its not
quite pastrami and not quite corned beef. It’s better than both,
meltingly tender. It has to be sliced by hand... a deli-slicer would
disintegrate it. It’s stacked high on comically tiny (by comparison)
pieces of old fashioned rye with a dab of mustard.
the frondeurs
are they to replace the mouseketeers? donning an odiferous b.o., spraying political graphitti on plastic landmarks, singing songs of rasputin (though this time learning the lyrics), and writing tales of lust for rampage and rebellion?
I'm hungry. Time to go eat hotdogs at a barbeque.
bushy-poo
Links
President George W. Bush today pledged millions of dollars in direct American aid for the Palestinian Authority, providing a tangible lift and a verbal endorsement to its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, during a symbolically important White House visit.
President Bush had a simple message today for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader. "America wants to help," he said.
Bush also predicted that Palestinians would favor Abbas's Fatah Party in parliamentary elections set for July and reject candidates allied with the militant group Hamas.
I read the above excerpt from a NY Times article (White House Hopes to Boost Palestinian With Visit and Aid, Thursday, May 26, 2005). I'm oftentimes astounded by Bush's predicitons... how simple they are, and obvious. Of course Palestinians are less likely to support a militant group--or are they? Oh, I don't know. Either way, again... Bush sounds stupid.
American Idol
Links
Last night, while dining with a friend, I caught a glimpse of the American Idol finale. I've never paid attention to American Idol, as I consider it a frivolous and vacuous reality show, that fills no certain void in my meager existence. Plainly, it looks fatuous and vain.
They replayed nostalgic vignettes from the show's season, highlighting the parents and talents who displayed exaggerated emotion from their loss or success: the best, obviously, was the mother who fell down on the floor in happy shock after her son was allowed to the next round. I almost feel sorry for the kids who try out for the show, because I wonder if their parents are as insane as show-dog owners--primping and preparing them for a celebrity's success, that they, the parents, never obtained but w/ which they can viscerally live through their kids. The other trophy moment was the overweight singer who first appeared in her old-navy cotton tshirt, while bellowing out strings of hip-hop; sound muted on tv, she looked either operatic, or like she was talking in slow motion... either way, her moment required a lot of oxygen... I wonder if they had a tank in the background. She was allowed to return... and return... and so forth. By the end of her stint on American Idol, her hair was straightened, face made-up with multiple and bright shades, and her body graced with a velvet gown. She still looked as stoic and afraid of public attention, as the first appearance. Her face making no emotional muscular renderings; her body not moving... except for her lungs, inhaling and exhaling with gusto and force. We debated weight's effect on voice... that if a lot of overweight weomen can hold a note and issue forth a strong voice, then why are so many singers twiggy reincarnated?
Last night's show was not particularly eye-catching, in my book. A hippie-garbed dude sang a popular 70's song (title, unbeknownst a moi), mirroring intonations of Tom Jones and the disco-rock suaveness of Blood, Sweat, and Tears. His voice was not his own: it replicated disco and blues singers past, and tinging with hope that the crowd would like him as much as the blonde, country chic, bellying out whatever song she chose to mimic.
I understand American Idol is really a talent show; it's Simon-what's-his-face's attempt to find the next big thing, with each successive season. As far as I know, he's been a modicum successful by bringing to surface two singers: Kelly Clarkson, and some other chic... she was overweight also, and had a previous drug habit that got her kicked off the show... well, whatever--she's now staring in Rent on Brodway, in NY.
Yes, American Idol is the next Star Search. But the very fact that the talent performs other people's songs... retarded. A sophomoric response, I know. But, singing cover songs to exude talent is antithetical to the very idea of talent: to express a unique trait or skill by which people are either entertained, or receive a welcomed service. The talents on American Idol are simply singing other peoples' song to receive acclaim, a broad applause, and PR attention. They are simply entertainers. How weird to me to be the person writing the song and then someone else performing it. Naturally, it's analogous to acting: the screenplay writted by a person who is not the actor. But, then songs, to me, are more personal than the latter. And thus what you are singing has a unique voice, particularly based on your skill to write, compose, and perform it.
But, whatever. American Idol is another reality show for hum-drum Americans to watch, feeding themselves endlessly--sort of like the movie the STUFF, reality shows are white sticky goo that people eat, and that buds and propates within and outside of them. But nevermind that, American Idol is far from reality. Becoming an idol is not realistic. Period. Being a bachelorette with a dozen men surrounding you, wanting to be your husband; getting to know them for 2 months and then deciding who it would be... not realistic. Eating worms, because it's supposed to represent one of your fears? Not realistic.
A Tale of Two Former Governors
For the second time in three nights, I had the pleasure to shake hands with former Governor Roy Barnes. The gov is a very likeable guy, always smiling, articulate but in a soothing and slow southern drawl. His hair and dress is that sort of disheveled but hip look that old professors sometimes get... as if he were too busy to be concerned with appearance. But what was so interesting about both encounters I had with Mr. Barnes was the setting of each event.
Monday night, my father, a Scottish Rite Mason, invited me to a steak dinner for Cobb County Scottish Rite Association's 40th anniversary. One of the members was an old friend of Roy Barnes, who himself is a member of Scottish Rite and a Cobb County native. So Roy Barnes was selected as a guest speaker to the event. Now, like most Masonic functions I have ever seen (and I've been to quite a few as my dad is very involved), this event was packed with geriatrics---Cobb County Geriatrics. Conservative Religious Cobb County Geriatrics. So Roy Barnes tells a couple of amusing little anecdotes from his time in the trenches and in the governor's mansion to get the crowd warmed up. Then after getting some laughs, he proceeded with the substance of his talk--- The future of Georgia and the need for urgent change in how we deal with transportation, water and education. The crowd was a bit quiet on hearing about these issues. Honestly, what on earth did they care about these things aside from maybe a foresighted concern for their grandchildren? Like many so-called conservatives of the present day, their political energy is largely generated from moral outrage and fear. What they really wanted to hear was what should be done about gays and their abominations and how to get the bible back in public schools. When the floor was opened to questions, one lady (one of the younger people at probably around her late 40's/early 50's) started talking about the problems in school. Barnes articulated further what he thought should be done---raising expectations, smaller class size, the whole routine. Another lady, an older lady, asked about "political correctness" (one of the main talking points in the arsenal of the brainwashed) and how it was ruining schools. Barnes, putting on his best face, again spoke of not accepting failure, raising expectations and (to the thrill of the silver-haired throng) allowing teachers to spank kids who disrupted learning for the whole class. Finally, the governor had given them something to rouse their attention. Had it not required walkers, canes and back groans, the mention of young punks getting their asses tore up might have brought on a standing ovation. In the air-conditioned cadillacs and buicks of upper middle class septuagenarian suburbia, what kindles the flames of political thought was the dire need to beat children into submission (and of course making sure gays don't start fornicating in their backyards). After the show, I shook hands with the governor, telling him that there probably weren't many democrats (little "d") in the room, but that he had at least one in the audience in myself.
Last night, my friend, Kimberly, the newly sworn president of Fulton County Young Democrats (big "D"), invited me to join her at the monthly Creative Loafing Political Party at Dad's Garage in Inman Park. On the guest panel was Former Governor Roy Barnes. I got there about 20 minutes before the scheduled start. Kim and some other folks were already gathered outside as was the governor and his wife. I shook hands with Mr. Barnes again, and he recognized me from Monday night. We all made our way inside and the guest panel was introduced on stage. The crowd here, just by its existence, would have riled the group from Monday night had they seen it. Most were young urbanites. And that group consisted of black, Asian, gay, lesbian, straight, middle class, urban yuppie, poor, etc. There were also older, educated liberals and committed political activists. Ken Edelstein hosted the event, and Able Mable Thompson, John Sugg and some other dude rounded out the panel. Barnes was a different man in this setting, chastising the right for its tactics. He also made clear to the audience that the Republican party was convincing people to vote against their own interests because of religion, and he made sure to emphasize "religion". Such a statement would have resulted in a geriatric gang stomp at Monday's event. He scoffed at Alabama Justice Roy Moore (who is running for the governorship of that state), who made headlines for himself by defying his own court in sneaking in a monument of the Ten Commandments and at the reigning Mississippi Governor for saying that "Race was no longer an issue in Mississippi." We all got a good laugh out of that.
I was wondering which man was speaking more genuinely and if there really was a difference. Was he just telling each audience what he thought they wanted to hear? Was he just more restrained in what he said with a crowd he knew to be hostile and was he being more free with his thoughts with a crowd full of liberals? One could tell from last night that Barnes did still hold some beliefs that might not be totally in line with the most liberal among us. He defended himself when asked about his view on the death penalty and with how he handled the "Northern Arc" during his reign as governor. So I am inclined to think that the Roy Barnes that I saw last night, was the one most at ease with himself and with the audience. The lesson from it, I have not yet decided. Whatever the case, it was an interesting thing to see.
Clarification:
Well, It wasn't as blatant as I might have made it sound. I don't think he said anything at either event that he didn't actually believe. I think he believes in the death penalty and he believes in spanking kids but that he also believes in racial and sexual tolerance, increasing the minimum wage, affordable housing, viable mass transit and the separation of church and state. Its just that in the one setting he emphasized only those beliefs that would not be so controversial and in the other setting he felt freer to speak his mind. At least that's what I got out of it. And part of that may have had to do with something he said last night in the context of focusing on issues that concern women voters. He said "Let's face it. 35-60 year old white men. You are not going to change their minds no matter what." And I think that's what dictated how he acted and what he spoke about Monday night. He wasn't there to energize them politically and he surely wasn't there to try to change their minds. And perhaps even more to the point he wanted to present issues that actually affect people and the future of the state and not the chimeras of moral outrage and fear that motivate the republican party. Why play into their hands? Why give air time to issues that only matter because of their visceral emotional response? You can't compete with that sort of reptilian emotion anyway. Why are we wasting time with it? We should be focusing on the cerebrum, not the brain stem. Maybe that's the lesson.
Leviathan
Life as a whole should not be taken too seriously. However, there are details in one’s life that should; little details that distinguish great art from rubbish. The more one delves into the minutiae of little details, the less one is prone to take the rest of life so seriously. This is the biological principle that is selecting the Renaissance man to extinction.
But what of extinction? History is one long tale of extinction is it not? And biology? All about extinction. Why do we dread it so? Let’s face it, genetic information passed on to successive generations (called childbearing by some) does not make one immortal. 99.99999% of all the people who have ever lived and died are soon forgotten by everyone. Only memes in the form of "history" have preserved any semblance of a human legacy. And memes are far less reliable as information replicators than nucleic acid. History is in fact more "story" than "history". So what are we grasping at in attempting to avoid our own extinction? Our life will end in our allotted times regardless of our supposed progeny or even our written legacies. What is it exactly that drives us to be remembered?
But we have an answer and that answer offends our pride. We are not seeking remembrance as much as we attempt to place meaning on our reproductive urges. We are simply reproducing. It is no different than herpes reproducing and our progeny are no different in this regard than a maggot is to flies. Life is a process, a very complex one, but nonetheless a process of phenomena. We fight this realization tooth and nail. We create grandiose layers of lies (called theology by some) to preserve our own arrogance. And what is it but arrogance. Why do we think we deserve better than other creatures or even other matter? We are all parasites. Life itself is a parasitic phenomenon, whereby dynamic matter sucks the nutrients out of static matter. Memes as well as genes further parasitise living matter for their own reproduction.
So let’s not take life so seriously. Let's refuse our parasitism by affirming it, not by cowardly denial. Lets instead focus on the details; details of our own choosing; details unconcerned with immortality or reproduction---in a word, "art". And not the art that needs an audience, for this is merely parasitism. But art for ourselves. Or like the Renaissance man, lets not focus too intently on any one thing at all, including life. Lets take the "meaning" (which is only delusional arrogance) out of life and thereby make life itself art---a seriously unserious art. Because as Hobbes said, "Life is mean, brutish, nasty and short." So why not flip or noses at it all in defiant glee. Defy life with your laughter.
Life then, is a joke. And the sooner we take to admitting it, the better our sense of humor will be. Humor is the culmination of power and wisdom. Power without wisdom is tyranny. Wisdom without power is tragedy. But power with wisdom is divine comedy. What else could The Infinite be but a trickster god? It is human to ere, but it is godly to laugh---to be above the wretched mire. But man surpasses even god when he laughs for he is above and within the mire. Or can god even laugh at himself?
A Digression:
Specialization of niche economies is a successful form of adaptation during times of plenty. When cataclysm strikes, the specialist is usually among the first to die, unless that specialization feeds off of disaster or depression. Thus does evolution propagate the scavenger and bottom feeder.
Economics works in much the same way. The specialist economy that strives on a niche, say ethnic food, is among the first to fold when times get rough. Yet alcohol, drugs and pornography, being the purest forms of capitalism, withstand – nay – thrive off of hardship and times of trouble. Morgues and cemeteries will be the last businesses to fold.
An Aside:
"Chain", as in a retail "chain" or fast food "chain" or funeral home "chain", is an apt word for the term. The "chain" has enslaved America.
The parking lot is diseased. The Chevy Malibu ® meme is reproducing like a virus and is suffocating the parking lot as if it were choked by sand.
A Tangent:
Flying in low under the GAYDAR is Sponge Bob. James Dobson and his whacky brand of Christian Intolerance has brought Sponge Bob out of the animated closet. Dobson is evidently an expert on animated homosexuality and is warning the world that Sponge Bob may threaten the sanctity of cartoon marriages everywhere. Fred from Scooby Doo, the Tick, Barney Rubble, Hefty Smurf, Bugs Bunny and Batman have all spoken out in support of Sponge Bob's coming-out. However, with rightwing theocratic fundamentalist crackpots in control of Washington and most State houses, the predominantly gay cartoon community is fearful of a backlash of intolerance. Already there are reports of violence on homosexual cartoon characters by notorious homophobe, Fred Flintstone, and George Jetson has filed a law suit against Spacely's Sprockets Inc. for alleged sexual discrimination after his employment was terminated last Wednesday.
Links
Rise and Fall
"Just when will humans "get it", I wonder?"
The great thing, is that they have in the past. 1776, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1917. There is a book called Unconquerable World by Jonathan Schell that tells of how all empires fall at the hands of peoples movements. I haven't read it but it is on my list. Personally, I am what one might call a "Tragic Optimist", a term that the writer, Nikos Kazantzakis, applied to himself. Eleni, Nikos' wife defined that as one who "has confidence in man, who looks straight at the demon of destruction, hates it, but is not afraid of it, because he knows that all destruction is but the preparatory stage to a new creation."
I think that things will get worse. I am confident in that. Part of what makes me an optimist is that I know that however bad the current situation is, I know that it can always get worse. But when the stuff really hits the fan, that is when "the people" shine. Because we haven't seen the worst of it, people continue to remain comfortable. It takes real hardship for people to recognize their own rights, their own needs and their own power. I wish that it weren't so. I wish that we could all recognize the path to ruin before we take it. But that is always but a brief compromise with history, holding back against the inevitable tide. As soon as the American Empire was proclaimed without shame in the 90's, our downfall has also been heralded. (see
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/08/08_404.html for an exchange between Tom Engelhardt and Jonathan Schell, who wrote Unconquerable World.) But to borrow from Henry Miller, what matters if we are at the nadir? What matters that we are on the wane? We are nonetheless at an incredible point in history and we are lucky to be alive to witness it.
That we know that our condition will need to worsen before it gets better, does that mean we let it get worse? No. Of course not. We keep trying, we keep our voices heard. We are not saviors, but prophets (if I may descend into blasphemy). Prophets live and die without seeing their saviors arrive. We might live and die before we see the promise land. But upon our sunset, new mornings will dawn. We will watch our sunset and be happy. And when the sun begins to descend, we will climb higher and higher to prolong our view-- to the tip of the highest cloud if need be, to be the last to wave it good bye.
A Digression:
Due to the recent slaughter of women and children in Russia at the hands of 'Chechen' terrorists, Vladimir Putin has said that Russia will strike at terrorists at their bases, in sort of a Russian version of America's unending "War on Terror". Now, some hypotheticals emerge from this. First of all, it has been known for some time that there is a connection with Chechen terrorists and so-called 'Arab-Afghans', otherwise known as Al Qaeda. The Russians claim that Arabs are among the dead in the terrorized school. Granted that current Russian power projection might be prohibitive of such, but what if Russia decided to attack such terror states as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan in the name of their own "War on Terror"? Where would the US stand on such a move? Does our own crusade set a precedent for other nations to follow?
An Aside:
I hate to say this but Kerry is barking up the wrong tree with Korea. He has been criticizing Bush for pulling troops out of South Korea. Of course, this is a misguided attempt to make himself look strong. Personally, I see the North Korean "threat" as grotesquely overblown. First of all, there is little reason, other than for show, why US troops remain in South Korea at all. In a conventional war, S Korea is more than capable of handling North Korea on her own. South Korea, according to cdi.org, spends about 7 times the amount that North Korea does on their military. As for the supposed Nuclear threat, there is still nothing definitive that says that North Korea isn't just bluffing. I wouldn't test that, but at the same time, they are not going to use their nukes, if they have any, as a first strike, knowing that retaliation would be swift and cataclysmic to North Korea. The only issue is if China supported any North Korean aggression and in which case we would have much more to worry about and so would the Chinese. The key is that MAD (cold war acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction, the concept that you won't nuke me since doing so you would guarantee your own annhiliation in turn) and nuclear deterrance is still viable---even to a "rogue state". What a nuclear capability for North Korea ensures is that they won't be invaded. Nukes are defensive weapons, particularly for nations that do not possess the arsenals to obliterate entire continents.
A Tangent:
Ok, back to the "War on Terror". Margaret Thatcher's son, Sir Mark, was detained by South African authorities recently on suspicion of a plot, funded by a handful of uppity British elite, to send mercenaries to the oil rich African state of Equitorial Guinea in order to overthrow the government. Does this qualify Margaret's son as a "terrorist" as Equitorial Guinea claims? If a well to do foreign national, the offspring of a foreign ruler, were to steal away with some mercenaries on our shores for the purpose of violently overthrowing the elected government in Washington, if they were caught, would Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Co. call them terrorists? Of course they would. So, should Sir Mark be a target in our own "War on Terror" or does such a war only apply to terror that doesn't fit our agenda?
Power of the People?
A report from the RNC and the streets:
I went to two marches this week in NYC. The big one was on Sunday with an estimated 400K+. An anonymous police source said 120,000 but I've been to Sanford Stadium in Athens and Death Valley in Baton Rouge on game day and I've seen what 100,000 people look like and this march put those crowds to shame. I don't know how far it stretched but 7th Avenue was covered with human flesh and poster board as far as the eye could see. The head of the march started on 23rd St. We were on 16th and there were so many people that when people on 23rd started walking, it took two hours before people on 16th could start walking. There were people from all walks of life. This was an urban crowd in the highest sense of the word. There were older white-collar types. There were children being carted on wagons. There were Blacks, Asians, Gays, Disabled, Veterans, Hispanics, Homeless, Affluent. You name it, this crowd was represent'n. The city embraced the protests. Shops and buildings had "PACE" signs in the windows or No Bush signs. Anti-Republican graffiti and stickers were everywhere. Only at the fortress of Madison Square Garden itself was there any hint that there were Republicans in town. Outside of MSG, the black un-marked police SUVs carrying stiff suits and the occasional woman in khaki slacks-pulled-up-past-her-navel with a tucked-in-turquoise-tee-shirt were the only signs that any republicans were venturing out of their play-fort. The RNC was under siege. Cops and concrete completely circled MSG. Police helicopters circled above. Cops were present on the sides of the march but they kept a pretty low profile, not wanting to agitate a crowd that could completely own the streets should its mood turn. But fortunately, for all involved, it was not July 14, 1789.
The attitude of the cops was completely different the following day with a smaller march---the Poor People's March. This march consisted of homeless people and housing advocacy groups as well as a more strident concentration of hardcore leftists. All told it numbered maybe a few thousand. I believe though that the cops may have outnumbered the marchers. They were everywhere and making a big show. Even though it was a permitted march, the cops held it up at every intersection, sometimes for half an hour at a time. I'm not sure why, unless it was simply to annoy the marchers as all the roads had already been blocked. But the cops were itching for mayhem. Every passerby that stepped one foot off the sidewalk was met with shouts and attitude. Several cops were unsheathing their nightsticks, fondling them adoringly, hoping to crack skulls. It seemed as if some of these guys became cops for one reason, their love of violence. But to their credit and to the credit of the marchers, it never came to that. There was no violence despite the feel of it in the air.
All in all, I have a new found faith in humanity. The camaraderie exhibited by every one of the 400,000 marchers on Sunday in a city renowned for its hostility to strangers was refreshing and hopefully a sign of better days to come. Each person at that march was not there for themselves, but for one another. And if "patriotism" is to be anything but a fighting word for reactionaries, then this must be the definition of "patriotism"---speaking up, not for ourselves, but for one another. But I left the city on a downer. I don't think the job was done. I think we still have much farther to go and I'm not even sure if this is the herald of a beginning or an end. In the end, it was the convention that got the press, not the city in protest. When a march of near half a million should be a historical triumph of grassroots humanity, it was recorded as a footnote to a lesser event. What makes the 20,000 people in the air-conditioning of a makeshift fortress more important than the 400,000 outside, sweating in the heat, standing shoulder to shoulder, and pouring their hearts out? This is indeed the question of our time and it speaks to the survivability of the very idea of "Democracy".
A Digression:
So Laura Bush killed her "boyfriend" by running a stop sign when she was 17. Just something to mention the next time a liberal hater brings up Chappaquidick.
An Aside:
Neil Bush, Brother of our illustrious President and son of the then Vice President, had dinner plans with a Scott Hinckley, brother of failed assassin John Hinckley, Jr., the day Reagan was shot. John Hinckley Sr. was a wealthy Oil man from Texas who happened to be a hefty contributor to the political campaigns of the then Vice President. Just an interesting aside.
A Tangent:
In less conspiratorial news, former Texas House Speaker, Ben Barnes has admitted to getting our illustrious President into the National Guard despite his having scored only a 25 on his Air National Guard test. To be fair, Lloyd Benson's son (remember the gramps that ran with Dukakis) was also admitted into the Champagne Unit so as not to be in Vietnam. And to be fair to Barnes, the reason why he is breaking the news now is that Bush is probably tired of paying him off.
