Jennifer and I love Akira Kurosawa films, and I think we've seen most of them. The Idiot, the adaptation of the Dostoyevsky novel, was unwatchable (we got through the first part, and couldn't make it past that -- it was simply not edited well enough). But aside from that, we've liked all that we've seen.
We just got finished watching No Regrets For Our Youth, a film Kurosawa made in 1946 about a young man and the struggle for freedom in pre-war Japan. Beginning in a student movement to protect academic freedo, the hero eventually gets nabbed by the police for spying and then "dies suddenly" in custody. His widow then decides to live the rest of her life with no regrets, even though she's fairly badly treated as the "wife" of a spy. Eventually, with the war over and lost, she regains some social standing, and the end has her riding off into the sunset in the back of an old army truck, ready to help girls in rural villages, welcomed by displaced villagers and bashful veterans alike.
But it was hard to tell exactly what was going on, since the DVD we watched was a Chinese version and the English subtitles were translated from the Chinese subtitles, not the Japanese dialogue. So, the main characters according to the subtitles were Hun (the girl Yukie), Wild (the boyfriend Ruykichi) and police inspector and long-time friend Sze (look, I have no idea what his name actually was), and it was impossible at times to actually tell what anyone was saying because the translation was so bad. (Sorry, I have no examples -- I should have saved some, I know; hang my head in shame.) We think we followed the movie, and we liked what we think we understood of it.
It just would have been nice to have seen it my native language, as opposed to Engrish.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
An Essential Part
Jeddah has been host, this week, to an Saudi/Arab/International conference on gifted and talented children and young adults, sponsored by something called the King Abdul Aziz and His Companions Foundation for the Gifted. The Saudi Gazette, maybe because it's August and nothing else is happening in Jeddah, has been doing wall-to-wall coverage of the thing. Based on the coverage I've edited and re-written, most of which was fairly substanceless, it has been academics and educrats -- educrats are my least favorite people -- sitting around and saying the future of the Saudi economy lies with cultivating gifted and talented students through special education education and the creation of separate schools.
It's human beings as human resources, with the "special" ones -- the Alphas of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World -- set aside, crafted and molded into the shiny and impressive but still denatured human parts of the great and inhuman machine that is the modern industrial world, its economy and polity. Just "things" to be managed. Well-managed, maybe, because they will make the products that will keep the engine of consumption spinning and ever-creating novelty, but still managed, still little more than things in the eyes of the World Controllers.
One of the issues that the Saudis at the forum are trying to deal with is the cultivation of innovation and invention in Saudi Arabia. This, I think, is part of the Kingdom's drive to import the Malaysian model of economic development. (Sometimes I think this will work, and sometimes I don't. Jeddah has a real chance of becoming the Dubai of the Red Sea. But I'm not sure the whole country has much shot at becoming the serious manufacturer that Malaysia has become -- who is there who will buy what the Kingdom makes, and who will work in those factories?) One Saudi inventor told the story of a Saudi product poached by a Chinese company because no one in Saudi Arabia was willing or able to bring that product to market.
(And that is the way things go. Chinese manufacturers know how to make and sell products. I'm trying hard to think of any Saudi company, even those running turn-key manufacturing or assembling operation making toothpaste or salty snack foods, that has anywhere resembling the same know-how.)
Anyway, one inventor, in his demand for ever more professional, scienfitic social management, dcried the waste of the unsugn inventor whose product goes unused:
There has to be a solution. But there isn't. There is no way to know that all those nifty inventions, patents and licensed products were of any real value, that they would have become things that people want to buy. It may be that only one out of every 100 -- and that seems a generous figure to me -- inventions is really worth something, even if the patent office files the paperwork and some company buys the rights.
But the truth is that most human effort is "wasted," spent in doing without accomplishing much of any value. Most human resources are squandered. Most time is passed in frivolity. Most human lives amount to little. To believe that it can be otherwise, that somehow "scientific and rational" management, overseen by the wise and the disinterested, can effectively allocate resources so that waste is minimized and all talents are maximized, is to believe in the impossible and unachievable. Yet this dream of a well-managed world, of an orderly hive of humans in which all are usefull, all have purpose, all are provided for and all work for the "greater good," has haunted us for many centuries. Many great and eminent thinkers have deluded themselves into believing it is possible, with our own hands, to build such a world. A little more than a century ago, control of the Anglo-American world was seized by just such people -- industrialists-turned-philanthropists and statists with the faith in government to make the world ready for Jesus to come back to, who saw the wealth of industry and the power of the state and believed that, finally, it was possible to manage the world into permanent stability -- to, in effect, end history. The University of Chicago, just blocks away from where I sit, is one of the greatest testaments to the eternally beguiling nightmare of a well-managed hive world.
That those who aspire to manage the world cannot, and that they have wrecked virtually everything they have touched, been directly and dilberately responsible for the suffering and deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings, does not, of course, stop them from their continued faith that humanity is a problem to be managed.
In fact, the waste of time, talent, money, land -- that waste is essential. You cannot have a human civilization, you cannot have humanity, without it. Human existence is not scientific, love and joy and sorrow and rage are not rational, they are not problems to be managed. Men are not animals, and they don't exist for the pleasure or purposes of other men.
It's human beings as human resources, with the "special" ones -- the Alphas of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World -- set aside, crafted and molded into the shiny and impressive but still denatured human parts of the great and inhuman machine that is the modern industrial world, its economy and polity. Just "things" to be managed. Well-managed, maybe, because they will make the products that will keep the engine of consumption spinning and ever-creating novelty, but still managed, still little more than things in the eyes of the World Controllers.
One of the issues that the Saudis at the forum are trying to deal with is the cultivation of innovation and invention in Saudi Arabia. This, I think, is part of the Kingdom's drive to import the Malaysian model of economic development. (Sometimes I think this will work, and sometimes I don't. Jeddah has a real chance of becoming the Dubai of the Red Sea. But I'm not sure the whole country has much shot at becoming the serious manufacturer that Malaysia has become -- who is there who will buy what the Kingdom makes, and who will work in those factories?) One Saudi inventor told the story of a Saudi product poached by a Chinese company because no one in Saudi Arabia was willing or able to bring that product to market.
(And that is the way things go. Chinese manufacturers know how to make and sell products. I'm trying hard to think of any Saudi company, even those running turn-key manufacturing or assembling operation making toothpaste or salty snack foods, that has anywhere resembling the same know-how.)
Anyway, one inventor, in his demand for ever more professional, scienfitic social management, dcried the waste of the unsugn inventor whose product goes unused:
Tuesday’s session covering the design of programs to care for and develop gifted students raised various new ideas and thoughts and clarified the need to cultivate critical and creative thinking as well as inventors.
“A study made in the U.S. shows that there were more than 1 million individual inventors during the past 27 years,” said Khaled Bin Mahdi Al-Rasheed, a Saudi inventor and conference speaker.
According to Al-Rasheed, all those inventors got their inventions patented and licensed but none of those inventions reached the market. Only one out of every 100 invention reaches the market, with the other 99 existing merely as paperwork on dusty shelves.
“Imagine the waste of nearly 13,698 years of creative thinking, and over 54,794 years of pure paperwork” Al-Rasheed said. “Moreover, $15 billion were wasted that could have produced useful inventions.”
He added that this enormous waste of time and money is only in the United States, and does not include the time, talent and resources wasted elsewhere in the world.
“There has to be a solution to prevent this waste! An organization must be created to help inventors all around the world” Al-Rasheed proposed.
There has to be a solution. But there isn't. There is no way to know that all those nifty inventions, patents and licensed products were of any real value, that they would have become things that people want to buy. It may be that only one out of every 100 -- and that seems a generous figure to me -- inventions is really worth something, even if the patent office files the paperwork and some company buys the rights.
But the truth is that most human effort is "wasted," spent in doing without accomplishing much of any value. Most human resources are squandered. Most time is passed in frivolity. Most human lives amount to little. To believe that it can be otherwise, that somehow "scientific and rational" management, overseen by the wise and the disinterested, can effectively allocate resources so that waste is minimized and all talents are maximized, is to believe in the impossible and unachievable. Yet this dream of a well-managed world, of an orderly hive of humans in which all are usefull, all have purpose, all are provided for and all work for the "greater good," has haunted us for many centuries. Many great and eminent thinkers have deluded themselves into believing it is possible, with our own hands, to build such a world. A little more than a century ago, control of the Anglo-American world was seized by just such people -- industrialists-turned-philanthropists and statists with the faith in government to make the world ready for Jesus to come back to, who saw the wealth of industry and the power of the state and believed that, finally, it was possible to manage the world into permanent stability -- to, in effect, end history. The University of Chicago, just blocks away from where I sit, is one of the greatest testaments to the eternally beguiling nightmare of a well-managed hive world.
That those who aspire to manage the world cannot, and that they have wrecked virtually everything they have touched, been directly and dilberately responsible for the suffering and deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings, does not, of course, stop them from their continued faith that humanity is a problem to be managed.
In fact, the waste of time, talent, money, land -- that waste is essential. You cannot have a human civilization, you cannot have humanity, without it. Human existence is not scientific, love and joy and sorrow and rage are not rational, they are not problems to be managed. Men are not animals, and they don't exist for the pleasure or purposes of other men.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
A Saudi Woman Seeks Justice
Now, this report from the Saudi Arabic-language daily newspaper Al-Hayat, the translation of which I cleaned up for the Saudi Gazette this morning, is very interesting. Note there is no doubt that members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (I always want to get that backwards, linking the promoting to vice and the preventing to virtue) -- also known as the Church Police at this blog -- were in the wrong. No one disputes that. A court merely found that Church Police cannot be held liable for conduct on the job, a doctrine that holds here as well, though I doubt it would cover something as egregious as this. Or would it? What can US cops get away with during "the performance of their duties?"
What exactly the woman expects the National Human Rights Association to do, however, I do not know. A royal decree would solve the problem, but it would also have to be an ex post facto decree. Not a problem for Saudi Arabia. So, we shall see...
What exactly the woman expects the National Human Rights Association to do, however, I do not know. A royal decree would solve the problem, but it would also have to be an ex post facto decree. Not a problem for Saudi Arabia. So, we shall see...
A Saudi woman has asked the National Human Rights Association for help after accusing two officers of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Riyadh of kidnapping and assault, according to Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat.
The woman, whose name is being withheld at her own request, said the two officers kidnapped her, her daughter and maid and assaulted her driver about three years ago.
In her petition, the woman said she claimed that the commissioners forcibly took the family car for a joyride.
“[They] were both wearing plain clothes, abandoned the car when it started emitting smoke,” the woman said. “They fled the scene after they had made sure that the three of us were shut in the car.”
Right after the incident occurred, the woman’s husband immediately reported informed the authorities. After an investigation, police and prosecutors determined the religious police were at fault.
The woman then filed a lawsuit against the commission officers in a Riyadh court. And after several months of hearings and deliberations, the judge dismissed the case, citing a previous court ruling from 40 years ago saying commission personnel cannot be held liable in court for actions or mistakes they commit while performing their duties.
The woman, who is now in her 50s, said the day she and members of her family were hijacked by the religious police began as just another ordinary day.
“Three years ago, I left my house in western Riyadh with my 22-year old daughter, my maid, my 12-year-old son and 11-year-old nephew for my mother-in-law’s house in eastern Riyadh,” the woman told Al-Hayat. “On our way, I dropped the two children at an entertainment park, escorted by my daughter to buy them tickets.”
“Following this, we preceded to my mother-in-law’s house and after finishing the visit we drove back to the park to collect the kids. At 11: 20 p.m., we arrived at the park and the moment the driver stopped the car, we saw two men in plain clothes running toward us. On of them forcibly took out the driver and slapped him on his face. Following this one of them jumped behind the steering wheel,” she continued. “The two men were covering their faces. As we were taken by surprise, we were dying of horror and terror.”
The two officers then locked the car, effectively trapping the family in their own automobile, she said.
“My daughter started crying hysterically, and so did the maid. When she picked up her mobile phone to call her father, one of the men grabbed her phone. At this point, we came to know that the two belong to the commission although they didn’t identify themselves,” the woman said. “When I asked them about the reason for kidnapping us, one of them insulted me saying, ‘You prostitute, keep silent… you will know later on.’”
“He kept madly driving, passing through traffic lights, swerving lanes. Although our car was new, the engine started emitting smoke. When the car stopped working, they ran out after reaching a dark district with few houses. When they ran, they left the engine running and the car was fully enveloped in smoke,” she said, adding that she was having difficulty breathing.
The fleeing hijackers were then picked up by another car.
The woman told Al-Hayat she then asked her daughter to drive, even though she doesn’t know how. A crowd had gathered and police soon arrived. The woman, her daughter, and the maid were all taken to the nearest police station, where they gave statements and were interviewed in the presence of her two grown sons.
But they had not seen the last of the two hijackers.
“Amazingly, while I was giving my testimony, the two men appeared carrying with a report showing that we escaped from them while they were taking us to the commission’s center,” she said.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Compromised on Purpose
Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com writes in his latest Friday column:
I wish I could have preserved the links for the piece.
Anyway, with certain Republicans now arguing that the intelligence folks are not being paranoid and agitated enough about Iran, Raimondo led me to consider the motives for Chalabi handing that information -- that the US had broken Iranian government codes and could listen in on all of its deliberations -- to Iran. As well as why maybe he's not been held to book for it.
If Raimondo is right, and the US "intelligence community" was able to listen in on Iranian government communications, it would have a fairly good idea -- grounded in fact and relative certainty -- about the progress and purposes of Iranian military programs, including its alleged nuclear power program. (Which may indeed be for power, but is also most certainly a weapons program.) It would also be fairly easy to suss Iranian motives and intentions vis a vis that program as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, Hizbullah, and other policies and places near and dear to both Iran's ruling elite as well as America's.
It would be easier to make a case for war if Iran truly meant ill. But it would also be much harder to make that case, especially if it was clear to all listening that Iran's leadership was not particularly belligerent. Or interested in war.
So, if you are a good neoconservative and you want war, and it is clear that Iran probably doesn't, you make sure the waters are nice and muddy. You make sure that U.S. intelligence cannot effectively gather good intelligence, and then use the Cheney/Rumsfeld doctrine of "we don't know so we must act now... or else we're doomed." (See the post below.) If you're the vice president of the United States, you can make sure those waters are muddied. And churned. And flooded. You can make sure that Chalabi lets his Iranian friends know that they are have been listened to for a long, long time. You can make sure that Valerie Plame, whose firm was investigating Iranian weapons programs, is outed, compromising her entire company and all her co-workers and thus making it impossible for them to do their jobs.
You do this because war with Iran is more important than the security, stability and prosperity of the United States. You have a world to save, a holy mission to fulfill, history to end and revolutionary ideology to make come to pass, and nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of that.
I have no evidence, of course, that any of this is true. But I have no reason to believe that Dick Cheney and the crowd of frothing warmongers at the American Enterprise Institute wouldn't do this, either. It makes perfect sense. If, that is, you want more war.
And clearly they do.
The Iranians have had their hand in this pie from the word go. Our friend Ahmed Chalabi, touted by the neocons as the George Washington of "democratic" Iraq, was and is no doubt still quite friendly with the mullahs: such a good friend that he purportedly passed off to them vital U.S. secrets which seriously compromised our intelligence-gathering efforts in Iran. The U.S. had apparently broken the Iranian internal government code, and was eavesdropping on their internecine deliberations. Senor Chalabi is said to have tipped them off, effectively blinding us to what is really going on in the country. Another blow to our intelligence-gathering capabilities was the "outing" of Valerie Plame, who headed up a CIA unit specializing in Iran's nuclear and other WMD programs. Bosom buddies Scooter Libby and Chalabi effectively delivered a one-two knockout punch to our intelligence-gathering capabilities inside Iran -- leaving the field wide open for these guys[.]
I wish I could have preserved the links for the piece.
Anyway, with certain Republicans now arguing that the intelligence folks are not being paranoid and agitated enough about Iran, Raimondo led me to consider the motives for Chalabi handing that information -- that the US had broken Iranian government codes and could listen in on all of its deliberations -- to Iran. As well as why maybe he's not been held to book for it.
If Raimondo is right, and the US "intelligence community" was able to listen in on Iranian government communications, it would have a fairly good idea -- grounded in fact and relative certainty -- about the progress and purposes of Iranian military programs, including its alleged nuclear power program. (Which may indeed be for power, but is also most certainly a weapons program.) It would also be fairly easy to suss Iranian motives and intentions vis a vis that program as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, Hizbullah, and other policies and places near and dear to both Iran's ruling elite as well as America's.
It would be easier to make a case for war if Iran truly meant ill. But it would also be much harder to make that case, especially if it was clear to all listening that Iran's leadership was not particularly belligerent. Or interested in war.
So, if you are a good neoconservative and you want war, and it is clear that Iran probably doesn't, you make sure the waters are nice and muddy. You make sure that U.S. intelligence cannot effectively gather good intelligence, and then use the Cheney/Rumsfeld doctrine of "we don't know so we must act now... or else we're doomed." (See the post below.) If you're the vice president of the United States, you can make sure those waters are muddied. And churned. And flooded. You can make sure that Chalabi lets his Iranian friends know that they are have been listened to for a long, long time. You can make sure that Valerie Plame, whose firm was investigating Iranian weapons programs, is outed, compromising her entire company and all her co-workers and thus making it impossible for them to do their jobs.
You do this because war with Iran is more important than the security, stability and prosperity of the United States. You have a world to save, a holy mission to fulfill, history to end and revolutionary ideology to make come to pass, and nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of that.
I have no evidence, of course, that any of this is true. But I have no reason to believe that Dick Cheney and the crowd of frothing warmongers at the American Enterprise Institute wouldn't do this, either. It makes perfect sense. If, that is, you want more war.
And clearly they do.
It's Always 1938
Michael Rozeff at LewRockwell.com puts it best when he writes about the neocons:
Every year is 1938 for the neocons, and every threat is Nazism. Gemal Abdel Nasser was in 1956, Nikita Kruschev was in 1961 and 1962, Leonid Breazhnev was again in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I suspect Ho Chi Minh was as well in the mid 1960s, and let's not forget Manuel Noriega (and his portrait of Hitler) in 1989, Saddam Hussein and invasion of Kuwait AND all those chemical and biological weapons he supposedly had in 2003, and of course Iran today. I think there were hoards of smaller Hitlers (Mao Zedong, who was Hitler for Brezhnev as well as many Americans, proving even a wanna-be Hitler can have his own Hitler to keep him up sleeplessw at night) I don't remember who were never bombed. (Idi Amin? Emperor Bokassa? Pol Pot -- actually, the last guy was bombed, now that I think of it.) Also, all those terrorist groups, all clearly working together to the same, diabolical anti-American end. Anything short of massive war to defeat them is, well, appeasement.
Trading on the mistaken notion that somehow WWII could have been avoided -- if it could have been avoided, it would have been -- as well as ignoring exactly why nothing was done about Hitler's Germany (the carnage of the 1914-18 war comes to mind, as does France's political isolation in the West after the pointless invasion and occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, as well as general rightist sympathy in "the democracies" for German nationalism, sentiment against the Versailles agreement, and general support for dictatorship in the early 1930s no matter where it was), the neocons espouse a "lesson" of history that all alleged emerging dictators are somehow Hitler-in-waiting. And that something must be done, right this minute, or else we are all doomed.
It's led to a great deal of war -- not the "inevitable" war that comes when Hitler and his supposed spiritual children wield power, but the war that comes when those eager to stop Hitler invade and bomb. Makes me wonder -- how much war is one entitled to wage in order to stop every brand new Hitler, to smother him in the crib? And if Hitler was all about invading and occupying, why is invading and occupying -- preventatively -- the moral response? What, exactly is Hitler's crime in this worldview? Waging war? Hating Jews? Or just "being Hitler?" When does one, in aching to stop the next Hitler, and thus prevent the genocide, become Hitler?
The nice thing about it alwasy being 1938 is that you cannot talk with your opponents, never need to understand them, and in the case of Iran, one can again prevent the alleged looming mass murder of Jews. (An aching similar, I think, to the militant desire some Christians in the West have to do all they can to prevent the crucifixion of Christ.) I don't see how this gets done without the mass murder of Iranians, but since God doesn't love them as much as God clearly loves Jews and Americans, I guess it hardly matters. We can never become Hitler no matter how many nations we invade or how many people we kill. Because, well, just because.
In fact, the nicest thing about it always being 1938 is that you never need to think, or measure your actions, and contemplate the costs and consequences. Just set the bomb sites on the city below and push the button. God has got your backside and history -- that told by the survivors, at any rate -- will vindicate you.
Appeasement and Munich are favored neocon themes to promote and justify more war. In a dangerous trend, they are being picked up by more columnists. Strange that the more force that the U.S. applies in the Middle East, the more that the neocons wail appeasement and the more force they demand. Strange, because repeated applications of force, the opposite of appeasement and applied in the name of avoiding appeasement, have brought no tangible gains. They have brought losses, and losses should be cut. Once again, neocons can’t think straight. One should not throw good money after bad. The U.S. can’t win in the Middle East. It should take its chips off the table. It should never have sat down at the table.
Every year is 1938 for the neocons, and every threat is Nazism. Gemal Abdel Nasser was in 1956, Nikita Kruschev was in 1961 and 1962, Leonid Breazhnev was again in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I suspect Ho Chi Minh was as well in the mid 1960s, and let's not forget Manuel Noriega (and his portrait of Hitler) in 1989, Saddam Hussein and invasion of Kuwait AND all those chemical and biological weapons he supposedly had in 2003, and of course Iran today. I think there were hoards of smaller Hitlers (Mao Zedong, who was Hitler for Brezhnev as well as many Americans, proving even a wanna-be Hitler can have his own Hitler to keep him up sleeplessw at night) I don't remember who were never bombed. (Idi Amin? Emperor Bokassa? Pol Pot -- actually, the last guy was bombed, now that I think of it.) Also, all those terrorist groups, all clearly working together to the same, diabolical anti-American end. Anything short of massive war to defeat them is, well, appeasement.
Trading on the mistaken notion that somehow WWII could have been avoided -- if it could have been avoided, it would have been -- as well as ignoring exactly why nothing was done about Hitler's Germany (the carnage of the 1914-18 war comes to mind, as does France's political isolation in the West after the pointless invasion and occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, as well as general rightist sympathy in "the democracies" for German nationalism, sentiment against the Versailles agreement, and general support for dictatorship in the early 1930s no matter where it was), the neocons espouse a "lesson" of history that all alleged emerging dictators are somehow Hitler-in-waiting. And that something must be done, right this minute, or else we are all doomed.
It's led to a great deal of war -- not the "inevitable" war that comes when Hitler and his supposed spiritual children wield power, but the war that comes when those eager to stop Hitler invade and bomb. Makes me wonder -- how much war is one entitled to wage in order to stop every brand new Hitler, to smother him in the crib? And if Hitler was all about invading and occupying, why is invading and occupying -- preventatively -- the moral response? What, exactly is Hitler's crime in this worldview? Waging war? Hating Jews? Or just "being Hitler?" When does one, in aching to stop the next Hitler, and thus prevent the genocide, become Hitler?
The nice thing about it alwasy being 1938 is that you cannot talk with your opponents, never need to understand them, and in the case of Iran, one can again prevent the alleged looming mass murder of Jews. (An aching similar, I think, to the militant desire some Christians in the West have to do all they can to prevent the crucifixion of Christ.) I don't see how this gets done without the mass murder of Iranians, but since God doesn't love them as much as God clearly loves Jews and Americans, I guess it hardly matters. We can never become Hitler no matter how many nations we invade or how many people we kill. Because, well, just because.
In fact, the nicest thing about it always being 1938 is that you never need to think, or measure your actions, and contemplate the costs and consequences. Just set the bomb sites on the city below and push the button. God has got your backside and history -- that told by the survivors, at any rate -- will vindicate you.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Creating Some Distance
John McCain is running for president. You can tell because he's resurrected his "straight talking" personna and is creating some daylight between himself and the delusional nincompoops currently running the country:
Whoever the next president is -- Democrat or Republican, it hardly really matters -- the next administration will have to deal with the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters and the current administration's lack of seriousness in truly combatting Al Qaeda. The Iraq war is lost, and all that awaits us is the cutting and running. Whoever is the next president will have to show that he (or, heaven forbid, she) sees that world as it really is, acknowledges and deals with that reality, as opposed to engaging in a whole lot of wishful thinking about the ability to change things in a part of the world where we are not and cannot be the agents of change. A lot of pieces to pick up from the disaster made by the Bush folks. Not sure anyone is up to that. And I'm not sure it will matter.
Yes, they surely are.
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach."
The potential 2008 presidential candidate, who a day earlier had rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. forces, said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military.
"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."
Those phrases are closely associated with top members of the Bush administration, including the president.
Whoever the next president is -- Democrat or Republican, it hardly really matters -- the next administration will have to deal with the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters and the current administration's lack of seriousness in truly combatting Al Qaeda. The Iraq war is lost, and all that awaits us is the cutting and running. Whoever is the next president will have to show that he (or, heaven forbid, she) sees that world as it really is, acknowledges and deals with that reality, as opposed to engaging in a whole lot of wishful thinking about the ability to change things in a part of the world where we are not and cannot be the agents of change. A lot of pieces to pick up from the disaster made by the Bush folks. Not sure anyone is up to that. And I'm not sure it will matter.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Cruelty of Popular Government
A couple of months ago, I noted in this space a Saudi Gazette story I'd edited, an interview with a Saudi executioner, highlighting his role as a kind-of counselor to both the condemned as well as the families of victims. Especially important in the piece was the role of the executioner in letting the victim's family know they can, under Saudi Arabia's version of Islamic law, pardon the condemned (forgive me for borrowing wholesale from my previous blog entry):
Consider this: most of the governments of the last 150 years have, in some form or another, rules "in the name of the people." Fascism, socialism, Social Democracy (in all its forms), Arab socialism, even Islamism (to a very limited extent), all claim to rule in the name of "the people." We know that such governments have been among the most costly and murderous in human history. They have demanded absolute obedience of citizens, the right to conscript their bodies, minds and lives, to annihilate human beings because they are inconvenient or don't fit in with the plans of those who rule in the name of the people.
In contrast, the Saudi state takes as it's constitution (such as it is) the Qur'an and the monarch, while the Saudi system is become a proper state system and the monarch a senior civil servant of sorts, gets his right to rule from God, and is accountable only to God. This is not the same as the Western "divine right of kings" because the king is not soveriegn in the same way. He does not "own" everything (even though the Arabic word malik descends from the verb MLK, which means to own or be sovereign) in the same way Western kings did, though the result is still much the same.
So, you would think that popular government would be more merciful and autocratic government that doesn't claim to represent the people would be much less merciful. Yet that does not appear to be the case? Why is that? Is there something in the popularly elected executive -- a president, a governor -- that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for that executive to exercise any significant amount of mercy or forebearance? Conversely, is it easier for someone who holds power BUT is not theoretically or ideologically accountable to "the people" to be merciful? I don't know, but it is interesting to note that American elected executives seem only to issue pardons when they won't ever have to face voters again.
I've come to conclusion, of late, that popular government, aside from being a fraud, is an evil in and of itself. I have also come to accept Hans Hermann Hoppe's view that limited monarchy (which the Saudi state is rather rapidly marching away from), in which individual rights and responsibilities are guaranteed as much by culture and custom as they are by law (or moreso), is the best way to rule large collections of people (if they must be ruled -- Hoppe's caveat and mine as well).
However, I continue to remain a big believer in self-government, and at some point in time will explain why popular government, known to most of us as "democracy," is not the same thing.
Late last week, I edited another piece on the wave of pardons currently being issued by King Abdullah:
The job of the executioner is not only to carry out the death sentence, Al-Bishi said. The swordsman is also a kind-of counselor, sometimes approaching relatives of a murder victim and reminding them they can pardon the convicted up until the very last moment. Al-Bishi related an incident when his father was an executioner and was preparing to carry out a death sentence on a young expatriate awaiting execution for killing a friend, who was an only son. The mother of the victim repeatedly declined to pardon the killer of her child.
"My father had a hunch that the heart of this bereaved mother could soften up,” Al-Bishi said. “[My father] walked up to her, with his sword in his hand, and told her that the head of the young man awaiting execution would separate from his body in a few seconds' time, but that she could raise her hand any time before that if she decided to pardon the killer.”
“She was adamant still and as my father lifted the sword for the last time to go through with the execution, the mother of the victim raised her hand to motion to my father that she had pardoned the murderer,” Al-Bishi continued. “The crowd rushed towards her, cheering and saying that God the Almighty is great, and prayed for her to rest in paradise as a reward for her forgiveness.”
Three times, he’s been able to convince families of victims to pardon the murderers after everything was ready for the execution.
"I can tell from the expression on the faces of the victims' family members if they are considering pardon," Al-Bishi explained.
Prisons all over the Kingdom have turned into beehives of activity since King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, pardoned thousands of inmates and ordered their release, according to a report in the Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat.Those pardoned include prostitutes, thieves, drug dealers and people convicted of illegal possession of alcohol. According to the report, thousands were cleared by a royal pardoning comission. All those interviewed were, of course, both grateful to the king and very repentent:
“I was convicted because I failed to repay a debt of SR 60,000 and I spent eight months in prison,” said 23-year-old H. Al-Harbi, who was released under the royal pardon. “I was released when the committee responsible for the release of the inmates reviewed my case and found that I was working as a driver for SR1,200 a month and caring for eight children.”
Al-Harbi said he has not seen his children since the day he was convicted.
Released 57-year-old Saudi inmate S.W. said he was sent to prison for 14 years for selling drugs but that the King’s pardon released him after only seven years.The whole thing led me to thinking -- why has no U.S. state governor or president been so magnanimous to pardon thousands of people convicted of relatively petty crimes? Is there something about "popular" government -- and by that, I mean government that claims to rule "in the name of the people" -- that makes it crueler, harsher, and less able or willing to be merciful and magnanimous?
“After spending seven years in prison, my eldest daughter has graduated from university and got married. But I couldn’t share her happiness,” S.W. said. “The King’s pardon allows me to attend my son’s wedding party. For the sake of my children I will start a new life.”
Consider this: most of the governments of the last 150 years have, in some form or another, rules "in the name of the people." Fascism, socialism, Social Democracy (in all its forms), Arab socialism, even Islamism (to a very limited extent), all claim to rule in the name of "the people." We know that such governments have been among the most costly and murderous in human history. They have demanded absolute obedience of citizens, the right to conscript their bodies, minds and lives, to annihilate human beings because they are inconvenient or don't fit in with the plans of those who rule in the name of the people.
In contrast, the Saudi state takes as it's constitution (such as it is) the Qur'an and the monarch, while the Saudi system is become a proper state system and the monarch a senior civil servant of sorts, gets his right to rule from God, and is accountable only to God. This is not the same as the Western "divine right of kings" because the king is not soveriegn in the same way. He does not "own" everything (even though the Arabic word malik descends from the verb MLK, which means to own or be sovereign) in the same way Western kings did, though the result is still much the same.
So, you would think that popular government would be more merciful and autocratic government that doesn't claim to represent the people would be much less merciful. Yet that does not appear to be the case? Why is that? Is there something in the popularly elected executive -- a president, a governor -- that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for that executive to exercise any significant amount of mercy or forebearance? Conversely, is it easier for someone who holds power BUT is not theoretically or ideologically accountable to "the people" to be merciful? I don't know, but it is interesting to note that American elected executives seem only to issue pardons when they won't ever have to face voters again.
I've come to conclusion, of late, that popular government, aside from being a fraud, is an evil in and of itself. I have also come to accept Hans Hermann Hoppe's view that limited monarchy (which the Saudi state is rather rapidly marching away from), in which individual rights and responsibilities are guaranteed as much by culture and custom as they are by law (or moreso), is the best way to rule large collections of people (if they must be ruled -- Hoppe's caveat and mine as well).
However, I continue to remain a big believer in self-government, and at some point in time will explain why popular government, known to most of us as "democracy," is not the same thing.
Winning, Regardless of What the Enemy Does
National Public Radio interviewed a U.S. General George W. Casey in Baghdad this morning, to talk about the progress of the war. Because Bush Jong Il yesterday was so keen to say he believes success is possible and that the commanders on the ground would ask for a new strategy if they believed their current one wasn't succeeding.
(Sure they would...)
Anyway, the interviewer pointed out the huge increase in insurgent attacks over the last three years, from under 20 per day at the outset of the resistance to more than 90 per day now. The general said yes, attacks are up, but even one gunshot counts as an attack and most of those attacks are not effective, so we shouldn't read too much into those figures.
And then General Casey said something so utterly and confoundedly stupid that it simply boggles the mind and buggers the imagination:
Affecting enemy action is the whole point of war. Why else bomb, shoot and attack if not to reduce enemy action or force the enemy to change his mind and make him give up? What other measure of success do you have? Rounds expended? Operations conducted? Dead bodies counted? Schools built and painted? I'm trying to find a suitable metaphor for this, but one is not coming. Maybe it's akin to saying that profits ought not to determine the success of a business venture. We all know how that ends.
(Sure they would...)
Anyway, the interviewer pointed out the huge increase in insurgent attacks over the last three years, from under 20 per day at the outset of the resistance to more than 90 per day now. The general said yes, attacks are up, but even one gunshot counts as an attack and most of those attacks are not effective, so we shouldn't read too much into those figures.
And then General Casey said something so utterly and confoundedly stupid that it simply boggles the mind and buggers the imagination:
You shouldn't be put in the position where your success is judged by enemy actions.
Affecting enemy action is the whole point of war. Why else bomb, shoot and attack if not to reduce enemy action or force the enemy to change his mind and make him give up? What other measure of success do you have? Rounds expended? Operations conducted? Dead bodies counted? Schools built and painted? I'm trying to find a suitable metaphor for this, but one is not coming. Maybe it's akin to saying that profits ought not to determine the success of a business venture. We all know how that ends.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Agonizing Reading
I knew, when I applied to study at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, that I was going to be in for some fun and some pain. People here cannot speak ten words without two of them being "social justice." The meaning of the word is far too subjective. What is "justice" anyway? And who gets the privilege of not only defining what it is but then imposing their idea of it? That's why I long ago gave up any belief in justice -- it is simply a code word for "I/we get what I/we want"with a possible addendum of "and you[singular/plural] have to pay for it because I/we say so" -- I'm not actually interested in "doing justice." I'm interesting in being merciful and charitable. If that's justice, then good. If not, then not.
I'm certain I will comment on much of the upcoming nonsense, time permitting, once school actually starts.
Anyway, I have to read what must simply be the world's most annoying book for my upcoming orientation, THE WOLF SHALL DWELL WITH THE LAMB: A SPIRITUALITY FOR LEADERSHIP IN A MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY. (Um, is it me, or is it not possible anymore to titles books without using colons?) I'm about a third the way through it, it is as utterly awful a book as it sounds, and already this obnoxious tome has rubbed my libertarian/anarchist sentiments all the wrong way. It's like everything I saw at San Francisco State University in the late 1980s on steroids. (The book was published in 1994.) Needless to say, it is not about dealing with people as individuals, it is not about respecting them, caring for them and loving them as individuals, it is about dealing with them as members and appendages of groups, it is about understanding that ascribed group values must be taken into consideration. It is full of identity nonsense (the author is Chinese-American, and makes much of that as he relates his understanding and misunderstanding of various individuals' "cultures" in his stories), it is condescending, it is insulting, it assumes -- at least it seems to -- that all white people are powerful but don't realize it. "In a multicultural encounter, the whites tend to become too powerful and the people of color powerless," the author notes after relating how the gospel elevates the poor but has no words of comfort for the powerless. Ahh, I can see it now -- Hate yourself, flog yourself and flay yourself, Charles!
The author does, however, give his notion of what justice is: "Justice means equal distribution of power and privelege among all people."
Mmmm. Achievable. Realistic. Possible. Oh, I'm going to have a swell time here.
I'm certain I will comment on much of the upcoming nonsense, time permitting, once school actually starts.
Anyway, I have to read what must simply be the world's most annoying book for my upcoming orientation, THE WOLF SHALL DWELL WITH THE LAMB: A SPIRITUALITY FOR LEADERSHIP IN A MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY. (Um, is it me, or is it not possible anymore to titles books without using colons?) I'm about a third the way through it, it is as utterly awful a book as it sounds, and already this obnoxious tome has rubbed my libertarian/anarchist sentiments all the wrong way. It's like everything I saw at San Francisco State University in the late 1980s on steroids. (The book was published in 1994.) Needless to say, it is not about dealing with people as individuals, it is not about respecting them, caring for them and loving them as individuals, it is about dealing with them as members and appendages of groups, it is about understanding that ascribed group values must be taken into consideration. It is full of identity nonsense (the author is Chinese-American, and makes much of that as he relates his understanding and misunderstanding of various individuals' "cultures" in his stories), it is condescending, it is insulting, it assumes -- at least it seems to -- that all white people are powerful but don't realize it. "In a multicultural encounter, the whites tend to become too powerful and the people of color powerless," the author notes after relating how the gospel elevates the poor but has no words of comfort for the powerless. Ahh, I can see it now -- Hate yourself, flog yourself and flay yourself, Charles!
The author does, however, give his notion of what justice is: "Justice means equal distribution of power and privelege among all people."
Mmmm. Achievable. Realistic. Possible. Oh, I'm going to have a swell time here.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Liberty or Else
Saturday, Jennifer and I decided to get out of the house and find the best Indian food we could afford here in Chicago. That meant an expedition to the far north side of town, to Devon Street.
It was amazing, like stepping back to Dubai and Jeddah. The street was wall-to-wall Indo-Pakistani shops for as far as we could see. The scent of the food was overwhelming, and there were a few street vendors selling ices and corn on the cob. (I did not know Indians ate corn on the cob, but slathered in garlic sauce and covered with salt, some do...) Restaurants, appliance stores, travel agencies, sweet shops, book and video stores, even an international bank or two. And Saturday was the day the local community chose to commemorate Indian Independence Day, so the street was blocked off (but accessible to bicycles) and there was a parade, music, a raffle (we didn't enter) and crowds of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus enjoying the day and ignoring the rain (it didn't rain much).
There were a couple of Independent Baptists handing out badly printed pamphlets outlining the causes of tyranny in "Amerika":
Oh my. A couple of points. First, I have never understood the impulse among some social conservatives and Christian nationalists to try and use the state to legitimize scripture. I recall some preachers, pastors and believers who say the Bible is the word of God and we know in part because Congress said so in 1911 (or somesuch). As if somehow the Caesar "seal of approval" makes the Bible more valid. Here, the author of the pamphlet (a certain Brother Fort) stresses his point that Biblical values are important collectively to America because every president has said so. But is that true? And would it matter if it weren't? And does the way presidents actually live matter as much as what they allegedly have said? Why does what the president says on an issue of faith matter anyway? I won'y pay for his sins, nor will he pay for mine.
Second, I cannot think of a human society that doesn't practice some version or other of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In her book THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, Karen Armstrong says that the four major civilizations of the ancient world -- China, India, Hebrew and Greek -- all, in the midst of the violence and chaos that is human life, created some version of "do unto others." The Muslim forumla -- a true Muslim wants for brother what he wants for himself -- is actually a little more striking than the Jewish/Christian version.
Finally, I don't see "do unto others" practiced more thoroughly and effectively here in the United States than I saw elsewhere -- Saudi Arabia, Panama, secular Europe. True, honest compassion for humanity and for the wants, needs, joy and suffering of others knows no doctrinal bounds.
But let's continue with Brother Fort's badly written pamphlet:
What the pamphlet is saying is, effectively, that immigrants refusing to become good Christians (and Baptists Christians at that) are why the country is losing its freedom. It's a stretch to think that non-Christian migrants are somehow lessening the national freedom, given that so many alleged conservative Christians have run the country. Especially now. Are Hindus living on the north side of Chicago the real cause of warrantless wiretaps, the rail jailers at Guanatamo Bay, and the real culprits behind the Bush Administration's grab for executive power?
And I'm sorry, even in 2001 -- when the first edition of this pamphlet supposedly appeared -- police in any US jurisdiction could "enter any home at any time," warrant or not.
A little ways up on the last page, Brother Fort confidently says that Communists "cannot stand Christianity" and have tried to "eradicate Christianity from among their populaces." He also says that "Humanists do not want a God restricting the godless actions and lusts and thus are anti-Christian." But let's follow the pamphlet all the way home:
Communists, oh my. I wan't aware that communists still were worth fearing in 2001.
My biggest criticism with this -- as with all who harp on god's law -- is the statement about God's rules restricting the actions of the alleged godless. One conclusion I came to long ago, and one reason I am no longer Muslim, was the continuous emphasis on implementing the divine law instead of man's law. Only then would the world be guided by justice. That, however, has a couple of logical problems for me. First, you cannot prove that what you have is really, truly God's law. You can only assert that -- it is an act of faith to believe that the Sharia' or Deuteronomy contain the "Law of God." Neither is provable as revelation. Second, even if you did have God's really and for truly law, you don't have God interpreting and enforcing it, you only crummy old sinful men doing that work. Men are no better at ruling justly by God's law as their are the laws they make, interpret and enforce with their own minds.
To borrow Martin Luther's sentiments on the subject, God's Law doesn't restrain us because it can't. It convicts us of our sin and makes us understand the need for Grace. The 10 commandments are effectively unenforceable in a religious sense, since we are all sinners to begin with. Of course some human societies base their legal systems on what they believe to be God's law. But "God's Law" doesn't restrain much of anyone.
This miserable pamphlet is just more American nationalism and collectivism, the kind of caesaropapism, state worship and country worship ("sacred soil?" who is Brother Fort kidding?) that too many alleged American Christians have become far too comfortable with. It's idolatry, as Luther described it in the Long Catechism on the first commandment, this worship of nation and government. God-n-Country Christianity is a false religion that has misled many.
It was amazing, like stepping back to Dubai and Jeddah. The street was wall-to-wall Indo-Pakistani shops for as far as we could see. The scent of the food was overwhelming, and there were a few street vendors selling ices and corn on the cob. (I did not know Indians ate corn on the cob, but slathered in garlic sauce and covered with salt, some do...) Restaurants, appliance stores, travel agencies, sweet shops, book and video stores, even an international bank or two. And Saturday was the day the local community chose to commemorate Indian Independence Day, so the street was blocked off (but accessible to bicycles) and there was a parade, music, a raffle (we didn't enter) and crowds of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus enjoying the day and ignoring the rain (it didn't rain much).
There were a couple of Independent Baptists handing out badly printed pamphlets outlining the causes of tyranny in "Amerika":
This nation called the United States of America has been historically examines and explained and discovered to be a Judeo-Christian based nation. Every President the United States has ever had has affirmed the importance of the bible in the life of the individual American. What Ethic or Value system do we follow Socially or Culturally? Buddhism, Islam, Humanist, Confuscian or Christian? Find a society that has a religious value system that teaches AND PRACTICES, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Only in a Christian so-called country can you find this practices among the populace in general.
Oh my. A couple of points. First, I have never understood the impulse among some social conservatives and Christian nationalists to try and use the state to legitimize scripture. I recall some preachers, pastors and believers who say the Bible is the word of God and we know in part because Congress said so in 1911 (or somesuch). As if somehow the Caesar "seal of approval" makes the Bible more valid. Here, the author of the pamphlet (a certain Brother Fort) stresses his point that Biblical values are important collectively to America because every president has said so. But is that true? And would it matter if it weren't? And does the way presidents actually live matter as much as what they allegedly have said? Why does what the president says on an issue of faith matter anyway? I won'y pay for his sins, nor will he pay for mine.
Second, I cannot think of a human society that doesn't practice some version or other of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In her book THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, Karen Armstrong says that the four major civilizations of the ancient world -- China, India, Hebrew and Greek -- all, in the midst of the violence and chaos that is human life, created some version of "do unto others." The Muslim forumla -- a true Muslim wants for brother what he wants for himself -- is actually a little more striking than the Jewish/Christian version.
Finally, I don't see "do unto others" practiced more thoroughly and effectively here in the United States than I saw elsewhere -- Saudi Arabia, Panama, secular Europe. True, honest compassion for humanity and for the wants, needs, joy and suffering of others knows no doctrinal bounds.
But let's continue with Brother Fort's badly written pamphlet:
The oppressed from other nations, unless willing to melt into this society and this culture .. WILL bring their oppression to these sacred shores through their religious practices and governments and cultures and thought patterns. Prove me wrong. Show me a country anywhere in the world. I challenge you. Japan is a repressive country where police can enter any home at any time.Again, where do you start with this? It is hardly "doing unto others" to expect people to "melt." I'm assuming that Brother Fort, if wandering around India in the hopes of finding converts, would not "melt" into its culture and society.
What the pamphlet is saying is, effectively, that immigrants refusing to become good Christians (and Baptists Christians at that) are why the country is losing its freedom. It's a stretch to think that non-Christian migrants are somehow lessening the national freedom, given that so many alleged conservative Christians have run the country. Especially now. Are Hindus living on the north side of Chicago the real cause of warrantless wiretaps, the rail jailers at Guanatamo Bay, and the real culprits behind the Bush Administration's grab for executive power?
And I'm sorry, even in 2001 -- when the first edition of this pamphlet supposedly appeared -- police in any US jurisdiction could "enter any home at any time," warrant or not.
A little ways up on the last page, Brother Fort confidently says that Communists "cannot stand Christianity" and have tried to "eradicate Christianity from among their populaces." He also says that "Humanists do not want a God restricting the godless actions and lusts and thus are anti-Christian." But let's follow the pamphlet all the way home:
The Communists will tell you that Christianity is the greatest enemy of Communism. WHY? The bible speaks of Private ownership of Land, Being free, Capitalism, Being the best you can be & Most of all being free from the bondage of this world. If Jesus makes you free, You're free indeed.
Communists, oh my. I wan't aware that communists still were worth fearing in 2001.
My biggest criticism with this -- as with all who harp on god's law -- is the statement about God's rules restricting the actions of the alleged godless. One conclusion I came to long ago, and one reason I am no longer Muslim, was the continuous emphasis on implementing the divine law instead of man's law. Only then would the world be guided by justice. That, however, has a couple of logical problems for me. First, you cannot prove that what you have is really, truly God's law. You can only assert that -- it is an act of faith to believe that the Sharia' or Deuteronomy contain the "Law of God." Neither is provable as revelation. Second, even if you did have God's really and for truly law, you don't have God interpreting and enforcing it, you only crummy old sinful men doing that work. Men are no better at ruling justly by God's law as their are the laws they make, interpret and enforce with their own minds.
To borrow Martin Luther's sentiments on the subject, God's Law doesn't restrain us because it can't. It convicts us of our sin and makes us understand the need for Grace. The 10 commandments are effectively unenforceable in a religious sense, since we are all sinners to begin with. Of course some human societies base their legal systems on what they believe to be God's law. But "God's Law" doesn't restrain much of anyone.
This miserable pamphlet is just more American nationalism and collectivism, the kind of caesaropapism, state worship and country worship ("sacred soil?" who is Brother Fort kidding?) that too many alleged American Christians have become far too comfortable with. It's idolatry, as Luther described it in the Long Catechism on the first commandment, this worship of nation and government. God-n-Country Christianity is a false religion that has misled many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
