"Bring it on!"

Iranian President’s remarks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5376901,00.html

Never thought I'd resort to quoting our illustrious president, but for once, his asinine response is the most rational one: "Bring it on!" Generally, I'm not a warmonger, but when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't believe that negotiation is possible. Isn't it just plain fucking obvious that they're not willing to negotiate?! Seriously, who in his right mind can possibly think after these kinds of statements that Arabs are genuinely interested in reaching a peaceful solution? Please, somebody tell me. And it's been like this since 1948. They threaten continuously, they act on their threats (luckily, unsuccessfully), and they threaten again. After which time exactly are we supposed to take these threats seriously?

A friend of mine has suggested that it's only "political posturing by radical barbarian". Most likely, he's right. But time is not on our side. If this is only a precursor of the things to come, then I hope to read about some spectacular air strikes in that region very soon. This is no longer a tyrant who usurped power unlawfully. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected, and supported by his people; therefore Iranians fully share the responsibility with their leader. Hitler was elected too. - Sometimes, entire countries, entire people make wrong choices. Ahmadinejad was a wrong choice. But it was their bed to make. I suggest it's time for them to lay in it.

Boycott Disney’s Movies!

Once again, Disney has crossed the line of good taste and morality with their provocative name for the old story about a bloodhound puppy and a fox kit. In a clear attempt at linguistic sabotage of our children they have concocted a name that is almost impossible not to transform into some unholy utterance. “The Fox and the Hound”? What kind of sick individual would come up with that? I fear for the innocence of my 3-year old daughter who’s been most politely requesting to see “The Fucking Hound” over and over.

Where’s Dr. Dobson when you need him?

It’s the Principle

Why God vs. Man? Why even the question? The image of a snooty, joint puffing, gay, socialist intellectual from Brooklyn (wait, that’s from Annie Hall!) has been mocked by both sides. Thinking in general, has not been considered a virtue here for a while. Getting back… God vs. Man… what in the hell does it have to do with… and insert the issue you’re particularly keen on discussing. Abortion or gay rights? - Easy. Centralized healthcare? Not so much (effective laying of the hands would come in useful though).
- Let’s look at what everyone seems to agree upon, lack of a cohesive, powerful message on the Dems side, that we as a people, could rally behind. In a nutshell, responses include, “Bullshit!..” followed by the list of reasonable stands on important issues, reframing of the issues, “Down with the establishment!” and “Let’s form a party of the reasonable middle.” Calls to “return to our core values!” etc. All these only call attention to the symptoms. Applying rouge to a gangrenous leg is not going to address the “it doesn’t look so good” problem.

Say what you will, but faith, God, and the Bible have at least one great thing going for them: they provide structural cohesion that is centering, unifying, and self-supporting. That alone enables the Right to speak with one voice (more or less). Rallying around a principle is infinitely more effective than rallying around its implications. Focusing on implications automatically fractures the view. It’s only natural that we all have different ‘hot buttons’ and see some issues differently. The principle. If we can define, find, articulate, whatever, that principle, we at least have a chance to be united, be driven, and be passionate. It’s easier to overlook some of the differences if theres’s a common core, a shared vision, in light of which, the differences matter less. Issues?.. They matter. The ideas for their proper resolutions however, will never give us the intellectual and moral integrity necessary to take on the Divine Ordinance crew.

Filthy Wall

I haven’t blogged for a while because I’ve been very busy. Fine, I’ve been very lazy, satisfied?

Looking at the number of noteworthy events, it’s hardly fair to say that there is nothing to write about, and yet, that’s how I generally feel. “What?!” you might exclaim in dismay. Hold your horses, I’ll explain.

Iraq? – You can only say so much about it. It was a lie that blossomed into a spectacular failure, the fruit of which we’re yet to see. I’ll even go out on the limb here and say that it’s impossible to win there. Why? Because nobody has defined in any concrete terms what would constitute a victory (and our goals seem to be changing rather regularly). Meanwhile, it sucks out cash better than a Dyson. Which brings us to the small issue of national debt.

I’ve seen a lot of comparisons of Bush’s economic policies to those of Reagan. And indeed, there are some similarities, - both spent like sailors on leave on causes that were dubious at best. But here’s the key difference, while Reagan increased the national debt by 260%, the economy grew by an annual rate of 3.8% and by the end of Reagan’s term, the economy was almost one-third larger than when he took office. Under Bush? - The comparison leaves me craving a Prozac and a bottle of Stoli. Yes, I’m aware of the view that even under Reagan the economy wasn’t exactly fantastic, and whatever positive momentum it did have, was at the expense of the future. - Fine. It only strengthens the argument: Bush can’t create a good economy even with this gargantuan spending. In other words, there’s absolutely no way in hell that he would be able to do anything for our economy (sorry, anything good for our economy).

So, his foreign affairs seem to mimic closely the behavior of a silverback during mating season, and his domestic policies are… hm… I’m nonplussed… Horrendous? Appalling? Treasonous? - Too many choices, so take your pick.

Well, what else is there? What else would be a good measure of presidential success? - Crisis resolution is one. New Orleans - another theatrical failure. Perhaps we should skip this one. I’m afraid I’ll appear prejudiced against Mr. Bush. I’m not. (I have a visceral aversion to him strictly out of objective reasons.)

The spirit of the country? Perhaps he has united the country, and the nation rallied behind him in support? - No, not so much. In fact, quite the opposite. The country hasn’t been as divided since the civil war.

I can’t find a single noteworthy improvement in the U.S. for which the entire country should be grateful to him. That doesn’t mean, of course, that there aren’t any, and I hope that somebody would point out a few.

It reminds me of an old Hasidic tail about the Rebbe. - A Jew from another sect came to visit him, and proceeded to excoriate the Rebbe’s followers for what appeared to him, as various transgressions. As the visitor was speaking, the Rebbe got up and drew a small black dot on the wall behind him. And when his guest finished berating, the Rebbe pointed behind him and asked, “What do you see there?” “A black dot,” answered the visitor. “Why don’t you notice the white wall,” said the Rebbe.

The wall behind Bush is covered in soot. It’s easier to point out the white spots than to pontificate about the dirt. And his coterie has done a great job of that.

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. – Andre Gide

If one were to look at my posts here, he would probably conclude that I’m a staunched liberal Democrat. - One would be wrong (it’s just that at the moment, Bush has succeeded at pissing me off considerably more than any democrat ever had). I actually don’t associate myself with any political party, and can’t quite understand those who do. I suspect it stems from my definition of “party association.” When I hear someone say, “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat”, I see that person taking a shortcut to elaborating his political, religious, social and philosophical views, usually without having done adequate research on where that party stands on all the specific issues or having defined his own personal opinions on the subject. It seems as though one is getting a “ready-made, no assembly required” package of strong opinions and beliefs, with the added bonus of the satiated sense of belonging to a well-formed, well-researched, and well-spoken (with some notable exceptions) body of like-minded individuals. Not surprisingly, almost all people I met that vote based on the party affiliation of the candidate, while sharing that candidate’s positions on issues, are unable to substantiate most of them (I guess, most of the party affiliates don’t bother opening the aforementioned package.)

I’m certain that there are a number of Republicans as well as Democrats that would accuse me of unjustly labeling them as lazy ignoramuses, for they have done their research, and pondered the issues at length. To those of them who are not politicians, have actually done that, and still find their views perfectly aligned with either one of the parties, to those eleven of them, – please accept my apologies.

As for me, I doubt that I’ll ever find a party whose goal is to seek the truth instead of trying to convince everyone around them that they’re the sole possessors of it. (To top it off, I’m a confessed flip-flopper - I tend to change my mind when I find out that I am wrong.)

"Look at how many of us there are!", said my father-in-law.

As I visited my in-laws on the post-election weekend, I found my father-in-law watching his favorite news network - Fox. He had a content half-smile on his face that reflected the wisdom of having the more traditional and more popular opinions. Unlike Fox’s commentators, he didn’t gloat visibly; perhaps out of sympathy for us, the losers. At some point however, he pointed to the TV, and exclaimed, “Look at how many of us there are!” I put aside a shot-glass of tsuika (Romanian plum brandy, my poison of choice that happened to second as an analgesic at the moment), and saw a predominantly red map of the U.S. with a few blue border and costal states. “Could that be right?” I thought. Technically, it was right. But as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.” And luckily, these details have been eloquently and laconically described by Amba of the “AmbivaBlog” (I highly recommend it) at:

http://ambivablog.typepad.com

And if you’d rather go straight to the horse’s mouth, here’s the link to the maps and cartograms showing how the votes were really distributed (definitely worth a look):

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/

On inaugural address

This time, Bush was actually elected President. An unfortunate, and for many, tragic turn of events. Here are a few comments on his inaugural address:

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. – Thank God! If they were, our duties would be short, awkward, and resemble those of a prepubescent teenager.

…After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet… – Good choice of words on the speechwriter’s part. Note, the U.S. didn’t feel compelled (or perhaps powerful enough) to invade the U.S.S.R or any of its close allies. And yet, “the shipwreck of communism” occurred. Few would argue that Stalin or Brezhnev were better individuals, more benevolent rulers, or held democracy and human rights in higher esteem than Saddam; but apparently, invasions were deemed unnecessary. Communism fell as a result of its irresolvable internal inconsistencies. And even after that, Russia continues to falter on the path of democracy. But hey, let’s invade a sovereign (be it a third world) nation that has never known anything even resembling a democracy, and poses less of a direct threat than N. Korea, China, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., and just “set up” a democratic rule of law (we have seen numerous examples where such a plan worked out splendidly, haven’t we?)

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. – Amen to that! Unfortunately, it appears that Bush is equating “the force of human freedom” with that of the U.S. armed forces.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. – When the global power was distributed nearly equally between the members of the Warsaw’s Pact and NATO, the democracy and liberty prospered in the U.S.; but now, when more and more countries adopt democracy, our own internal political structure is becoming more dependent “on the success of liberty in other lands.” Earlier in that sentence he also mentioned, oh so rare, common sense.

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell. Interestingly, one doesn’t even have to contextualize Russell’s thought to realize what recent events and foreign policies it so deftly describes.

Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. – Unless of course, we find some particular flavor of self-government unpalatable. In that case we’ll promptly invade that nation (with the best of intentions), set up our own dictatorship (but for the briefest of times), and attempt to install a democratic government (within a nation that is nowhere near the realization of value of democracy) through creation of an inept, marionette government that we’ll have to support for years to come at our expense, and at the expense of our soldier’s lives. (Here, demagogues like Coulter would spout something about the price of liberty or the imminence of threat [improvable, of course].)

…Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. – Bullshit! Pursuing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. Advancing them created Vietnam.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture... – I guess, I’m unclear on President’s definition of “seek and support.” It appears awfully similar to “use as an excuse to overthrow the current government to advance our interests.”

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. – No kidding?!. This is when I grew speechless. In a single breath, he admitted knowing the immoral, criminal nature of his actions, and defiantly chose to stand by them. From there he proceeded to “clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation…” basically by shaking his fist at half of the world.

Statements like “because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom” are altogether outside of a moderately educated, thinking person’s comprehension. What is he talking about?! It sounds great though.

I smiled sadly, as I recognized the similarities between:

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character. and some speeches I read from the late 1930s and early 40s.

“America has need of idealism and courage…” As a rule, idealism, courage, and patriotism have always been touted by violent paupers, looters and cowards. Those who are free, healthy, employed and well-fed are rarely in need of courage and idealism. Their reality embodies their ideals, and since they deal in intellect and common sense they have little use for courage. Their patriotism is manifested in exercising their freedoms.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. – In what America does he live? (forgive the stupid question.) Millions are “laboring on the edge of subsistence” in our country. And under his first term that number has increased as it only had during the days of Great Depression. Middle class, the foundation of this country, has been dwindling steadily under his astute leadership. What else can he offer besides “idealism and courage” to those who are loosing their livelihoods, health, and the life itself?

I’m saddened and disappointed by the outcome of last presidential election. I do, believe, however that the truth of universal principles becomes more obvious over time; and as such it will reveal the erroneousness of this election and the beastly vileness of the elected.